Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 24th, 2019, 09:28 PM #21
Adolph Oliver Bush's Avatar
Adolph Oliver Bush Adolph Oliver Bush is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,690
Adolph Oliver Bush Adolph Oliver Bush is offline
Senior Member
Adolph Oliver Bush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,690
: )

The problem with America is the preponderance of low-information emotional voters. This article shows that we do not have a "gun violence" problem, we have a social problem. Too bad more people dont bother to examine the causes of "gun violence," and focus on the very real problems facing our country, instead of blaming inanimate objects. Kids need parents who GAF. Parents need jobs. Families need good homes in safe neighborhoods. All that stuff is way hard to fix, especially before the next election cycle.
Politicians blame guns. The news media blame guns because it gets ratings. People dont bother to think for themselves, and we end up forgoing basic concepts like innocent until proven guilty via red flag laws. The gun-grabbers could get everything they want and we'd STILL have "gun violence."
SMH America....

Baltimorgue, which is mentioned in the article, used to have a steel mill that employed 30,000 people who maybe had a high school diploma. Where are the equivalent jobs now? Under Armor, can you here me? With economic conditions such as they are, its no wonder that the largest city in a state whose politicians pride themselves on strict gun control leads the nation in per capita homicides. Gun control doesnt reduce crime.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nce-in-america

I recommend that folks spread this info far and wide. Include it in every facebook post. Just get the word out. And buy more ammo!

(Apologies for the thread creep)
__________________
I encourage you to do all that you can to support the 2A. If you do not have twitter and facebook accounts that you can use to counter the drivel spewed by the antis, go over to yahoo, establish an email account in the name of your choice, and use it to sign-up on facebook and twitter. No anti is coming here to be swayed into supporting the 2A, so I urge you to confront them where they gather for comfort, which means social media. Take the fight to the enemy.
Adolph Oliver Bush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2019, 08:31 AM #22
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,424
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshaw View Post
I was reading an old legal opinion (1995) on the Fourteenth Amendment by the DOJ. The opinion was made in response to an attempt by Congress to stop birthright citizenship for aliens through a statute. The legal opinion opined that this proposed statute was unconstitutional and that the change could only be made by an amendment to the Constitution. Using the same logic for the Second Amendment, how can Congress create a ban on "Assault Weapons" or similar restrictions without an amendment to the Constitution?
It seems to me that it’s a version of not yelling “Fire” in a theater or saying “bomb” on an airplane. We have a guarantee of free speech but it’s OK to regulate that freedom when it is just a “common sense” public safety concern.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Member MSI, SAF
NRA certified RSO, Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety
Work hard, shoot straight, play fair, fight dirty
DanGuy48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2019, 02:23 PM #23
aleatory aleatory is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1
aleatory aleatory is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1
Hi DanGuy48. I don't think your understanding is quite right. <insert standard disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer >

It is perfectly legal and protected by the First Amendment to yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane.

However, the effect of inciting panic is not protected.

If someone falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded theater, they are prosecuted for inciting panic. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the First Amendment. It is a separate matter.

Similarly, if someone shoots another in cold-blood, the prosecution is for murder. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the Second Amendment. It is a separate matter.

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/...ter-19421.html

As to how infringements somehow do not infringe on "shall not be infringed", I am at a loss.
aleatory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2019, 03:07 PM #24
babalou's Avatar
babalou babalou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 4,979
babalou babalou is offline
Senior Member
babalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 4,979
Yuup

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleatory View Post
Hi DanGuy48. I don't think your understanding is quite right. <insert standard disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer >

It is perfectly legal and protected by the First Amendment to yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane.

However, the effect of inciting panic is not protected.

If someone falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded theater, they are prosecuted for inciting panic. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the First Amendment. It is a separate matter.

Similarly, if someone shoots another in cold-blood, the prosecution is for murder. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the Second Amendment. It is a separate matter.

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/...ter-19421.html

As to how infringements somehow do not infringe on "shall not be infringed", I am at a loss.

Exactly correct. Also first ten is the Bill of Rights. To me separate from the rest in that these are not open to amendments?
babalou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2019, 04:46 PM #25
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 26,756
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 26,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by babalou View Post
Exactly correct. Also first ten is the Bill of Rights. To me separate from the rest in that these are not open to amendments?
That's how I see it. You cannot repeal a right. Reasonable restrictions? Sure. However those restrictions cannot interfere with the Right as intended. This means firearms suitable for overthrowing an out of control government, at its' most extreme.
__________________
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
MSRPA BOD
I touched Heller.....
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2019, 09:32 AM #26
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 57
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshaw View Post
... how can Congress create a ban on "Assault Weapons" or similar restrictions without an amendment to the Constitution?
Do you want to hear/read the right answer or do you want to hear/read what nearly every arms owner thinks they know?
__________________
The law is in black and white so citizens can comply with it if it pertains to them and to ignore if it does not. To argue for a different meaning from the written word and its intent is intellectual dishonesty.
Chauchat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2019, 04:43 PM #27
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,960
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by teratos View Post
That's how I see it. You cannot repeal a right. Reasonable restrictions? Sure. However those restrictions cannot interfere with the Right as intended. This means firearms suitable for overthrowing an out of control government, at its' most extreme.
are you asking a question, or is it rhetorical? Because of course the first 10 can be amended. Any amendment passed can amend ANY part of the constitution. The bill of rights was just called that because they were amendments dealing with rights. Either individual or state. Some of the later amendments change or clarify parts of the constitution itself.

Anything in there can be changed so long as it goes through the process codified in the constitution for an amendment.
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2019, 05:06 PM #28
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 26,756
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 26,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
are you asking a question, or is it rhetorical? Because of course the first 10 can be amended. Any amendment passed can amend ANY part of the constitution. The bill of rights was just called that because they were amendments dealing with rights. Either individual or state. Some of the later amendments change or clarify parts of the constitution itself.

Anything in there can be changed so long as it goes through the process codified in the constitution for an amendment.
The amendment would mean nothing. I have no question. No government can amend a right.
__________________
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
MSRPA BOD
I touched Heller.....
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2019, 08:39 PM #29
Adolph Oliver Bush's Avatar
Adolph Oliver Bush Adolph Oliver Bush is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,690
Adolph Oliver Bush Adolph Oliver Bush is offline
Senior Member
Adolph Oliver Bush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,690
Did no one notice it took Aletaory 3.5 yrs to find something worth posting about???

Welcome! Head over to the introductions forum and double your post count!
__________________
I encourage you to do all that you can to support the 2A. If you do not have twitter and facebook accounts that you can use to counter the drivel spewed by the antis, go over to yahoo, establish an email account in the name of your choice, and use it to sign-up on facebook and twitter. No anti is coming here to be swayed into supporting the 2A, so I urge you to confront them where they gather for comfort, which means social media. Take the fight to the enemy.
Adolph Oliver Bush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2019, 09:17 PM #30
DP12 DP12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: SoMD
Posts: 234
DP12 DP12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: SoMD
Posts: 234
The republic is awash with would-be tyrants and the serfs that enable them. That's how it happens.

When a gun-grabber yammers on about 90% of Americans favoring this or that "common sense gun law," I ask why they don't just slam through an amendment as happened with Prohibition. All they need is a super-majority of the Senate and states and it's a done deal.

Of course, the reason they don't slam through an amendment is because the statistic is pure, unadulterated Marxist agitprop. And it works very well on people who should never have been given the privilege of voting.
DP12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service