Dems introduce HR Bill 5717 severely attacking 2nd Amendment rights

[Paladin3]

you are way in over your head! From the sound of your whimpering it sounds like you did not understand what you claim to have read!
Also for your information -- there is nothing unconstitutional about redefining what 2A actually means!
You can`t be against people needing a license to carry or own a gun....that is just common sense! After all in order to drive a car you need to be licensed!
I think what you are doing in criminal by crying foul when there is nothing to cry foul about....

Find me "the right of the people, to drive cars, shall not be infringed" in the constitution.

And by your reasoning it would be okay if I need a license to practice freedom of speech or freedom of the press or vote if I'm black. Or without a 1st amendment licence the government should be free to arrest anyone who speaks out against it? Do you even hear yourself?

And, yes, I do believe people have the right to own a gun AND carry it without government approval so long as they pass the universal background check and have done nothing to lose their 2A rights. My state has constitutional carry and that's EXACTLY how it works here. Many of us carry, some open, most concealed, on the street, into businesses and anywhere else we want. It's perfectly legal in my state and nobody bats an eyelash nor do we freak out nor are there shootouts in the street.

I got pulled over for forgetting to put my new registration sticker on and told the cop I had a 9mm pistol in a holster inside my pants on my right hip. She said thanks for letting her know, leave it in the holster and she'd do the same, then told me to have a nice day and put the sticker on as soon as I got home.

I grew up in Los Angeles and San Francisco. I worked as a newspaper photojournalist in the LA area for 13 years. I've seen plenty of crime in those urban areas and all the gun control measures in the world haven't stopped it so far. But they've done a pretty darn good job of disarming the lawful citizens and making it hard for them to protect themselves in even their own home. Let alone go plinking at the range or hunting.

I wasn't raised that any inanimate object was evil. A gun can be used for immense good or immense evil. I find it hypocritical that all our laws seem to do is make it hard on the lawful gun owners to own lawful guns for lawful purposes.

 

[Paladin3]

You are being ridiculous! The Government is allowed to regulate weapons such as gun and rifles...etc
"shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated".

By your reasoning we can therefor regulate the vote. I say anyone named after a Star Wars character is no longer allowed to vote.

 

[shortylickens]

By your reasoning we can therefor regulate the vote. I say anyone named after a Star Wars character is no longer allowed to vote.

 

[Paladin3]

This is nonsense. The constitution explicitly explains under what circumstances the right to vote can be removed, and clearly states that these are the only reasons it can be removed. It doesn't do that for the second amendment.

Additionally, the reason some constitutional rights should be protected over others is because some are better for society than others. The right to vote is clearly important for a democratic society. The right to own firearms is not. The second amendment was originally influenced by the early need in this country for European settlers to kill native Americans, keep slaves in check, and maintain a militia in case Great Britain attacked since we had no standing army at the time. None of those are particularly relevant any more.

And the purpose is to decrease the overall number of firearms in society because that will lead to a decrease in gun violence. A significant portion of gun violence is not premeditated. It is an act of passion. If there is a gun in the household, this can lead to a person being dead instead of just injured. Additionally, there are all the accidental shootings from firearms that aren't properly secured.

I'm not opposed to guns. I have a couple myself. But American's obsession with them is ridiculous.

That's right, because it says "shall not be infringed" regarding the right of the people to keep and bare arms. But we still agree to some restrictions, like the background check, keeping guns from felons, mentally ill and such and a whole bunch more.

But what HR 5717 proposed goes way to far. So much farther than the idiotic Republic attempts at passing mandatory voter ID laws do to infringe the right to vote. Dems are again proving that their ultimate goal is to put significant and burdensome requirements on lawful individuals from owning lawful guns for lawful purposes. They want to make it as hard as possible to simply own a gun, making it their decision via licencing gun owners as to whether you get to have one or not. It would no longer be a constitutional right. It would be a granted privlidge.

It's wrong with the republican/conservatives try to do it to rights they don't agree with. It's wrong when the democrats/liberals do it to rights they don't agree with.

And let's not forget that something like way over 99.9% of guns in civilian hands are never used, legally or illegally, to hurt anyone in any way. So the argument that guns only exist to kill and are therefore too dangerous to allow the average citizen to possess are B.S.

 

[ivwshane]

Can we institute a test to vote? Require a licence? If the answer is no then we can't require one for 2A gun rights unless you have committed a crime and lost those constitutional rights. Change the constitution or crap like proposed bill 5717 is unconstitutional.

I don't know why you guys think some constitutional rights are okay to fuck with and others a sacred. If you've got the votes and political will to change the constitution then go for it. Otherwise, respect ALL our constitutional rights.

EDIT: and if the goal is to reduce illegal gun violence, what sick/evil/criminal planning on committing murder is going to decide not to because he has to resort to illegal sources to obtain his weapon? The main purpose of this bill is to be a deterrent to lawful citizens obtaining lawful firearms for lawful purposes.

Once again you expose your ignorance. The reason we can’t have a test to vote is because it’s illegal as in there is an actual law against it. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, the voting rights act. Of course your republicans friends are doing the best they can to invalidate the voting rights acts and I’m sure you’ve created threads on it showing such disgust...lol of course you haven’t.

 

[shortylickens]

I'm gonna ask the mods if I can change my name to Atton Rand.

 

[JEDIYoda]

By your reasoning we can therefor regulate the vote. I say anyone named after a Star Wars character is no longer allowed to vote.
You are choosing the wrong thing to try to justify your fake outrage over this bill!!

your being ridiculous! The right to vote is way more important that the right to attack what mect said but chose not to because you know he was right, just as you know I am right!
But you are so TRIGGERED that you presently cannot think straight!
Ther eis a huge difference between regulation and the word infringed upon!
We do regulate people right to vote! It is done all the time -- We deny felons in some states the right to vote!
Since the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder in June, conservative governments in the South and elsewhere have raced to introduce new voting restrictions. Most prominent in the attacks is the comprehensive vote-restriction law passed by the Republican majority in the North Carolina legislature. The law cuts back early voting, restricts private groups from conducting voter-registration drives, eliminates election-day voter registration, and imposes the strictest voter ID rules in the country. There is evidence that Republican legislatures elsewhere will follow North Carolina's lead.
Neither the American people nor the federal courts would tolerate restrictions of this sort if they were imposed on free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, or freedom to petition government for redress of grievances. For that matter, many Southern states--and probably a majority of the Supreme Court--would reject far less onerous restrictions on the right to "keep and bear arms." Yet each of those rights is mentioned only once in the Constitution. The "right to vote" is mentioned five times--and yet the Court has brushed it aside as a privilege that states may observe at their convenience. Even an overwhelming majority of Congress--which is given the power to enforce the right in no fewer than four different places in the Constitution--cannot protect this right more strongly than the Court feels appropriate.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That's right, because it says "shall not be infringed" regarding the right of the people to keep and bare arms. But we still agree to some restrictions, like the background check, keeping guns from felons, mentally ill and such and a whole bunch more.

But what HR 5717 proposed goes way to far. So much farther than the idiotic Republic attempts at passing mandatory voter ID laws do to infringe the right to vote. Dems are again proving that their ultimate goal is to put significant and burdensome requirements on lawful individuals from owning lawful guns for lawful purposes. They want to make it as hard as possible to simply own a gun, making it their decision via licencing gun owners as to whether you get to have one or not. It would no longer be a constitutional right. It would be a granted privlidge.

It's wrong with the republican/conservatives try to do it to rights they don't agree with. It's wrong when the democrats/liberals do it to rights they don't agree with.

And let's not forget that something like way over 99.9% of guns in civilian hands are never used, legally or illegally, to hurt anyone in any way. So the argument that guns only exist to kill and are therefore too dangerous to allow the average citizen to possess are B.S.

*yawn*

 

[brycejones]

Oh good we needed a thread full of whining about muh guns to distract us from the looming deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens. You know like guns cause every year in this country.

Over/under for total words posted by the OP in this thread? I am going with 100k.

 

[Paladin3]

Once again you expose your ignorance. The reason we can’t have a test to vote is because it’s illegal as in there is an actual law against it. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, the voting rights act. Of course your republicans friends are doing the best they can to invalidate the voting rights acts and I’m sure you’ve created threads on it showing such disgust...lol of course you haven’t.

Do you really need me to start a thread about how non-existent voter ID fraud is? Or how Republicans only want to make it that much harder on poor voters who historically vote democratic? I think there has been a few already.

I'm more of a personal responsibility guy. I don't kill so leave my guns alone. When you figure out how to rid America of guns, please let me know. Making it hard on the lawful gun owners to own legal guns for lawful purposes hasn't done a damn thing to stop illegal gun violence, just like the 1993 assault weapons ban did noting and that was exactly why it could not be renewed after 10 years. 10 years on just that one ban and it did nothing! And now you want to do it again, double down on taking away the rights of the lawful in the idiotic belief that it will somehow stop criminals? Kind of like they keep trying to do with the war on drugs? Or remember prohibition?

When has the government EVER been able to keep something out of the hands of the public when they really want it? When has any prohibition ever done more than keep that item out of the hands of the lawful who willingly give it up? The lawful aren't the problem.

Or just tell me I'm a dirty republican and ignore the truth. Keep lying to yourself that disarming the lawful will disarm the criminal by osmosis. Remember, according to FBI statistics for 2013, over 99.92% of civilian owned guns didn't hurt a fly. Well, maybe a few deer and such. There are several other common legal items I wish had such a safety record. So your whole premise that guns are too dangerous for civilians to have is just plain B.S.

 

[Paladin3]

*yawn*

Oh good we needed a thread full of whining about muh guns to distract us from the looming deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens. You know like guns cause every year in this country.

Over/under for total words posted by the OP in this thread? I am going with 100k.

Such compelling rebuttals. If you guys are basically going to tell me I'm full of shit, but can't come up with anything more than this, I consider it your concession over the debate.

EDIT: but in the end it doesn't really matter. This bill, and that's all it is a bill that is still in committee, or been proposed for committee consideration, I can't remember which, won't go anywhere. And if it does it will be struck down as unconstitutional if Trump does even sign it.

There isn't the political or public will to overturn the 2nd Amendment at present, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. In fact, there are lots first time gun owners in liberal states trying to buy guns who are getting slapped in the face with the current restrictions. And a lot of them are pissed. Right now I'd say there are more folks interested in practicing their 2A rights than in a long time.

 

[ivwshane]

Do you really need me to start a thread about how non-existent voter ID fraud is? Or how Republicans only want to make it that much harder on poor voters who historically vote democratic? I think there has been a few already.

I'm more of a personal responsibility guy. I don't kill so leave my guns alone. When you figure out how to rid America of guns, please let me know. Making it hard on the lawful gun owners to own legal guns for lawful purposes hasn't done a damn thing to stop illegal gun violence, just like the 1993 assault weapons ban did noting and that was exactly why it could not be renewed after 10 years. 10 years on just that one ban and it did nothing! And now you want to do it again, double down on taking away the rights of the lawful in the idiotic belief that it will somehow stop criminals? Kind of like they keep trying to do with the war on drugs? Or remember prohibition?

When has the government EVER been able to keep something out of the hands of the public when they really want it? When has any prohibition ever done more than keep that item out of the hands of the lawful who willingly give it up? The lawful aren't the problem.

Or just tell me I'm a dirty republican and ignore the truth. Keep lying to yourself that disarming the lawful will disarm the criminal by osmosis. Remember, according to FBI statistics for 2013, over 99.92% of civilian owned guns didn't hurt a fly. Well, maybe a few deer and such. There are several other common legal items I wish had such a safety record. So your whole premise that guns are too dangerous for civilians to have is just plain B.S.

The government has banned and removed many things from the public that are bad for the public.

Gun nutter fail.

 

[ivwshane]

Such compelling rebuttals. If you guys are basically going to tell me I'm full of shit, but can't come up with anything more than this, I consider it your concession over the debate.

We gave you plenty of reasons why you are full of shit but you are either too stupid to see it or you simply ignored them, just like you do in every gun thread you create or participate in.

Maybe you should hang out on some nazi forums, I hear they are super into the 2nd amendment as well, maybe there you’ll get the kind of discussion you’ve been yearning for since 2004.

 

[Paladin3]

The government has banned and removed many things from the public that are bad for the public.

Gun nutter fail.

Just like alcohol, prostitution, gambling and drugs. What else have they been successful at keeping away from the public when the item was in demand?

 

[Paladin3]

We gave you plenty of reasons why you are full of shit but you are either too stupid to see it or you simply ignored them, just like you do in every gun thread you create or participate in.

Maybe you should hang out on some nazi forums, I hear they are super into the 2nd amendment as well, maybe there you’ll get the kind of discussion you’ve been yearning for since 2004.

Ah, the Nazi Hail Mary. You must be desperate to pull that one out and it's only page 2 of the thread.

 

[ivwshane]

Ah, the nazi hail marry. Must be desperate to pull that one out and it's only page 2 of the thread.

Nah, I just know what you are into and feel you’d be more at home there. Not because you are a nazi (or racist) but because you are a gun nutter with a serious unhealthy fetish for guns.

 

[ivwshane]

Just like alcohol, prostitution, gambling and drugs. What else have they been successful at keeping away from the public when the item was in demand?

Haha, did you notice the goal posts you moved? I did.

 

[Paladin3]

Haha, did you notice the goal posts you moved? I did.

I didn't move shit. Folks who thought they knew what was best for others have at one time or another tried to prohibit all those things and much more. The war on drugs has been a dangerous failure that has done nothing but damage to this country. What makes you think something like this proposed bill would be any different?

Totally ignoring the constitutionality of the act, how would you enforce such a ban on those who are actually the problem? The plain truth is you can't, so the only people you would be disarming are lawful gun owners using lawful guns for lawful purposes. This bill totally ignores that the 2A is standing in the way. And even if we strike the 2A down, it still totally ignores that murderers will simply give us all the finger and get their guns from illegal means, like they usually do.

Oh, and at some point someone accused me of not wanting to give up my right to kill, or something like that. Fuck you. Demanding my constitutional gun rights is not the same thing as thinking I have a right or want to kill. My father gave me my first gun at the age of 12 and have owned them my entire life and I have never used them other than lawfully.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to my post choose one of the following:

1. Straw man argument!
2. Nazi bastard!
3. You are statistically less safe with a gun in your home (der, der, give it up before you hurt yourself or someone else with it.)

 

[KMFJD]

sounds reasonable,. i can see why some people are angry

 

[TheVrolok]

A classic piece.

Won't work!

People are the problem!

 

[shortylickens]

We gave you plenty of reasons why you are full of shit but you are either too stupid to see it or you simply ignored them, just like you do in every gun thread you create or participate in.

Maybe you should hang out on some nazi forums, I hear they are super into the 2nd amendment as well, maybe there you’ll get the kind of discussion you’ve been yearning for since 2004.

Which is ironic because the real nazis were disarmers.

Disarmament of the German Jews - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[allisolm]

If it's overly burdensome to expect voters to produce a state issued photo ID card to prove their identity when they vote (which I agree it is, but that's not the point) then how can it be fine to expect what this bill proposed be required for a citizen to practice their 2A rights?

A total of 36 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls.

I live in FL and have to produce a photo ID every time I vote. That has been in effect since 1977 without being considered "overly burdensome".

 

[fskimospy]

Trying to compare the requirements for various rights to be exercised is silliness so comparing voter ID to gun requirements is a bad idea.

Would you say all the government has to do to quarter soldiers in your house is have them show ID?

 

[Paratus]

Can we institute a test to vote? Require a licence? If the answer is no then we can't require one for 2A gun rights unless you have committed a crime and lost those constitutional rights. Change the constitution or crap like proposed bill 5717 is unconstitutional.

I don't know why you guys think some constitutional rights are okay to fuck with and others a sacred. If you've got the votes and political will to change the constitution then go for it. Otherwise, respect ALL our constitutional rights.

EDIT: and if the goal is to reduce illegal gun violence, what sick/evil/criminal planning on committing murder is going to decide not to because he has to resort to illegal sources to obtain his weapon? The main purpose of this bill is to be a deterrent to lawful citizens obtaining lawful firearms for lawful purposes.

Ooh!

So we can register you with the state to buy guns like you register with the state to vote.

And we can restrict you to buying guns to the first Tuesday of November each year like voting. (Ammo would be during primary season).

You’d be fine with that since those are regulations we put on voting?

or maybe voting and gun rights are different and should regulated (well regulated) differently.

 

[shortylickens]

Trying to compare the requirements for various rights to be exercised is silliness so comparing voter ID to gun requirements is a bad idea.

Would you say all the government has to do to quarter soldiers in your house is have them show ID?

Theres nothing in the constitution (Bill of Rights) that says its ok to station troops in your home so long as theres I.D.
The problem with the 2nd Amendment is it uses the word Infringed and NOBODY in American agree exactly what that means. Its just way too open.
Ditto privacy and due process. there's too much leeway and that's why we have the so-called Patriot Act, which is distinctly not patriotic and lets Uncle Sam get away with loads of bullshit.