Socialism places more value on the State or collective over personal liberty or freedom, that is why Socialist Countries have no concept of arms and the right to them or personal defense, a socialist order defines defense of the State only. Read 1984 by George Orwell.
yes, our federal form of Government was ordained and established in Order to form a more perfect Union.
And how many of those denied are prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm, or knowingly supply false information on a federal form? And they go on to acquire them regardless, because they remain a variable in the equation that is not addressed, as they are not taken out of society where they can do the most harm. Meaning no beneficial outcome has been had. Then if they cannot possess firearms, why are they not prosecuted? Is their possession simply not a crime that warrants prosecution anymore? Is it considered good enough to strip a prohibited individual of whatever firearms they may have in their possession, tell them not to do it again, and leave them free in society to do it again? And you cannot show that they actually do such; especially when there is no system of registration in place to know who owns what, and allowing the state to know when a transfer has occurred, and to whom. You made the argument that restricting firearms to prohibited individuals has a legitimate purpose because criminals use them in order to commit crimes. If such is true, why should the logic not be applied evenly to anything and everything that a criminal may use in order to facilitate the commission of a crime? Without prosecutions for those who are ineligible for firearms ownership, screening potential purchasers does no good Comparatively speaking, it is no different than screening blood donors for contagious diseases, but allowing them to donate even if they are found to carry hepatitis, HIV and/or AIDS, or any number of other pathogens. Then explain why individuals who went on to become mass shooters, who showed numerous warning signs prior to their acts, were simply ignored by those who could speak up and potentially do something to prevent the massacres from occurring. Explain why career criminals with multiple felony convictions can attempt to purchase a firearm, but are almost never prosecuted for their efforts. A key purpose rendered useless with as little as five minutes effort, and finding someone who is willing to engage in a straw purchase for a small monetary gain. Do you have any actual evidence to show that the system currently in place is not complicated? That all of the various rules and regulations can be memorized and easily cited by anyone at any given time, and that the language used is not cumbersome and vague to the point only seasoned attorneys can understand them? And if such does not lead to additional prosecutions, ultimately no good has come of it. Meaning only sales through a federally licensed firearms dealer, the only source that can actually be monitored and subjected to oversight, can be ensured as doing as was intended. Meaning the various illegal avenues remain untraceable, just as they have always been. Meaning ultimately that nothing beneficial has come of it. The lack of prosecutions would suggest that felons in possession of firearms is not a high priority. With there being no way of stopping them from simply hiring someone to purchase the firearm for them, or offering a private individual a sufficient amount of money to convince them to not carry out a background check.
they should have been prosecuted for felony perjury. a seminal DUKE UNIVERSITY STUDY found that the denials did NOTHING to reduce violent crime why do liberals want to pass laws but not enforce them? answer-they know honest people will comply but the liberals often don't want to actually punish criminals
Again...You know what, you are really trying my patience. Very rarely do I call people names but you are pushing me to the edge frankly. Now to address your reply how does that relate to what I just said about the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Only well regulated militia may not be infringed by the unorganized militia when keep and bearing Arms for their State or the Union simply because they are necessary to the security of a free State. You simply don't understand the concept of militia. There are no "civilians" in the US; Only well regulated militia and the unorganized militia. Only one Body is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.
I keep telling people, its the same nonsense on several different boards. its like someone takes a bunch of words normally used in second amendment debates and tosses them into a blender and then pours the mix out on paper. The stew that spewed sounds like it has relevance to the topic but once you actually examine what is being said, you realize its nonsense. Its not the normal usage of language from a Native English speaker or a normal person who has learned English as a second language More likely, the swill we are subjected to ad nauseum is the product of an artificial intelligence program with a limited amount of storage on its chip. That's why all the responses sound pretty much the same
Not according to the US Constitution but I will not deny that there maybe statutory laws that allow this. The problem is that often these laws cannot be challenged based upon whether they're constitional or not. While I'm unaware of a specific statutory law that allows a president to call up the militia without Congress authorizing it we do know that the War Powers Act (War Powers Resolution of 1973) allows a president to go to war (effectively declaring war) but that law cannot be challenged based upon constitutionality because no one has "standing" to challenge the law. No one, not even our departments of government, can establish that they suffer actual harm under the War Powers Act and without establishment of harm the "standing" of the plaintiff doesn't exist. The ability to resist and being capable of winning are two completely different issues. Oppressed people tend to group together. They're not welcome by the general society so they tend to isolate themselves into minority communities. That's not just happening in Europe but here as well and I'll share an anedcotal story to exemplify this fact. During the 1980's I was a supervisor at Lockheed and I had an highly educated and articulate black man working for me. He wanted to purchase a new home in the suburbs and called the developer's real estate agent. In that converstation, unable to tell that my employee was black over the phone, the agent informed him (I paraphrase) that, "You'll really like this community because we only have two Mexican families and no N*****s living here." My employee was shocked to hear this but did set up an appointment with the agent just so he could walk in and tell him, "I wouldn't live in this racist community under any circumstances." This was twenty years after the Civil Rights Movement and racism was (and remains) widespread in America preventing the integration of blacks into our White Supremacist society. White Christian Supremacy in Europe is arguably worse than in the United States and minorities, including Muslims, are forced by social pressure into isolated communities where they are not integrated into the European society. All you're pointing out is that segregation, regardless of whether it's official government policy or de facto segregation by society, has negative consequences and nothing more. The racist blames those they oppress for not being integrated into society because of the oppression of the racist. While the death toll is different I believe that the number of terrorist Christian attacks on abortion clinics is about equal to the number of Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States. We're also ignoring the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant terrorist attacks on blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and other Non-WASP's in America. The KKK, a WASP Supremacy organization, is historically the most significant terrorist organization in the history of the United States. Everyone that commits an aggressive act of violence is a psychopath regardless of whether it's been previously diagnosed or not. The Constitution does many things. It provides the structure of government, empowers the government, limits the powers of the government, but it also limits the powers of the people as well. The founders, including James Madison, generally referred to as The Father of the US Constitution, were justifiably opposed to democracy (government directly by the people) knowing that democracy always results in the oppression of the minority by the majority and they took safe-guards against that by creating a Republic where the "people" had no direct involvement in federal legislation or changes to the US Constitution. I would suggest taking the time to read and understand the political foundation for America because it's obvious to me that you misunderstand it. Then try explaining why non-citizes were allowed to vote when the nation was founded, protected in about 40 states and territories at one point in American history, later had their right to vote revoked after the Civil War and the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments.
even Alice 1.0 argues better than y'all. - - - Updated - - - Why do gun lovers not understand that they must be part of the unorganized militia simply because they are not well regulated?
The President ( POTUS ) can declare a "Police Action" as in Vietnam, the POTUS cannot declare war, this is a mere technicality, once LBJ committed us to action, war in Vietnam was unavoidable. The purpose of an organized Militia is the citizens ability to mobilize quickly to respond to local dangers ( Volunteer Fire Brigades ) faster than the National Guard or other Armed services, posse comitatus not withstanding. The citizens have long shown abilities to aid in times of disaster, Amateur radio is a great example of Emergency communications ability. Another would be many citizens being trained as Paramedics, organized and able to mobilize and communicate with medical control, equipped to treat and stabilize large numbers of injured people in the event of an attack, trained to identify hazmat and possible radiation or Bio hazard exposure. Waiting around for Federal Government assistance, is not a good example of Emergency planning. Emergency Preparedness is the key phrase, split between FEMA and local EMA groups with oversight over all agencies as police, fire, EMS, etc... through MARS communications systems and back up communications. It is of note, on 9/11/01 most emergency communications equipment and antennas were located in tower 2 on the top parts of the WTC and destroyed in the destruction of said buildings.
You are a fool, you simply try to reduce good people in a vain attempt, calling us gun lovers, I love life and the lives of my brothers and sisters, a gun is a tool like a hammer or saw, I don't love any of them, I need them to work, I care for my tools by cleaning and lubricating, this is not love. My dog is loved, he protects me, he has a place by my side, by the foot of the bed, and in my heart and choicest bits of meat from my plate.
Background checks create opportunities for prosecution. If there is a low number of prosecutions, the problem is attributable to a failure to pursue these opportunities, not the background check laws which gave rise to them. The real issue, then, is what factors are hindering prosecution? You neglect to mention that the authors of that study (Cook and Ludwig) noted that their methodology did not account for the "disruptive effect" on data of guns being trafficked into states with background checks from states without background checks. Nor did it account for the impact of background checks on the flow of guns into the unregulated secondary market. They also note that the impact of Brady was limited by a lack of checks in the secondary market, which they described as "an enormous loophole that limits the effectiveness of primary-market regulations". And so on and so forth. Hence they state that "Our findings do not imply that screening FFL (or primary-market) gun sales is of no consequence for gun crime." Finally, if you have a credible point, it will stand on its own merits - ad hominems not required.
Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, there was no registration requirement, or FFL requirement, you could purchase a gun by mail order, and many were, and still exist, that is why the actual number of firearms Extant today is actually UNKNOWN ! Countless Millions of firearms were sold prior to 1968. This proves that registration of firearms is meaningless on its own merits as a deterrent to crime and perhaps serves some other darker purpose as precursor to confiscation, example, NYC and the various gun registration, bans, confiscation and forfeiture forced divestment of legally owned firearms. Primary sales of firearms at a gun store have long had background checks in place, private sales did not, except in jurisdictions like NYC where to acquire a handgun legally, you must purchase it through a licensed dealer and a private sale is a long complicated process even for LE personnel. The Black Market sales of firearms is defined simplistically and fails to account for criminal behavior in two components, criminals by nature do NOT obey laws or regulations because they are, DUH, CRIMINALS ? So imposing more restrictions on law abiding gun owners has no significant impact on crime, it does place significant financial burden on law abiding citizens. NFA regulations pretend a rifle must have a barrel length of over 16 inches or you must pay a $ 200 tax and additional restrictions on use and transport etc... having no significant impact on crime, since criminals do not obey NFA regulations. Brady never had a significant impact in any manner as evidenced prior to 1968. The Black market is fluid and dynamic as evidenced during prohibition, one salient question is, Why would Drug cartels purchase semiautomatic AK variants when a pallet of select fire NIB Chinese AK-47s can be bought in Columbia for around $150 U.S. a copy ? The only thing limited here is the intellect of the people trying to fool the public into believing the lies and mythology perpetrated by gun control and ban advocates.
You are nuts, My main aim as Medico has always been to help people, I had to come to terms as a healthcare professional and reconcile many issues as far as personal defense and service in the Military, so don't bark at me like some little junkyard dog. I do not appeal to ignorance, and since you are not even an American or resident of the U.S. you are irrelevant.
Not doing your best to diagnose the Body politic, means you are just a political "quack". Why do gun lovers not understand that they must be part of the unorganized militia simply because they are not well regulated?
nothing but diversion? Why do any Persons believe they are not the unorganized militia, if they are not well regulated?
How does the "unregulated" militia infringe on the regulated militia's rights? That makes no sense whatsoever but then again its pretty normal with you. Which we are not talking about. We are talking about, to use your terms, whether the unregulated militia (the people) has the right to keep and bear arms and that cannons be infringed. Can it be infringed?
There is the proof, we are arguing with an AI of some sort. He never gets the Second Amendment right. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
