The Second amendment

Guns don't kill threads; Ratz kill threads!
Post Reply
User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 9245
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Pre-Modernist
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by rainbow » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:40 am

Seth wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:So a large percentage of Africans sew vaginas shut? :think: Yeah, you're a bigot. By calling most Afrcans "savages" you are definitely bigotted.
There are fibbers, liars and fucking liars. You are of the last category. What I actually said of course is "some of them."
Nope, you didn't - so does that make you a fibber a liar or a fucking liar?

Whatever. I see this as a clear case of penis-envy.
Que?

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 34349
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Svartalf » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:19 pm

rainbow wrote:
Seth wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:So a large percentage of Africans sew vaginas shut? :think: Yeah, you're a bigot. By calling most Afrcans "savages" you are definitely bigotted.
There are fibbers, liars and fucking liars. You are of the last category. What I actually said of course is "some of them."
Nope, you didn't - so does that make you a fibber a liar or a fucking liar?

Whatever. I see this as a clear case of penis-envy.
given the span of his statements, that makes him a a statistician
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28264
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Tero » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:03 pm

In other words, even one of the modern era’s most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.

And no, outlawing these items isn’t barred by the Second Amendment. In 2013, Sunnyvale, California, banned high-capacity magazines. The NRA sued in federal court, which—citing Heller—ruled these magazines “are hardly crucial for citizens to exercise their right to bear arms.” Thus, the court concluded, the potential right to a high-capacity magazine was outweighed—for the same reason the First Amendment doesn’t protect bomb threats—by a strong government interest in public safety. An appeals court agreed and the Supreme Court refused to consider the issue further.

...That is why the laws on private sales are absurd. While the NRA “demands” that guns be kept out of the hands of criminals, it has always blocked the only means of doing so: universal background checks on private-party sales. Polls show overwhelming support for checks—as much as 92 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll from last year, including 86 percent of Republicans.

Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible. After the deadliest shooting in American history took place at Virginia Tech (32 dead), Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. When introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the FBI. The NRA declared this violated the Second Amendment and, through intense lobbying, limited the definition of mental illness only to people institutionalized or found by a court to be a danger. Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that person’s hand.
Tests are coming Seth. You won't pass, too much anxiety.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/amer ... 54203.html
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:49 pm

Tero wrote:
In other words, even one of the modern era’s most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.
Well, this is a lie to begin with because "gun enthusiasts" don't make the claim that "any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional." This is an outright fabrication and falsehood.
And no, outlawing these items isn’t barred by the Second Amendment. In 2013, Sunnyvale, California, banned high-capacity magazines. The NRA sued in federal court, which—citing Heller—ruled these magazines “are hardly crucial for citizens to exercise their right to bear arms.” Thus, the court concluded, the potential right to a high-capacity magazine was outweighed—for the same reason the First Amendment doesn’t protect bomb threats—by a strong government interest in public safety. An appeals court agreed and the Supreme Court refused to consider the issue further.
No, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, which is absolutely meaningless with respect to the strength or weakness of the federal court's ruling. Denial of cert can NEVER be cited as supporting the lower court's ruling, it is merely denial of cert. The Supreme Court is asked to consider hundreds if not thousands of cases each session and it denies cert to most of them due to time constraints and having nothing whatever to do with the facts of the case or the correctness of the lower court ruling.

The Supreme Court is free to take up another case on the same subject in the future and overrule the lower court any time it pleases. And it likely will, probably when a conflict arises between the federal circuit courts, which it is highly likely to do because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is THE most left-wing liberal circuit court in all of the US and it is ALSO the most overruled circuit court in the US. When and if another circuit makes an opposite ruling this will create a conflict in the federal courts that leads to uneven enforcement of federal laws which threatens the application of due process, and that is when the Supreme Court usually steps in to resolve the dispute.
...That is why the laws on private sales are absurd. While the NRA “demands” that guns be kept out of the hands of criminals, it has always blocked the only means of doing so: universal background checks on private-party sales. Polls show overwhelming support for checks—as much as 92 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll from last year, including 86 percent of Republicans.
The problem is of course that the reason the NRA opposes "universal background checks on private-party sales" is because such laws are both unenforceable and ineffective in achieving the intended purpose, which violates one prong of the "strict scrutiny" test, making such laws unconstitutional.

This is the Big Lie that leftist anti-gun pundits like this one like to tell and retell in hopes that it will become the perceived truth through Marxist repetition.
Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible.
This is yet another bald-faced lie.
After the deadliest shooting in American history took place at Virginia Tech (32 dead), Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. When introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the FBI. The NRA declared this violated the Second Amendment and, through intense lobbying, limited the definition of mental illness only to people institutionalized or found by a court to be a danger. Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that person’s hand.
Like all the other lies in this "article," this is yet another one. It's a lie of omission that elides the REASON that the NRA, and many other people, objected to this provision.

The reason that this provision is unconstitutional, and extremely dangerous to liberty and the rights of individuals is because "mental health records" is an utterly undefined term in the statute that "called on states" to submit private medical records to the FBI without any standards or restrictions on the information provided. Further, it gave the FBI unlimited authority to determine what "mental health" issue disqualified a person from possessing a firearm.

The specific intent of the democrat-majority Congress that passed the law was to induce states to rat-out their citizens, any citizen who ever had any sort of "mental health issue" of any kind, from temporary situational depression successfully treated to violent paranoid schizophrenia, and to potentially treat all of them the same way with respect to their ability to pass a NICS background check. This agenda was intended to maximize the government's ability to deny people their fundamental right to keep and bear arms based on a "mental health issue" that would not necessarily be of a nature that would create the sort of substantial risk that constitutionally justifies stripping someone of their RKBA.

It was, and is, a sub-rosa gun-ban scheme wrapped up in the vague and undefined wrapper of "mental health." The democrats who passed it, without a single bipartisan vote that I know of, wanted to add one more way of denying gun rights having little to do with actually preventing truly dangerous mentally-ill people from getting guns. Even in the case of the Virgina Tech shooting, the shooter did not have a disqualifying mental-health history and had neither been adjudicated to be mentally defective by a Virginia Special Justice in 2005, nor was he required to be reported to the Virgina Central Criminal Records Exchange as a person not eligible to own firearms.

Whether he should have been so reported is hindsight speculation, but what it shows is that the "mental health" system is hardly reliable enough either in its diagnoses or it's level of care to be used as an excuse to deprive people of their civil rights without an official adjudication of mental defect made after a due-process court hearing and a judicial ruling, which is the existing federal (and all-states) standard for depriving someone of their RKBA.

So, the objections of the NRA were based upon the constitutional due-process rights of citizens and their right not to be deprived of their civil rights arbitrarily by some bureaucrat in the FBI NICS section meddling in someone's "mental health" records.

Another lie is the final sentence, "Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that person’s hand." This is another outright lie because there are very specific steps that have been in place for decades for psychiatrists or doctors, or police officers or other officials who have verifiable and reasonable beliefs that a person poses a danger to himself or others. It's called a "72 hour mental hold" and can be instituted by any police officer or licensed physican at any time. The person can then be involuntarily held for up to 72 hours, during which time a psychological assessment must be performed, and if medical evidence is found that the person is a danger to himself or others, that person can be brought before a judge for an involuntary commitment to a mental health facility, which, by the way, according to federal law (unconstitutionally) deprives the person of his or her gun rights for the rest of his or her life. The patient doesn't even have to be diagnosed or adjudicated to be permanently mentally defective. Even if the person is admitted involuntarily for the rather common event of clinical situational depression that is successfully treated with therapy and medication and the individual is certified as having recovered and is released, the simple fact that he/she was involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility, which can be something as simple as their being unconscious and unable to respond to a psych evaluation during the 72 hour hold, deprives that person (unconstitutionally) of his or her gun rights FOREVER. There is not even any provision in the law for a person to be adjudicated as sane and be relieved of this disability.

And that is one of the reasons that gun owners who might need mental health counseling, including very significantly, police officers, avoid seeking help like the plague and try to deal with their problems secretly, and sometimes ineffectively, which sometimes leads to full-blown psychosis and awful acts because they were afraid to seek help because they would lose their jobs and careers merely by doing so.

So, the situation is much more complex than this fuckwit Newsweek reporter lets on, and the reasons for the NRA objecting to such laws, and the reason that many states themselves refuse to participate in the program is because as written and intended to be used it is a tool and vehicle for arbitrary and unconstitutional derogation of a person's civil rights without due process of law.

That's why the NRA supports only stripping gun rights from people who have been afforded due process and been adjudicated to be mentally defective, which has been the law for a long time now.

Tests are coming Seth. You won't pass, too much anxiety.
We'll see.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28264
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Tero » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:17 pm

We can turn it the other way around. You have to pass a standardized mental health test given by a professional. No record of the results is kept. Pass or fail. You can take it as many times as you like but you pay for the test. About $200 should cover it. Test is good for 5 years.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:38 pm

Tero wrote:We can turn it the other way around. You have to pass a standardized mental health test given by a professional. No record of the results is kept. Pass or fail. You can take it as many times as you like but you pay for the test. About $200 should cover it. Test is good for 5 years.
The nature of constitutional rights is that it is unconstitutional to condition the exercise of those rights upon prior government approval. Just as the government cannot require a newspaper to submit its articles to a government censor for approval to publish, and just as government doesn't get to pass judgment on the legitimacy of a religious belief as a predicate to the individual exercising that belief, and just as the government cannot require members of a protest movement to submit their speeches and materials to the government for prior approval, the government cannot condition the keeping and bearing of arms upon passing some government test of suitability to do so.

That's utterly unconstitutional prior restraint that will never happen.

We have the fundamental, natural, unalienable right to keep and bear arms right up to the moment that we fail to do so properly and safely. Then, and ONLY then can we be legally divested of our right to keep and bear arms, and only then after due process has been afforded.

So you lose again.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 9245
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Pre-Modernist
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by rainbow » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:55 am

Seth wrote: We have the fundamental, natural, unalienable right to keep and bear arms right up to the moment that we fail to do so properly and safely.
Really?
Have you tried to get through airport security carrying a loaded gun?

:smug:

Were they very impressed by your argument that it was your 'unalienable right'?

:o

Did you enjoy it when they snapped on the gloves?
Que?

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 50232
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:58 am

:lol:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28264
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Tero » Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:05 pm

"The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Seth » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:19 pm

rainbow wrote:
Seth wrote: We have the fundamental, natural, unalienable right to keep and bear arms right up to the moment that we fail to do so properly and safely.
Really?
Have you tried to get through airport security carrying a loaded gun?

:smug:

Were they very impressed by your argument that it was your 'unalienable right'?

:o

Did you enjoy it when they snapped on the gloves?
You're pretty ignorant of the law, but what else is new.

That's a time, place and manner regulation which may or may not be constitutionally permissible, not a blanket prior-restraint denial of civil rights.

And under certain circumstances I could walk right through airport security with a gun. In fact in years past I DID board commercial airliners while armed simply by displaying my badge and ID at the gate, more than once.

The issue is not whether a particular time, place or manner regulation is constitutionally valid, it's whether the government can generally and universally ban the keeping and bearing of arms on the premise that one or more of the 150 million gun owners in the US MIGHT commit an unlawful act somewhere, sometime.

It cannot. Period.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Seth » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:34 pm

Tero wrote:"The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."
Horseshit.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
NineBerry
Tame Wolf
Posts: 4954
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: nSk
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by NineBerry » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:54 pm

When the machine AIs take over, they will scrap this stupid US constitution.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Seth » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:52 pm

NineBerry wrote:When the machine AIs take over, they will scrap this stupid US constitution.
Now THAT is indeed a concern. And that's why we cannot allow that to happen in the first place. No SkyNet.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by Seth » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:50 pm

Here is a GREAT "common sense" gun-control plan being put up in the Virginia legislature. Along with restoring reciprocity it sets up a system for gun owners at gun shows to VOLUNTARILY obtain NICS background checks through the Virginia State Police, who will be required to be present at all gun shows.

Now all they have to do is expand that concept so that ANYONE who wants to sell a gun can VOLUNTARILY get such a check OVER THE TELEPHONE.
Voluntary Background Checks at Firearms Shows:

- Currently, only firearms dealers with a federal firearms license (FFL) can access the National Instant Checks System (NICS) to perform background checks on firearms purchases/transfers.

- The Virginia State Police cannot access the system on behalf of private citizens selling or transferring firearms.

- This bill would give the Virginia State Police statutory authority to perform background checks on behalf of private citizens at firearms shows, which is required by the FBI.

- Private sellers feel it is their civic duty to obtain the results of a background check prior to selling or transferring a firearm and they currently do not have the ability to access background checks for this purpose. This would allow them access on voluntary cases.

- This bill requires the Virginia State Police to be present at every firearms show in the Commonwealth to perform background checks on a voluntary basis.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 9245
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Pre-Modernist
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Second amendment

Post by rainbow » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:57 am

Seth wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Seth wrote: We have the fundamental, natural, unalienable right to keep and bear arms right up to the moment that we fail to do so properly and safely.
Really?
Have you tried to get through airport security carrying a loaded gun?

:smug:

Were they very impressed by your argument that it was your 'unalienable right'?

:o

Did you enjoy it when they snapped on the gloves?
You're pretty ignorant of the law, but what else is new.

That's a time, place and manner regulation which may or may not be constitutionally permissible, not a blanket prior-restraint denial of civil rights.

And under certain circumstances I could walk right through airport security with a gun. In fact in years past I DID board commercial airliners while armed simply by displaying my badge and ID at the gate, more than once.

The issue is not whether a particular time, place or manner regulation is constitutionally valid, it's whether the government can generally and universally ban the keeping and bearing of arms on the premise that one or more of the 150 million gun owners in the US MIGHT commit an unlawful act somewhere, sometime.

It cannot. Period.
:doh:

You are saying that Merkins have an 'unalienable right' to carry loaded weapons onto airplanes?

If not, don't use terms you don't understand.
Que?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest