Thread: It's Happening!! Confiscation and Door to Door Compliance Checks

Originally Posted by Judy

a right that shall not be infringed.

You ignore the first line of the Second Amendment which states the purpose of the Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". It isn't about everybody being an army of one! At the time that Amendment was written, this country had no standing military. So it was dependent on citizens bringing their own arms to be part of the militia to defend their country.

HUNDREDS OF GUNS, 30,000 ROUNDS OF AMMO CONFISCATED IN FLORIDA

More than 5,100 guns seized by Chicago PD so far in 2018

Originally Posted by jtdc

You ignore the first line of the Second Amendment which states the purpose of the Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". It isn't about everybody being an army of one! At the time that Amendment was written, this country had no standing military. So it was dependent on citizens bringing their own arms to be part of the militia to defend their country.

LOL!! No, the Second Amendment isn't about the "country" or "citizens", it's about the right of the people (persons, citizen or not) to keep and bears arms (possess and carry, own or not) to secure themselves (the people) in a "free State".

Originally Posted by Judy

No, the Second Amendment isn't about the "country" or "citizens", it's about the right of the people (persons, citizen or not) to keep and bears arms (possess and carry, own or not) to secure themselves (the people) in a "free State".

So I was correct, you ignore all the words that don't support what you want it to say!

The Second Amendment doesn't say:

The security of the people, being necessary for defense against criminals, other citizens, foreigners and the government of the United States, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So it does not seem to be about individual's rights to self protection!

Originally Posted by jtdc

So I was correct, you ignore all the words that don't support what you want it to say!

The Second Amendment doesn't say:

The security of the people, being necessary for defense against criminals, other citizens, foreigners and the government of the United States, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So it does not seem to be about individual's rights to self protection!

LOL!! No one said it said that. It's about the rights of States to be free, i. e. "free State". A state can take your gun away, a city can take your gun away, but the federal government can't take your gun away and lock you up for "possession of a gun", because of the Second Amendment. This really isn't complicated stuff, yet you .... struggle. SAD!!

Originally Posted by Judy

No one said it said that.

Some gun-nuts I have talked to said that is exactly what it was, the right for individual to rise up against our government if they thought it was "oppressive".

Originally Posted by Judy

It's about the rights of States to be free, i. e. "free State".

Wow! Judy can change colors just like a chameleon! She can take whatever position she feels like changing to.

Now the Amendments were protecting state's right. And here I thought it was the rights of the people.

Originally Posted by Judy

A state can take your gun away, a city can take your gun away, but the federal government can't take your gun away and lock you up for "possession of a gun", because of the Second Amendment.

So per Judy's interpretations, California is completely within its rights to confiscate weapons door to door! A lot of NRA members are probably lining up by your front door to protest!

Most of the lawsuits have been over states/cities trying to take guns away. And the defense is the Second Amendment saying they can't do that!

Originally Posted by Judy

This really isn't complicated stuff

It didn't seem so before you tried to explain it. So an illegal alien can carry a gun, unless he is in a state. The state can confiscate all guns, according to Judy's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by jtdc

Some gun-nuts I have talked to said that is exactly what it was, the right for individual to rise up against our government if they thought it was "oppressive".

Wow! Judy can change colors just like a chameleon! She can take whatever position she feels like changing to.

Now the Amendments were protecting state's right. And here I thought it was the rights of the people.

So per Judy's interpretations, California is completely within its rights to confiscate weapons door to door! A lot of NRA members are probably lining up by your front door to protest!

Most of the lawsuits have been over states/cities trying to take guns away. And the defense is the Second Amendment saying they can't do that!

It didn't seem so before you tried to explain it. So an illegal alien can carry a gun, unless he is in a state. The state can confiscate all guns, according to Judy's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

No, they can't "confiscate" your gun if you own the gun. Confiscation is theft by the government and completely illegal. Cities, counties and states have from time to time and over time over many years regulated the sale, possession and use of guns in the name of peace and safety in public and commercial places and as such can hold your gun while you're in the public or commercial place until you leave or bar you from the facility or location. For as long as I know, if you are not from the state, you can also have difficulty moving your guns into that state. Personally, I think the states have gone overboard in the number and complexity of their state gun laws. It may be that they are approaching violating the underlying purpose of the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to the right of the people to keep and bear arms and it appears from patbrunz article that some states in response to school shootings are crossing the line.

For example, the US Supreme Court in its famous Heller Case decision ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the District of Columbia was protected by the 2nd Amendment and the DC handgun ban was unconstitutional. I agree with that decision. I also believe that a "free State" becomes impossible without the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is what the 2nd Amendment is outlining as "necessary to the security of a free State" for those of you who don't understand why you're a free person or what secured that freedom for you, which in fact was the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

So what is your position? Do you support the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Do you believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a "free State"? What does the term "free State" mean to you? Is it the land? Or is it the land of a state and the free people in the state on the land? Does the word "free" refer to the State of land or does it refer to the free people on the land of the State? I think it refers to the freedom of the people in the state on the land within the boundaries of the State. How can you be free if you can't keep and bear arms to defend yourself, your family, your property, your neighbors, your city, your county or your State?

Gun control advocates are authoritarian lunatics. They're scared little wild-eyed, hair-on-fire, tin-foil hat weenies who want the government to do everything for them, then sit back in their arm-chairs after a hard day at McDonald's play station with the grandchildren sucking on a smoothie through a paper straw whining about how much government costs.

Now, to be absolutely clear, I have absolutely nothing against McDonald's, play stations, grandchildren, paper straws or arm-chairs.

I am opposed to gun control, with the exception of regulations for the sale and manufacture for quality and safe performance and age requirements to purchase a gun commercially. I am opposed to gun registration, concealed carry permits, waiting periods, federal or other background checks and gun bans as conditions to purchasing a firearm. I support any requirement that commercial and other sellers keep records of who they sold the guns and ammo to for criminal investigations, but it should not be in a government database.

An illegal alien like any person in the US should be able to possess a gun in any state where he is. If there is a state law that prohibits him or her from having a gun for some reason, then that is an issue to take up with the State depriving him. However, the illegal alien in the other article facing a 10 year sentence for violating a FEDERAL law depriving him of the right to possess a gun is an unconstitutional situation, because it violates the 2nd Amendment, and I hope he wins his case. In the meantime, he should be immediately deported and deal with his lawsuit from afar in his home country.

Originally Posted by Judy

No, they can't "confiscate" your gun if you own the gun.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Police confiscate guns all the time. I had a neighbor who had a felony when he was 16. Although it had been expunged, the FBI database still had the felony listed. A disgruntled neighbor told police that he had guns. They arrested him, as a felon in possession of guns, and confiscated the guns, which he and his wife owned. After they found no record of the felony, they gave him back the guns and released him. So you are full of it!

Originally Posted by Judy

It may be that they are approaching violating the underlying purpose of the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to the right of the people to keep and bear arms and it appears from patbrunz article that some states in response to school shootings are crossing the line.

So your claim that the Constitutional Amendments are protection of state's right was pure baloney! The first ten Amendments are referred to as the Bill Of Rights of the people, not the states. And when states come up with these laws, they are challenged in Federal Court on the Constitutionality of their state law.

Originally Posted by Judy

For example, the US Supreme Court in its famous Heller Case decision ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the District of Columbia was protected by the 2nd Amendment and the DC handgun ban was unconstitutional.

CORRECT! The people's rights are protected by the Second Amendment from state and city laws that violate it.

Originally Posted by Judy

I also believe that a "free State" becomes impossible without the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is what the 2nd Amendment is outlining as "necessary to the security of a free State" for those of you who don't understand why you're a free person or what secured that freedom for you, which in fact was the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Your self-serving misinterpretation of the meaning of that law. As I pointed out, the Second Amendment starts out saying a well regulation militia being necessary. We now have a well organized full-time militia, so we no longer need a bunch of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

Originally Posted by Judy

So what is your position? Do you support the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

If you bothered to read, you would already know the answer to that I wrote it in Post# 17

I agree with the right of lawful citizens to have and carry fire arms, for self protection. I am against citizens having the right to have an arsenal to go to war with.

Originally Posted by Judy

Do you believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a "free State"?

NO! A well regulated Militia provides for that security.

Originally Posted by Judy

What does the term "free State" mean to you? Is it the land? Or is it the land of a state and the free people in the state on the land? Does the word "free" refer to the State of land or does it refer to the free people on the land of the State? I think it refers to the freedom of the people in the state on the land within the boundaries of the State.

To borrow from Bill Clinton, that depends on what the meaning of "free" is. You named several applications. The problem is you are conflating your right to protect yourself and your family from neighbors who would attack you, with protecting the nation for attack by other nations. They are two different jurisdictions. And individual citizens are not permitted by the Constitution to declare war on any other nation. That is the jurisdiction of our military. Likewise, apprehending criminals and punishing them is the jurisdiction of the various governments, not individuals. So the armament you are afforded is relative to the authority you are afforded. Gun possession should not be unlimited!

Originally Posted by Judy

How can you be free if you can't keep and bear arms to defend yourself, your family, your property, your neighbors, your city, your county or your State?

How have we survived without everybody being armed? We have trusted (?) authorities to generally protect us from each other.

Originally Posted by Judy

Gun control advocates are authoritarian lunatics. They're scared little wild-eyed, hair-on-fire, tin-foil hat weenies who want the government to do everything for them, then sit back in their arm-chairs after a hard day at McDonald's play station with the grandchildren sucking on a smoothie through a paper straw whining about how much government costs.

What makes you think I have a Play Station? I resent that implication!

Originally Posted by Judy

Now, to be absolutely clear, I have absolutely nothing against McDonald's, play stations, grandchildren, paper straws or arm-chairs.

Whew! I was getting worried, especially about grandchildren. You were starting to look totally heartless!

Originally Posted by Judy

I am opposed to gun control, with the exception of regulations for the sale and manufacture for quality and safe performance and age requirements to purchase a gun commercially. I am opposed to gun registration, concealed carry permits, waiting periods, federal or other background checks and gun bans as conditions to purchasing a firearm.

Welcome to Mexico where criminal cartels are running the country.

Originally Posted by Judy

I support any requirement that commercial and other sellers keep records of who they sold the guns and ammo to for criminal investigations, but it should not be in a government database.

So gun stores, Google, Facebook, Twitter and everybody else can keep records on you, but not the government?

Originally Posted by Judy

An illegal alien like any person in the US should be able to possess a gun in any state where he is.

NO! they are "illegal" therefore they have no right to be here, and essentially have no other rights either.

Originally Posted by Judy

In the meantime, he should be immediately deported and deal with his lawsuit from afar in his home country.

Most crimes are prosecuted in the jurisdiction they are committed in. But not in Judy's World!

jtdc wrote:

So your claim that the Constitutional Amendments are protection of state's right was pure baloney! The first ten Amendments are referred to as the Bill Of Rights of the people, not the states. And when states come up with these laws, they are challenged in Federal Court on the Constitutionality of their state law.

jtdc wrote:

Quote Originally Posted by Judy
For example, the US Supreme Court in its famous Heller Case decision ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the District of Columbia was protected by the 2nd Amendment and the DC handgun ban was unconstitutional.

CORRECT! The people's rights are protected by the Second Amendment from state and city laws that violate it.

Hmmmm.

Sooooo, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Not by the federal government, a state government or a local government.

Yep, that's what the 2nd Amendment says alright. And that is also exactly what it means.

P. S. Thank you very much.