Reading some posters here I had assumed the Constitution was crystal clear on this point and anyone who thought otherwise just didn’t understand. Are you saying 4 out 9 judges did not accept the position you describe? Maybe this is another argument for a rethink of this clause!
Do you information that settles the question? If not, why take a position before the evidence is in?
I was responding to the statement that :" the laws against murder are most assuredly going to be enforced upon Mr. Nikolas Cruz." That was the position taken by the poster. You can ask him " why take a position before the evidence is in?" My point was that it is not clear to me that the laws against murder will be most assuredly enforced, because there may be an American judge who gives a lot of weight to the claims of his defense lawyers.
but rudy is the one who gets the credit. wasn’t bloomberg a repub at first.
because it is a crisis the grabbers can use to their advantage
I was asking why you say you “don’t buy” the medical infirmities claimed by his legal team…given you apparently have no information? I am asking why you take a position on a matter about which you have no information.
Because he passed the background checks, including the mental health question, required to get an AR-15 rifle. Further, on Nov. 12, 2016. the Florida child welfare agency completed an investigation which showed that he had not been mistreated by his mother and was receiving sufficient care from mental health counselors and they found him to be stable enough to be free and not hospitalized. And clinical professor of psychology at University of Miami. Michael Alessandri said that autism was not one of the causes or reasons why he shot the students at the school.
Giuliani was notorious for grabbing credit for everything, but the decline in crime rates, and the police policies that contributed to it, began during the Dinkins administration, continued through the Giuliani administration, and then into the Bloomberg and DeBlasio administrations.
Meanwhile, more than 30 were murdered in one recent weekend in Chicago.
We’ve been through this wealth privilege approach before.
Leftists are not “sub-human”, evil, or anything like that (well, I think evil is drawn to the power accumulated in the hands of a few people that leftism provides, see Stalin, Che, Mao, or Castro as examples), and I never inferred they were. I think leftists are wrong, and politically dangerous, but not sub-human…so please stop conflating.
Cash (or credit), no felony convictions, no adjudications of mental incompetence, no misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, have US citizenship, be of age 18 (likely soon to be 21), not be a drug addict, not have a dishonorable discharge, not be a fugitive, and not have a restraining order.
I am responsible for protecting myself and my family, and my firearms are simply one layer of that. Situational awareness and an ego that lets me escape potentially dangerous situations is the first layer of defense.
I doubt you have much knowledge of military history. Just like a firearm is just one layer of my personal/family protection, a firearm is just one segment of a revolution. See other threads here for pertinent discussions.
The DESIGN of an AR-15 is that. Same could be said for the flintlock, musket, etc. Same could be said for the Jeep. Velcro was designed for the space program. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use them for civilian purposes.
The latter is already EXTREMELY difficult to obtain and requires special government permission.
A .22 is too much power to give to a psychopath. OH, wait, we already have laws in place prohibiting adjudicated psychopaths from having firearms. Let’s enforce that law before we take away any more rights from law-abiding (and sane) citizens.
I’ve seen quite a few people with fatal, and critical, injuries from .22 caliber weapons.
Absolutely untrue. It may take you a while to die, but small hole in the thorax often equals tension pneumo and death without emergency treatment.
Correction, law abiding people can acquire a firearm after a background check. Criminals can buy one on the street.
It’s not just the presence of guns that prevents government overreach and tyranny, it’s the underlaying POWER that the people have. The base level of this power, of course, is not only the RIGHT of revolution, but the ability to revolt. We are GUARANTEED the right to bare arms, as a part of an anti-tyrannical militia, to just so the government knows that they work for us and not the other way around.
agreed
The duties of the police are established in local regulations, which follow local law, which must conform to the Constitution.
Sounds like plastic is dangerous, should we ban it altogether? (yes, being facetious while trying to make the point that LIFE IN A FREE WORLD IS DANGEROUS, but wouldn’t have it any other way).
Correction. Preventing a registry IS essential in preventing confiscation. See 1929 Germany as best example, although there are others.
Investigate, indict, prosecute, and then incarcerate. Something that doesn’t happen very often.
While his post was certainly racially charged, it is accurate to say that our national gun violence numbers are heavily skewed toward black and latino Americans. The numbers killed/injured during the “mass shootings” are a small proportion compared to those.
We haven’t had an attempted revolution in 150 years because the people have maintained control of the government.
You need not go back that far. See California.
But far less persuasive!Rau:
A 5-4 is no less binding than a 9-0.