Page 28 of 58 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 578

Thread: Beto O'Rourke: "Hell yes, we're going to take your" assault weapon

  1. #271
    Site Supporter JRV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by jtcarm View Post
    I’d love to take credit for this reply to the “why do you need that?” question but I can’t, and I don’t even know who came up with it:

    “Its a Bill Of Rights, not a Bill Of Needs.”
    I'm on a tangent here, but this is relevant to the terrible civics education in our country.

    The Bill of Rights doesn't empower anyone to do anything. None of us have affirmative Constitutional rights empowering us to speak freely, to dissent politically, to assemble, to practice religion, or to bear arms for self defense.

    The Bill of Rights commands the government to respect innate human rights by not imposing arbitrary limits on them. The First Amendment doesn't say "citizen, you can speak!" -- it says Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom to speak. The Second Amendment doesn't give us a right to bear arms of any kind, it says Congress shall not infringe the right to protect ourselves and our communities with arms.

    The Bill of Rights are explicit limits on government that were the conditions precedent for the ratification of the Constitution.

    So, it's not really a "Bill of Rights versus Bill of Needs" issue. Your ability to possess an AR is not granted by the Bill of Rights, or even relevant to it. If we abolish the First or Second Amendment, God forbid, your rights as a human being don't change.

    You have a natural human right to protect your family and your neighbors from being rounded up like the Japanese in the 40s, and you have a right to repel and abolish any government that would attempt to do the same with effective bearable arms.

    ETA: So, I guess the proper response to "you don't need that AR" is, "Someday I might. Someday you might. And, the government is constitutionally barred from deciding otherwise."
    Last edited by JRV; 10-16-2019 at 03:04 PM.
    Well, you may be a man. You may be a leprechaun. Only one thing’s for sure… you’re in the wrong basement.

  2. #272
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Amp View Post
    Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said "there have to be consequences" for gun owners who do not surrender their AR-15s, which would include police going to their homes and confiscating them.

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/julior...-by-l-n2554826
    He should trot some of those people out on stage who would commit to doing this, so we can know who some of the other traitors are. I think there are way fewer than Robert Francis would need to pull off his confiscation. Way too few, in fact.
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

  3. #273
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Castro put Beto down on confiscation by saying that he (Castro) didn't see the need for another reason for police to search minority and poorer communities, perhaps leading to mistaken and tragic shootings as in Fort Worth.

    Independent of what you think of him, it's a pretty good talking point. Will the black wagons roll into the gate elite communities and execute no knock warrants. Will folks be busted in some other bad stuff (drugs) are found? I can really see that happening in the Dominion in San Antonio as compared to some poor bastard on the South Side. How's Beto going to know whom to raid?

    What an idiot.

    Did you note that Kamala will stop import of assault weapons. Huh - don't they make them here? Biden mentions that he passed the AWB bill that cut crime and got them off the street. Except as I posted above that has no reality as compared to what happened after the bill.

  4. #274
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canton GA
    As an Indian, Warren should be concerned about only the Government owning weapons of war. Did she speak up?

  5. #275
    Site Supporter JohnO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    CT (behind Enemy lines)
    Quote Originally Posted by ranger View Post
    As an Indian, Warren should be concerned about only the Government owning weapons of war. Did she speak up?
    Squaw speak'um with forked tongue!

  6. #276
    Four String Fumbler Joe in PNG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Papua New Guinea; formerly Florida
    At this point, Robert's role in the Dem debates is to be the Official Kook, a Washington Generals type ringer so the other candidates have someone to throw zingers at, and distance themselves from his Out Of Mainstream views.
    "You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
    "I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI

  7. #277
    Member jtcarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Texas Cross Timbers
    Quote Originally Posted by JRV View Post
    I'm on a tangent here, but this is relevant to the terrible civics education in our country.

    The Bill of Rights doesn't empower anyone to do anything. None of us have affirmative Constitutional rights empowering us to speak freely, to dissent politically, to assemble, to practice religion, or to bear arms for self defense.

    The Bill of Rights commands the government to respect innate human rights by not imposing arbitrary limits on them. The First Amendment doesn't say "citizen, you can speak!" -- it says Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom to speak. The Second Amendment doesn't give us a right to bear arms of any kind, it says Congress shall not infringe the right to protect ourselves and our communities with arms.

    The Bill of Rights are explicit limits on government that were the conditions precedent for the ratification of the Constitution.

    So, it's not really a "Bill of Rights versus Bill of Needs" issue. Your ability to possess an AR is not granted by the Bill of Rights, or even relevant to it. If we abolish the First or Second Amendment, God forbid, your rights as a human being don't change.

    You have a natural human right to protect your family and your neighbors from being rounded up like the Japanese in the 40s, and you have a right to repel and abolish any government that would attempt to do the same with effective bearable arms.

    ETA: So, I guess the proper response to "you don't need that AR" is, "Someday I might. Someday you might. And, the government is constitutionally barred from deciding otherwise."
    Yes, I’m well aware of that.

    I often think the Bill Of Rights turned out to be a bad idea, because it seems to have lead to modern interpretation that’s opposite of what the constitution really is.

    The Federalists argued that it wasn’t necessary, for the very reasons you state: the Constitution states what the Federal government can do, not what citizens and states are allowed to do.

    The only real rights granted by the constitution are the powers granted to government in the original seven articles.

    Even a former Supreme Court Justice, J.P. Stevens commented that gun control laws couldn’t be passed without repealing 2A.

    Its truly disturbing that a member of the nations highest court would either hold that view, or make such a statement knowing it to be false.

    Not only would 2A have to be repealed, but a new amendment passed to give govt the power to control guns (a power it’s already illegitimately claimed). None of the seven articles say the government may ban weapons it deems inappropriate.

    So yes, we need to reframe the debate from “2A allows us to own guns” to “the constitution doesn’t allow government to ban or confiscate then.”

  8. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by jtcarm View Post

    Even a former Supreme Court Justice, J.P. Stevens commented that gun control laws couldn’t be passed without repealing 2A.

    Its truly disturbing that a member of the nations highest court would either hold that view, or make such a statement knowing it to be false.

    Not only would 2A have to be repealed, but a new amendment passed to give govt the power to control guns (a power it’s already illegitimately claimed). None of the seven articles say the government may ban weapons it deems inappropriate.

    So yes, we need to reframe the debate from “2A allows us to own guns” to “the constitution doesn’t allow government to ban or confiscate then.”
    That certainly explains why Stevens has taken that position in recent articles that I've seen in NRA publications. It is equally heartening to know that even some rabid Liberals realize that there are tremendous legal hurdles to outright usurpation of the 2A and the draconian measures (confiscation, door-to-door seizures, etc.) being proposed by most of the Democratic-Socialist field of presidential hopefuls.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  9. #279
    Site Supporter JRV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by jtcarm View Post
    Even a former Supreme Court Justice, J.P. Stevens commented that gun control laws couldn’t be passed without repealing 2A.

    Its truly disturbing that a member of the nations highest court would either hold that view, or make such a statement knowing it to be false.

    Not only would 2A have to be repealed, but a new amendment passed to give govt the power to control guns (a power it’s already illegitimately claimed). None of the seven articles say the government may ban weapons it deems inappropriate.

    So yes, we need to reframe the debate from “2A allows us to own guns” to “the constitution doesn’t allow government to ban or confiscate then.”
    This interpretation of the empowering Clauses of the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. VIII) is generally accurate, but it ignores the general police powers of the States and also the other powers under which the Federal Government is empowered to pass laws, such as tax and commerce.

    If the 2A is repealed, Congress would need no additional empowering clause to pass laws under the Commerce Clause highly regulating or shutting down the transfer or production of firearms between the States or even within the States (Wickard). Congress could also tax the right into oblivion.

    Notwithstanding federal action, if 2A is repealed, it is no longer incorporated against the States through McDonald, so the States could regulate or ban firearms within the limits of their own State Constitutions.

    Both of those outcomes, as I stated previously, would be a summary denial of the human right to protect one's own person, their family, and their community with effective means. A government willing to take those steps must be corrected or abolished.

    Finally, the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to enshrine protections for certain individual rights in order to remove the general debate of those rights from public discourse. Without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would never have been ratified by the requisite number of states. America would not exist.

    Any call to repeal (not to debate scope or meaning, but to repeal) any of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution is a call to abolish the foundations of the Constitution itself, and it should be considered an call to incite war against the sovereignty held by the American people acknowledged in the Constitution.
    Well, you may be a man. You may be a leprechaun. Only one thing’s for sure… you’re in the wrong basement.

  10. #280
    Site Supporter JohnO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    CT (behind Enemy lines)
    Quote Originally Posted by jtcarm View Post
    Yes, I’m well aware of that.

    I often think the Bill Of Rights turned out to be a bad idea, because it seems to have lead to modern interpretation that’s opposite of what the constitution really is.

    The Federalists argued that it wasn’t necessary, for the very reasons you state: the Constitution states what the Federal government can do, not what citizens and states are allowed to do.

    The only real rights granted by the constitution are the powers granted to government in the original seven articles.

    Even a former Supreme Court Justice, J.P. Stevens commented that gun control laws couldn’t be passed without repealing 2A.

    Its truly disturbing that a member of the nations highest court would either hold that view, or make such a statement knowing it to be false.

    Not only would 2A have to be repealed, but a new amendment passed to give govt the power to control guns (a power it’s already illegitimately claimed). None of the seven articles say the government may ban weapons it deems inappropriate.

    So yes, we need to reframe the debate from “2A allows us to own guns” to “the constitution doesn’t allow government to ban or confiscate then.”

    Yes, emphatically!

    The notion that the People's Natural Rights come from a piece of paper is dead wrong. I believe the framers who believed in the Bill of Rights attempted to appease the Federalists who resisted enumerating Rights with the 9th Amendment.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Today we live in a society populated by far too many poorly educated people who believe just about anything feed to them. Those with nefarious agendas will take advantage of the ignorance. Shame on Justice Stevens.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •