Posted on 01/19/2019 5:17:45 AM PST by marktwain
“...Courts should be able to convict people of being “a danger to themselves or others”-level of crazy, and put away....”
And even THAT is a slippery slope. A free society is risky, but worth it, IMHO. What you suggest will end up being done, no doubt, but mass shootings by lunatics is but a small, yet overly publicized problem. The biggest murder problem in this country, with and without firearms, is with the inner city black population. Until the cause of this pathetic situation is throttled we will not bring the nation’s overall homicide rates to what should actually be expected of such an advanced society.
Black lives DO matter, and as a nation we need to address this problem of SUPER-high abortion and homicide rates in the inner city black population. In a fair analysis of world wide crime statistics, the ownership of firearms, especially the misnomered “assault weapons”, is statistically unmentionable as a factor in death rates.
Addressing anything else before this abysmal factor is no more than lip service toward this public safety issue.
“It appears he is not “a zealot” for the 2nd Amendment but does believe in its original intent.”
I don’t believe he understands the original intent, as the original intent had nothing to do with self defense, it had everything to do with being able to overthrow a tyrannical government.
The next chapter in gun control will be through ballot initiatives, not congressional legislation. Put an assault weapons ban on the ballot and every minivan-driving soccer mom will vote for it.
You wan't to get out the conservative vote, plus many Independents and Dem's?
Put an anti-gun initiative on the ballot.
Have you EVER seen one?
Anti-gun stuff will come through commie state legislation.
Watch Colorado and learn.
William P. Barr: "And so there is no question under Heller that the right to have weapons, firearms, is protected under the Second Amendment and is a personal right. At the same time there is room for reasonable regulation [??? emphasis added]."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
In our constitutional republic, the feds are obligated to reasonably justify any official action with an express constitutional power delegated to it by the states.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
If the feds cannot justify a given law then the law is unconstitutional imo.
Although the feds have the specific constitutional power to regulate military related arms, there is no express delegation of power to regulate peacetime civil arms imo.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that, until the ratification of the 14th Amendment (14A), the states had never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to make peacetime civil penal laws, not even to deal with murder.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphasis added].”—Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See bottom half of third column.)
From the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Note that the Supreme Court had clarified in Minor v. Happersett that 14A gives the feds the power only to protect citizens’ constitutionally enumerated protections from abridgment by the states.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, note that the congressional record shows that Bingham had included the 2nd Amendment (2A) when he read the Bill of Rights as examples of personal protections that 14A applies to the states.
John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See 2nd Amendment about in middle of 2nd column.)
Ironically, regarding federal civil gun laws, the Supreme Court's clarification of 14A means that the feds have only the narrow power to make gun-related laws to STRENGTHEN 2A from abridgment by state actors imo.
Despite Bingham's clarification of Congress's 14A power to strengthen 2nd Amendment protections, it is disturbing that civil gun laws seem to have started appearing in the federal books during the time of the FDR Administration, FDR and the congress at the time infamous for making laws that greatly overstepped the fed's constitutionally limited powers.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government …
Patriots need to support PDJT by electing a patriot congress in 2020 elections that will not only support PDJT's vision for MAGA, but will also remove unconstitutional federal laws from the books, especially civil gun-control laws.
PDJT will also need to work with Congress to decide the fate of people in prison for breaking federal laws that the post-17th Amendment ratification feds never had the express constitutional authority to make.
“Arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put.”
Arrant, not errant, but Churchill probably never said it anyway.
Did you check that out with snopes.com?
No, just a few of the quotation-verification sites. I don’t trust Snopes for much of anything.
Me neither.
The major cause of the high violence level comes from the number of "inner city" residents involved in drug trafficking and other criminal activities, rather than working regular jobs.
Why? Because "gangstas" are seen as more sexy and more likely to get laid, than being a fast-food manager.
Women who have the financial security assured by the welfare state have much less of an incentive to prefer a guy with a stable, legal job.
Eliminate welfare, and women will suddenly see more of a need for marrying a guy with a stable (even if low-paying) job, than being the girlfriend of a gangsta who may be in jail or dead in a few months.
Create an incentive for guys having stable, legal jobs, and guys will prefer stable, legal jobs.
One of the silliest things I ever saw on Snopes was an assertion that the horse in Mr. Ed was actually a zebra, and that the stripes didn’t show up because the show was in black and white. I am not making that up.
I concur on every point. Welfare needs to be throttled!
But as you and I both know, we can’t approach this problem because we are racists.
We got to get this political correctness in the punch bowl flushed down the toilet with the other turds.
Super. We should not be surprised.
Harvard English Department, among others, once quoted it as legitimately attributable to Winston Churchill.
The most accepted version is: “This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.”
It apparently originates from The Strand in 1942, and was attributed to Churchill by The Montreal Gazette in 1945.
I personally doubt it first came from Churchill himself as stated; nevertheless, whoever started it was mistaken.
The mistake that the originator made, and many still make, is in classifying a specific word as a preposition.
A preposition is a Part of Speech, not a particular word. Some words only function as a preposition in Standard English; therein lies the confusion.
In the above statement, the word, up, is not functioning as a preposition, but as an adverb; it is modifying the verb, put: put where? put up!
The correct way to write the above is: This is the type of errant pedantry with which I will not put up. That may still be considered stodgy by some, but not egregiously so.
Churchill - if it was Churchill - was wrong; Harvard was wrong: The attributed statement does not properly expose the awkwardness (and thus the presumed invalidity) of the Ending Preposition Rule because it does not even properly apply it.
I know of what I write. (There: How was that?)
OK, whatever. The sites I looked at could not definitely attribute it to Churchill.
It should still be “arrant”, not “errant”.
OK, whatever. The sites I looked at could not definitely attribute it to Churchill.
I still say it should still be “arrant”, not “errant”.
Sorry about the double post yesterday. I must have hit the Post button before deciding to make clear that the choice of “arrant” over “errant” was my opinion and not necessarily indisputable. Then I never looked at the thread again that evening.
1. I wrote above: “I personally doubt it first came from Churchill...”
2. I am inclined to agree on arrent versus errant; however, that is ancillary to the main point I was addressing, and all the quotations I have seen use errant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.