In the wake of the devastating Parkland shooting, teenage survivors from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School harnessed the power of grass-roots democracy to push for change. Students and voters across the nation stood with them — and got results. Since the February shooting, 26 states have passed more than 50 new gun safety laws.
Kavanaugh isn’t use to men holding out their hands to him, without some money in them for him.
Gee imagine that, using the constitution to determine what is constitutional.
Well in the “Context of Early American history” , Blacks had no “right to bear arms”. As a Originalist will Mr Kavanaugh claim the same should be true today?
So one can assume you and Kavanaugh have no problem with convicted felons retaining their gun ownership rights ?
No, not sure how you jump to that conclusion.
Re: “Laws that regulate access to assault-style weapons — far more lethal than anything our Founding Fathers could have imagined”
There were harbingers of modern firearms in the 1700’s - to name a few; the 1718 Puckle gun, the 1757 Ferguson Rifle, and the 1781 Giordani Rifle.that was carried by the Lewis and Clarke expedition commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson who was very familiar with the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights
Re: " Kavanaugh’s extreme take on the Second Amendment"
@CommonDreams… The purpose or “take on” the Second Amendment is clearly stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights where it says “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private ownership of weapons and the militia was equally matched with the Continental Army. After all, if they weren’t equally matched, it would be pretty hard to deter or prevent a “misconstruction or abuse, of the government’s powers” - so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military. Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just compromise to accommodate the people who - for whatever reason - don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. History has shown that no matter how much we compromise, it’s never enough so we need to stop compromising.
Re: " Today, our communities are threatened by progressively deadlier shootings"
@CommonDreams… According to the CDC in 2015 there were about 12979 people murdered with firearms in the US which works out to about 35 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 321 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 25,000 people being murdered by a firearm and about 1 person out of every 923,000 (FBI data) being murdered with a rifle which includes so called “assault rifles”. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 25,000 or 923,000 people and you will realize these events are rare. It is also estimated there are about 109 million gun owners and 20 million “assault style” weapon owners in the US which means on any given day 108,999,965 gun owners didn’t kill anyone nor did 19,999,965 “assault style” weapon owners - yet because the news media magnifies these relatively isolated and infrequent events to the level of an epidemic, the anti-gun folks answer is to restrict or take the guns away from people who harmed no one. The number of homicides with a firearm will never be zero - so if you think 1 person out of 25,000 or 923,000 is unacceptable then given the fact that deranged individuals and murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race and we currently live in a free society, what number of illegal firearm homicides would ever be acceptable to you to the point you would say “we don’t need any more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms”?
Re: " respect that gun rights go hand-in-hand with the responsibility to follow the law"
@CommonDreams… They do go “hand-in-hand”. If you misuse a firearm or kill someone illegally you can be denied your right to own any firearms and be incarcerated or executed.
Re: " including the reasonable regulations"
@CommonDreams…In 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1994 I suspect similar arguments were made for “reasonable regulations” when more restrictive gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations derived from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of sitting quietly and accepting a new barrage. The problem is the real agenda of the people who are leading the charge for more gun control is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) hold the world record for killing people that don’t agree with them. The reality is implementing expanded background checks or banning semi-automatic rifles (like the AR) or standard capacity magazines has nothing to do with keeping the people safe - it’s about using a horrific crimes like school shootings to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government would have the option to do what ever they please.
Re: " majority of Americans and gun owners support."
@CommonDreams…Polls where large numbers of people support laws like “universal background checks” ask questions like “Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gunbuyers “? That is not the same question that is relevant with regard to the laws that are actually proposed like the federal gun legislation that failed to pass the US Senate in 2013. The relevant poll question in that case would have been “do you support or oppose US Senate Bill 649 or any of its amendments”? Read the bill (SB-649) and the amendments. The title of the bill is word doctored to be innocuous but the devil is in the details and what was being proposed as part of the background check process was a litany of vague, abstruse and onerous restrictions on friends and family members that could trip them up and subject them to intimidation and entrapment by overzealous and unscrupulous authorities who are aligned with an anti-gun agenda. In addition, the hastily written Toomey amendment was worded in such a way that existing gun laws that currently protect gun owners (like a prohibiting a registry) could be circumvented by the President simply having the BATF report to DHS instead of the Attorney General.
There’s nothing in the 2nd amend., that I know of, removing gun rights from felons. Since you believe the constitution, not public safety, should decide what is constitutional, I concluded you would be on board with my statement. It’s a straight forward statement, unless you’re comment was a snark.
The fact that not one senator that I know of, wasn’t outraged by Mr. Kavanaugh’s refusal to shake the out stretched hand of Mr. Guttenberg’s, who lost his daughter to gun violence… should tell us where they stand!
The fact that security interrupted the stalker before he even got a chance to get near Kavanaugh to shake his hand has nothing to do with your fake news, eh.
You do know about the 14th Amendment, eh. Oh… perhaps you don’t.
And you do know that every Amendment carries with it the same authority and impact as the original Constitution? Perhaps you don’t know that either.
All ponyboy has, apparently. And they wonder why they got Trump.
Kavanaugh is also being heralded by gun groups for supporting the pro-Second Amendment Heller decision. But Kavanaugh himself said that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms could be regulated and restricted by State and Federal law as long as these regulations and restrictions did not take away the right (the Second Amendment) completely. That’s hardly a strong pro-Second Amendment position. The Deep State(CFR) doesn’t care about the protestations (or the agendas) of the left or the right. All it cares about is putting people in power that they can control—and Kavanaugh fits that job description perfectly.
The Deep State doesn’t care about the protestations (or the agendas) of the left or the right. All it cares about is putting people in power that they can control—and Kavanaugh fits that job description perfectly.
You’re so called stalker was invited to the event. I see you just joined in time for you’re snarky comments, nice.
Interesting, I never looked at it that way. nonetheless, barring felons from possessing arms is a forfeiture of their rights (after due process), not an infringement…