- Joined
- Jul 20, 2014
- Messages
- 15,146
- Reaction score
- 15,851
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
One in ten people in Florida, are concealed carry permit holders. However, Florida Law prevents the carrying of a concealed weapon in this club.
Doing the math, conceivably 30 people could have been carrying here, out of 300 or so present. But they couldn't carry.
This perp scouted out the club on numerous occasions and knew what type of security they had.....which was rather weak.
Gun Free Zones need to be abolished!
You miss one key point in your analysis, which is the courts, specifically the Supreme Court.I've had a few ideas that might help, but certainly not stop, the flow of guns to criminals; but those involve things like gun registries, ammo registries, improving serial numbers (so they can't be obliterated), and complete bans on resale of guns other than back to a licensed firearm dealer. But I've pretty much never heard a gun enthusiast agree (some gun _owners_ have agreed, but mere owners aren't the ones that need convincing about reasonable gun control).
None of that would stop mass shootings.
In fact, I don't think we can pass *anything* consistent with the 2nd Amd. that will stop or even reasonably cut down on mass shootings. Ditto for the rest of gun violence in this country. There are just so many guns out there.
We'd need to repeal the 2nd, confiscate the myriad guns out there, pass a new much more limited 2nd, and start all over. Not happening. That's less likely than building a wall, forcing Mexico to pay for it, deporting all the illegals, and actually keeping them all out. HAH!
Basically, either Americans are extremely violent evil people as compared to the rest of the world, or having the most guns per capita means you have the most gun violence per capita (not including broken states like El Salvador).
The guns aren't going anywhere. So, as tragic and frustrating as it is, we're going to have to get used to the idea that if you live in America, you're far more likely to be gunned down than in any other "civilized" nation.
You miss one key point in your analysis, which is the courts, specifically the Supreme Court.
Both Heller and McDonald were narrow 5-4 rulings, hinging on the now deceased Justice Scalia. They could easily have gone the other way with a liberal Justice in his place.
The sad truth about the Constitution (as it applies to us) is: It only means what a given Judge thinks it means on a given day!
A Hillary win and a subsequent coupla' justice appointments can swing this whole thing around - reference: Plessy v Ferguson --> Brown v Board.
As a matter of fact, the San Fran 9th District just recently ruled concealed carry *illegal* in California by 7-4! And with our current 4-4 SCOTUS, that could possibly stand! Does anyone wanna' bet how a 6-3 liberal Court might rule?
So yeah, nothing ever is written (or should I say, interpreted) in stone.
Iffy? It's Unconstitutional!
Actually though, I should clarify the Cali ruling: The court ruled concealed carry was not a right - so in essence they can turn down cc apps (or I suppose not issue any at all, if they so chose).You got it.
And if that happens, there will be thousands of now, law abiding citizens, turned into criminals. I carried for years w/o any permit and that's what will happen for many.
I don't disagree with a law that says those drinking alcohol cannot carry firearms. I think that is a sensible state law. I doubt the establishment that was victimized had many, if any patrons who were non-drinkers. SO maybe the only solution is more armed security. Not telling those drinking alcohol they ought to carry while drinking
It seems to work fine here in Ohio. :shrug:
Like I said, you are interpreting the second amendment as judges are currently interpreting the second amendment. I have a suggestion: read the history of the passing of the second amendment in the book "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich. It entails the meaning of the second amendment by the congressmen who passed the second amendment into law in 1789. Or are you not an originalist of The Constitution?there is nothing in the constitution that can remotely support gun confiscation from honest americans
Like I said, you are interpreting the second amendment as judges are currently interpreting the second amendment. I have a suggestion: read the history of the passing of the second amendment in the book "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich. It entails the meaning of the second amendment by the congressmen who passed the second amendment into law in 1789. Or are you not an originalist of The Constitution?
The second amendment does. The history of the passing of the second amendment does. The clause in the The Constitution that allows actions by the federal government to promote the general welfare of the federal government and to do those things necessary to preserve the federal government does. Here's a link. I know it's Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powersnothing in the constitution even remotely supports an claim that the federal government was intended to have the power to control firearms
You miss one key point in your analysis, which is the courts, specifically the Supreme Court.
Both Heller and McDonald were narrow 5-4 rulings, hinging on the now deceased Justice Scalia. They could easily have gone the other way with a liberal Justice in his place.
The sad truth about the Constitution (as it applies to us) is: It only means what a given Judge thinks it means on a given day!
A Hillary win and a subsequent coupla' justice appointments can swing this whole thing around - reference: Plessy v Ferguson --> Brown v Board.
As a matter of fact, the San Fran 9th District just recently ruled concealed carry *illegal* in California by 7-4! And with our current 4-4 SCOTUS, that could possibly stand! Does anyone wanna' bet how a 6-3 liberal Court might rule?
So yeah, nothing ever is written (or should I say, interpreted) in stone.
The second amendment does. The history of the passing of the second amendment does. The clause in the The Constitution that allows actions by the federal government to promote the general welfare of the federal government and to do those things necessary to preserve the federal government does. Here's a link. I know it's Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers
The second amendment does. The history of the passing of the second amendment does. The clause in the The Constitution that allows actions by the federal government to promote the general welfare of the federal government and to do those things necessary to preserve the federal government does. Here's a link. I know it's Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers
The second amendment does. The history of the passing of the second amendment does. The clause in the The Constitution that allows actions by the federal government to promote the general welfare of the federal government and to do those things necessary to preserve the federal government does. Here's a link. I know it's Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers
I see your point. It goes against your ideology of citizens always getting their guns. The two guys who were most diligent in writing the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison, agreed with this 'federal government must do what is necessary to survive' viewpoint. The first chief justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall, also agreed. Then there's the history of the passage of the second amendment which you consistently ignore...uh that's idiotic. its beyond idiotic. Its something you made up that has no basis in fact. Its why FDR and his cesspool of toadies had to pretend the commerce clause and taxation allowed de facto bans. Claiming the second amendment does is perhaps the most moronic claim I have seen (you aren't the first). Claiming the second amendment was intended to give congress any powers demonstrates a complete and total lack of any understanding of what the bill of rights are or were intended to do
I see your point. It goes against your ideology of citizens always getting their guns. The two guys who were most diligent in writing the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison, agreed with this 'federal government must do what is necessary to survive' viewpoint. The first chief justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall, also agreed. Then there's the history of the passage of the second amendment which you consistently ignore...
Here is Article One Section 8 of The Constitution. I refer you, again, to..."provide for the common defense and general welfare of United States." Annenberg Classroom - Article I Section 8its amazing that if they actually believed it, you cannot find a single document from either that even hints they wanted the federal government to have any gun control power. Not a single whiff of that in Article One Section 8 and then they ratified the second amendment, ninth and tenth,all of which prevent-if honestly interpreted-federal interference of what private citizens can keep bear and own. don't forget that until the FDR turds came along, the Commerce clause was held to give congress NO POWER over private citizens either
Laws preventing the sale of guns to anyone that might be a friend, relative or crime victim of a possible bad guy could work.
Who, exactly, watches those placed on the terror watch llist?
Here is Article One Section 8 of The Constitution. I refer you, again, to..."provide for the common defense and general welfare of United States."http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8
The federal government can provide for the common defense. Forcefully removing all AR-15s, for example, would provide for the common defense of the federal government. That means at nightclubs and in inner city Chicago, for example.
The federal government can provide for the general welfare. For example, terrorists may be attempting to injure the US. The federal government may institute measures to preserve the general welfare of the US.
The 'do whatever necessary to provide for the general welfare' segment of section 8 was upheld quite early in America's history by chief justice Marshall over the US bank Hamilton proposed before the turn of the 18th century.
I propose the 'do whatever necessary to provide for the common defense' was upheld when standing armies were instituted soon after.
Gun banning is not a taxing matter. It is a banning matter. Neither was the federal bank proposed by Hamilton a taxing matter. It was a concern to promote the general welfare of the federal government. Upheld by Marshall. Before the turn of the 18th century.LOL sorry complete fail. None of the gun banners in congress have successfully argued that as a basis for gun control and the general welfare is a taxing matter. Your argument is pathetic and doesn't have any court decision or scholarship backing it. You could argue that should trump MIRANDA or the fourth amendment or the sixth amendment too.
You are just making stuff up to argue when you have absolutely no honest basis for making the claim
Gun banning is not a taxing matter. It is a banning matter. Neither was the federal bank proposed by Hamilton a taxing matter. It was a concern to promote the general welfare of the federal government. Upheld by Marshall. Before the turn of the 18th century.
Take the guns away from the thugs and drug dealers, too.
and there is no such power in the constitution.
I've had a few ideas that might help, but certainly not stop, the flow of guns to criminals; but those involve things like gun registries, ammo registries, ......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?