Christmas comes EARLY this Year.....for the....N R A !

[SparrowHawk]

 
I must have missed the part in my history class about the success of the Warsaw uprising.
 
A blood bath?
 
Registration of guns restricts gun ownership like registration of cars restricts car ownership.

You missed the part where they had few weapons and as a result it was a bloodbath. For some (Clearly not you) it is better to die on your feet then live on your knees.
 
Think Israel would still be a nation if they didn't have a deadly bunch of bastards in the IDF?
 
Liberty is won and preserved at the end of a gun barrel.
 
Switzerland has a booming economy. They recently rejected socialized Health Care and every citizen is issued an automatic weapon at age 16 and goes through military training. Ever stop to ponder that they might have a clue to the value of Liberty given their wealth as a nation?

 

[Ms Tree]

You missed the part where they had few weapons and as a result it was a bloodbath. For some (Clearly not you) it is better to die on your feet then live on your knees.
 
Think Israel would still be a nation if they didn't have a deadly bunch of bastards in the IDF?
 
Liberty is won and preserved at the end of a gun barrel.
 
Switzerland has a booming economy. They recently rejected socialized Health Care and every citizen is issued an automatic weapon at age 16 and goes through military training. Ever stop to ponder that they might have a clue to the value of Liberty given their wealth as a nation?

Valid points.  How ever the bottom line is they still died and were unsuccessful.  
 
When you have to resort to a gun, the battle is already lost.
 
Does CH have any subsidies?  (hint: Yes).  They still have universal health care.  The government subsidizes the premiums with a means tested scale.  the Subsidies range from 0%-100%.  I'll go for that.  Glad to know you are in favor of that as well.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

 
 
They have god on their side so that makes the over reach OK.

 
"With GOD on thier Side" is quite possibly one of Bob Dylan's Greatest songs.
The Lyric's are Sooooo true, it's scary !

 

[ChockJockey]

When you have to resort to a gun, the battle is already lost.

 
And if you suspect someone has a gun, you're less likely to resort to battling in the first place.

 

[eolesen]

Having the government decide who can and who can't get married is a bit of an overreach, isn't it?

Yep, but probably not in the way you're intending that statement to be.

An amendment which has been ratified by being on the ballot isn't overreach by the government. It's the exact opposite. It's something the people have made their voices clear on. It may indeed be overreach, but a participatory government is what the Founders wanted.

The overreach comes in having an appointed judge coming in and overriding what the people have voted on.

I don't think the bans were necessary to begin with, but I also have a problem with the Amendments being assaulted by the courts. Separating the issue from the precedent is difficult for some, I know, but what's the next thing that activist courts are going to decide is unnecessary?

 

[Ms Tree]

So if people vote on a gun control act to limit guns in some way it's OK because it's the will of the people?

The judges are not over riding the will of the people. The judges are applying the constitution and saying that the laws are in violation of it. The procedures are laid out in the constitution.

Additionally, while a participatory government may have been intended, the idea of the majority being able to dictate to the minority was not intended. That is why there are three branches of government and why the judicial is separate.

This is civics 101.

 

[eolesen]

The judges are applying their interpretation of COTUS in an area with a lot of room for interpretation.

There's really not a lot of room for interpretation on the 2nd, or any of the original BOR.

Get the 2nd overturned at the Federal level, and then you'd be free to limit guns. That procedure is laid out in COTUS as well.

 

[Ms Tree]

The 14th is quite clear and precise. They are applying it the only way it can be.

 

[delldude]

So if people vote on a gun control act to limit guns in some way it's OK because it's the will of the people?

The judges are not over riding the will of the people. The judges are applying the constitution and saying that the laws are in violation of it. The procedures are laid out in the constitution.

Additionally, while a participatory government may have been intended, the idea of the majority being able to dictate to the minority was not intended. That is why there are three branches of government and why the judicial is separate.

This is civics 101.

 
Why do you think the progressives want to get rid of that tattered old rag of a document and go by majority rule?

 

[KCFlyer]

Yep, but probably not in the way you're intending that statement to be.

An amendment which has been ratified by being on the ballot isn't overreach by the government. It's the exact opposite. It's something the people have made their voices clear on. It may indeed be overreach, but a participatory government is what the Founders wanted.

The overreach comes in having an appointed judge coming in and overriding what the people have voted on.

I don't think the bans were necessary to begin with, but I also have a problem with the Amendments being assaulted by the courts. Separating the issue from the precedent is difficult for some, I know, but what's the next thing that activist courts are going to decide is unnecessary?

So.,...if the people introduce a bill that says...oh, let's say, says that you can't buy a non automatic automatic weapon, then the people have spoken and the government needs to listen since our founding fathers envisioned a participatory government...is that what you are saying?
 
 
Oh...I know...the the Supreme Court would rule that it's a violation of the second amendment.  It's kind of funny....the constitution also has an amendment that protects us from illegal seach and seizure, yet the Patriot Act got passed, which is a violation of at least 3 of those amendments, yet the courts remained mum.  

 

[Dog Wonder]

Why do you think the progressives want to get rid of that tattered old rag of a document and go by majority rule?

They are the majority?

 

[SparrowHawk]

So.,...if the people introduce a bill that says...oh, let's say, says that you can't buy a non automatic automatic weapon, then the people have spoken and the government needs to listen since our founding fathers envisioned a participatory government...is that what you are saying?
 
 
Oh...I know...the the Supreme Court would rule that it's a violation of the second amendment.  It's kind of funny....the constitution also has an amendment that protects us from illegal seach and seizure, yet the Patriot Act got passed, which is a violation of at least 3 of those amendments, yet the courts remained mum.  

People  Don't bring bills forward. Our Representatives do. That's why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
 
Courts have remained mute because a case has not been brought before them yet. You also need to look into "Administrative Searches"  which thanks to the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the so called "Administrative Searches" are legal which is how and why the TSA can do what it does.
 
We are fast approaching the level of Liberty of a third world banana republic. It's one of the reasons I'm looking to become an ex-pat and retire to a cheaper banana republic.

 

[KCFlyer]

People  Don't bring bills forward. Our Representatives do. That's why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
 
Courts have remained mute because a case has not been brought before them yet. You also need to look into "Administrative Searches"  which thanks to the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the so called "Administrative Searches" are legal which is how and why the TSA can do what it does.
 
We are fast approaching the level of Liberty of a third world banana republic. It's one of the reasons I'm looking to become an ex-pat and retire to a cheaper banana republic.

 
Yes...our representatives...the voice of their constituents.My point is....if "the people" told their representatives that they didn't want us to be able to have non automatic automatic weapons, and their representatives introduced that bill...and other representatives voted to agree with that...the day after a president signed it - the NRA would demand the supreme court hear the case.  But the Patriot act infringed on 6 of the 10 amendments in the bill of rights (thankfully, they stayed away from the second).  And not a peep from the constitutional scholars on this board.  Because after all....our forefathers could not have foreseen a terrorist threat, even though they WERE able to envision muskets firing hundreds of rounds per minute....or so I've heard. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The overreach comes in having an appointed judge coming in and overriding what the people have voted on.

You mean like gay marriage? 

 

[Ms Tree]

The over reach is in the government imposing laws on the people that violates the COTUS.  The 14th is quite clear that all laws must treat people equally.  The SCOTUS ruled that way on DOMA and the rest of the appellate courts followed.  
 
Would you be interested in putting some of your rights up to a vote?