Here is an idea!!

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There is only one thing that will work: Anyone adjudicated to be a danger, if not executed, must be kept in prison, institutionalized, or under 100% guardianship until they are found(adjudicated) to no longer be a danger. Eliminate all restrictions on keeping and bearing arms in order that self defense may be available to all not kept in prison, institutionalized, or under 100% guardianship.

Nothing will prevent killings by those who have not been discovered to be a danger, but with plenty of armed citizens around, anyone who would attempt a mass shooting will not live long enough to complete it.

This has nothing to do with implements and everything to do with people who are dangerous. Whether they commit their deeds with guns or tie someone to railroad tracks, it is the person who commits murder. Banning guns or railroad tracks will do nothing to prevent murder or halt it in progress.

Keep this in mind any time you hear calls for "gun control": Banning people from owning guns - ANY guns or other arms - only has sinister purposes such as to enable subjugation, genocide, tyranny, despotism, and any other form of evil man may wish upon his fellow man.

It's hard to ignore the calls from the emotionally charged useful ignorant(Often called useful idiots). If they knew the truth, they'd at the least be silent or calling for unfettered self defense. They'll get over their emotions, but their ignorance is another matter. Educate them.

Woody

 

[gerhard1]

There is only one thing that will work: Anyone adjudicated to be a danger, if not executed, must be kept in prison, institutionalized, or under 100% guardianship until they are found(adjudicated) to no longer be a danger. Eliminate all restrictions on keeping and bearing arms in order that self defense may be available to all not kept in prison, institutionalized, or under 100% guardianship.

Nothing will prevent killings by those who have not been discovered to be a danger, but with plenty of armed citizens around, anyone who would attempt a mass shooting will not live long enough to complete it.

This has nothing to do with implements and everything to do with people who are dangerous. Whether they commit their deeds with guns or tie someone to railroad tracks, it is the person who commits murder. Banning guns or railroad tracks will do nothing to prevent murder or halt it in progress.

Keep this in mind any time you hear calls for "gun control": Banning people from owning guns - ANY guns or other arms - only has sinister purposes such as to enable subjugation, genocide, tyranny, despotism, and any other form of evil man may wish upon his fellow man.

It's hard to ignore the calls from the emotionally charged useful ignorant(Often called useful idiots). If they knew the truth, they'd at the least be silent or calling for unfettered self defense. They'll get over their emotions, but their ignorance is another matter. Educate them.

Woody

So, in a rhetorical sense, I would ask YOU 'what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?' It doesn't say the 'right of the people, except for those who are in prison, etc., it says the 'right of the people' period. This means all people regardless of their circumstances.

Obviously this might seem to some to be unrealistic, but what what the heck, right? After all, where does the constitution say that prisoners, etc, don't have the right to arms?

All right, I'll come back down to earth. The reality is that there are no rights that can't be taken away. You can lose your right to arms and there is a provision in the constitution for doing this.

Recognize this?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia,o arms? m us and not the right t when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It is the Fifth Amendment. Now do we have a right to life? To liberty? To property? Of course we do. Can we lose them? Yes, if we are accorded due process.

Why can the government take these rights away from us and not the right to arms?

 

[Dave70968]

So, in a rhetorical sense, I would ask YOU 'what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?' It doesn't say the 'right of the people, except for those who are in prison, etc., it says the 'right of the people' period. This means all people regardless of their circumstances.

Obviously this might seem to some to be unrealistic, but what what the heck, right? After all, where does the constitution say that prisoners, etc, don't have the right to arms?

All right, I'll come back down to earth. The reality is that there are no rights that can't be taken away. You can lose your right to arms and there is a provision in the constitution for doing this.

Recognize this?

It is the Fifth Amendment. Now do we have a right to life? To liberty? To property? Of course we do. Can we lose them? Yes, if we are accorded due process.

Why can the government take these rights away from us and not the right to arms?

Wrong question. The government can infringe upon the right to arms (as a liberty, and as a property right) through due process of law: trial and conviction, or in the case of the insane, civil adjudication as such. Those are actions particularized to an individual based upon specific circumstances, not broadly applicable to everyone.

 

[gerhard1]

Wrong question. The government can infringe upon the right to arms (as a liberty, and as a property right) through due process of law: trial and conviction, or in the case of the insane, civil adjudication as such. Those are actions particularized to an individual based upon specific circumstances, not broadly applicable to everyone.

Agreed, Counselor. I think that's what I was trying to say.

 

[TerryMiller]

Thanks for explaining that about "infringement of rights." I've been in discussions with anti-gunners where others tried to use that phrase like it was the fourth ace in the hand. I've never used it myself, because I didn't think that it was really a good argument. Now I know why.

 

[okierider]

Knew this would be good food for thought!! Great conversation folks!!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You must remember that after a sentence has been completed, the government no longer has the power to limit or take away anyone's rights - to include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Once free, government must return their arms and not infringe upon their right to keep and bear more arms if they wish. If government believes it is not safe for someone to be free to keep and bear arms, that person should not be freed from prison, an institution, or from under 100% guardianship. So, no one really loses a right.

The Fifth Amendment mentions being 'deprived' of life, liberty and property. Being deprived of life is a death sentence, but being deprived of liberty and property is not the same as having liberty and property forfeited. Liberty is returned upon release from prison or an institution, etc., and so must property be returned - even when that property is arms.

If a person is sent to prison for six months for a misdemeanor, they don't lose their arms and may bear them upon release. It should be the same no matter why or for however long a person has been sent to prison. It used to be that way.

Woody

 

[Dave70968]

You must remember that after a sentence has been completed, the government no longer has the power to limit or take away anyone's rights - to include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Once free, government must return their arms and not infringe upon their right to keep and bear more arms if they wish. If government believes it is not safe for someone to be free to keep and bear arms, that person should not be freed from prison, an institution, or from under 100% guardianship. So, no one really loses a right.

The Fifth Amendment mentions being 'deprived' of life, liberty and property. Being deprived of life is a death sentence, but being deprived of liberty and property is not the same as having liberty and property forfeited. Liberty is returned upon release from prison or an institution, etc., and so must property be returned - even when that property is arms.

If a person is sent to prison for six months for a misdemeanor, they don't lose their arms and may bear them upon release. It should be the same no matter why or for however long a person has been sent to prison. It used to be that way.

Woody

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 

[tRidiot]

If a person is sent to prison for six months for a misdemeanor, they don't lose their arms and may bear them upon release. It should be the same no matter why or for however long a person has been sent to prison. It used to be that way.

Woody

Except that now, with a simple misdemeanor domestic assault charge, say, for grabbing someone's arm, or for fighting with a family member at a holiday dinner, one can have one's right to hold firearms forever stripped away. With no time served, no injury to anyone, and no proven danger to society as a whole.

 

[dennishoddy]

Except that now, with a simple misdemeanor domestic assault charge, say, for grabbing someone's arm, or for fighting with a family member at a holiday dinner, one can have one's right to hold firearms forever stripped away. With no time served, no injury to anyone, and no proven danger to society as a whole.

Exactly. A spouse that is vindictive over a divorce can cause loss of firearm ownership forever.
Most divorces these days tell the divorcing party to file a protective order as a part of the process to gain favor with the courts.