Guns, FLL shooting, and Hypocrisy in the Media

[Scribe]

On Friday January 6th, 2017 a shooting took place in the Fort Lauderdale Airport.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at-least-five-dead-in-ft-lauderdale-airport-shooting/ar-BBxYYvv?OCID=ansmsnnews11
In this article you will see a definite slant against the right to own guns where the author writes;
“The Florida attack was the latest in a series of mass shootings that have plagued the United States in recent years, some inspired by militants with an extreme view of Islam, others carried out by loners or the mentally disturbed who have easy access to weapons under U.S. gun laws.”
Here’s my issue:
Doesn’t it seem hypocritical for many people to say on one hand, “Trump’s views on Muslim vetting and a possible Muslim registration are wrong; because every Muslim isn’t a threat – it’s only a very few radicals – so it’s unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy and freedoms”…
But in the meantime say “Democrats view on stricter registration and vetting are justified as support of stricter gun registration laws and bans on the rights of civilians to peacefully own assault type weapons because a few – micro-percentage points - of the US gun owner population are bat-sh#t crazy”.
Yes – we’d love to “take away guns from every individual wanting to do bat-sh#t crazy harm”
And,
Yes – we’d love to “only have to register radical Muslim extremists who are going to do a terrorist act…”
But you see, unless you make it a hassle of registration and vetting for everyone in each case; how do you do it? How do you find them?
Extremists are already here! (And the next bat-sh#t crazy person already owns a weapon!)
Love to hear your opinions…

[mediavolume]

Well. One is a right granted by the constitution and the other is a right the left wants to bestow on foreigners before they become citizens.

No where does it say we must accept all people who want to come here.
No where does it say we must grant our rights to those before they become citizens.

[Roy Wally]

Scribe, I agree with you 100%

[Roy Wally]

Originally Posted by mediavolume

Well. One is a right granted by the constitution and the other is a right the left wants to bestow on foreigners before they become citizens.

No where does it say we must accept all people who want to come here.
No where does it say we must grant our rights to those before they become citizens.

Agree!!

[CaptCroakers]

I was just in FLL like 9 days ago, terminal 2 no less. My nine lives are dwindling fast.

[Chung Tran]

agree Scribe.. and it seems like people are hyper-sensitive to airport incidents.. this guy could have done much more at a shopping mall, for example, yet the fact that it was an airport freaks people out.. the 911 psychology makes people want to ensure no crimes occur in and around an airport, so we get the TSA crippling our air transportation system with its legion of nonsense.

[TexTushHog]

First, the Equal Protection Clause clearly applies to citizens and non citizens alike. The Framers knew how to write portions of the Constitution that applied only to citizens. The Equal protection clause isn't one of them.

Secondly, until very recently, the rights conferred by the Second Amendment were held to be collective rights to arm militias. Only after Heller was decided did anyone think that it was really an individual right. And with Trump's victory, it looks like the radical departure of Heller will stay the law for at least four more years. But even if you read Scalia's opinion -- the wildest, most unsupported profundity nut position possible -- it paints a very .imited right that, so far, is confined to self defense of the home. Of course as Trump appoints more and more reactionaries to the Courts, that may change. But they can't avoid the phrase "well regulated" and Scalia's opinion specifically talks about place restrictions. So it is far, far from clear that there is any right for any private individual to have a gun or ammunition in any part of an airport, even under the wildest gun nut jurisprudence one can imagine.

[grean]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

First, the Equal Protection Clause clearly applies to citizens and non citizens alike. The Framers knew how to write portions of the Constitution that applied only to citizens. The Equal protection clause isn't one of them.

Secondly, until very recently, the rights conferred by the Second Amendment were held to be collective rights to arm militias. Only after Heller was decided did anyone think that it was really an individual right. And with Trump's victory, it looks like the radical departure of Heller will stay the law for at least four more years. But even if you read Scalia's opinion -- the wildest, most unsupported profundity nut position possible -- it paints a very .imited right that, so far, is confined to self defense of the home. Of course as Trump appoints more and more reactionaries to the Courts, that may change. But they can't avoid the phrase "well regulated" and Scalia's opinion specifically talks about place restrictions. So it is far, far from clear that there is any right for any private individual to have a gun or ammunition in any part of an airport, even under the wildest gun nut jurisprudence one can imagine.

TushHog,

I'm really not trying to be coy. I also apologize if you read this and have no idea what my idea that I am trying to relay is, actually .

However, shouldn't any regulation of the people's right to bear arms, come from the state? There are many federal firearm regulations , I know. And apparently they are constitutional, otherwise a "gun nut" would have challenged and overturned them by now. I don't understand though, if #2 is a right reserved for the states, how the federal government can make any regulation.

since it is a state right, a few states like Oklahoma and and Texas, can effectively make it a personal right, just as the first ammendment in the confines of that state's borders, no?

I have the same right to free speech in California than I do in Texas because it's a personal constitutional right, no?

This is where I confuse myself even more. Unlike the first ammendment, because California has the state right to regulate the peoples right to bear arms inside their state borders, they can tell Texans that if they come to California, do so without their guns.

Throw in equal protection, I'm even more confused. California will recognize a marriage in Texas and vise versa because of the equal protection clause. Texas has been told by the Supreme Court , if I am not mistaken, also because of the equal protection clause, that since California recognizes gay marriage, Texas must too, no?

I do know Robert's and Scalias both said basically the constitution was silent on gay marriage and therefore a state right in their decents.

It may be apples and oranges, but if Texas must recognize California law of gay marriage, because of the equalast protection clause, why mustn't California recognize Texas gun laws or lack thereof?

Feel free to say I have no flipping clue what I am talking about and to stop trying to be a lawyer.

Moving on....

Now as far as this Muslim registry nonsense, have we learned nothing from history?

Equal protection clause or not, how can we be a free nation and yet force one group of people to register themselves because they are exercising not their 2nd guaranteed right, but the very 1st ammendments right to freedom of religion?

Did not the Nazis brand registration #s a people's wrist? Didn't we kinda destroy the Nazis? Now we want to go down that same path the Nazis did? When did we replace the motto "red white and blue don't run" with "we are so scared of terrorist" that we set a match to the very thing that makes us the USA.....

[mediavolume]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

First, the Equal Protection Clause clearly applies to citizens and non citizens alike. The Framers knew how to write portions of the Constitution that applied only to citizens. The Equal protection clause isn't one of them.

Wow you are wrong.
1. It took effect in 1868 which is well after the framers so they didnt write a portion for states and this amendment for people.
2. This was clearly about the states and not the people. This was passed to force the states to remove restrictions that were placed on AA.
3. It says nothing of non citizens unless you feel that AA slaves werent americans once they were freed.
4. This is also used to grant mexicans citizenship which wasnt the point of the amendment. It was because the states in the south didnt recognize AA as citizens.
5. These immigrants are neither born or naturalized for this amendment to mean anything to them.

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; 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

[FunInDFW]

This just in, unbiased news is hard to find, most news sources have some biased, and would probably ultimately stem from the money said bias generates them.

As far as any type of registration or vetting, it's all pretty pointless. Bad people are still going to find a way to do bad things regardless of what stands in their way.

[Crock]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Secondly, until very recently, the rights conferred by the Second Amendment were held to be collective rights to arm militias. Only after Heller was decided did anyone think that it was really an individual right.

Not much of a constitutional scholar, huh? The right of the people to keep and bear arms has actually gone back and forth, legally, as to whether it's an individual or collective right. Heller specifically settled that question in the highest court for the first time.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Crock

Not much of a constitutional scholar, huh? The right of the people to keep and bear arms has actually gone back and forth, legally, as to whether it's an individual or collective right. Heller specifically settled that question in the highest court for the first time.

Ignoring US v. Miller (1939), are we?

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress."

[Poppa_Viagra]

Observing:

We don't have a handle on the difference between refugees and immigrants.

Love her, hate her or wish you could watch her go pee, but Ann Coulter's book Adios America will give you enough facts on the immigration/illegal issue to induce a whopper headache.

We do a pitiful job of dealing with and caring for our mentally ill.

Gun free zones are the most dangerous places in America.

Our airport security is poorly configured, compare it to Israel's.

Constitutional rights don't mean shit to a dead man.

Of the press and media, Bernie Goldberg says, "They're not journalists, they're stenographers."

Have a better day tomorrow, folks.

[rexdutchman]

100% to SCRIBE ,

[HobbieMan]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Ignoring US v. Miller (1939), are we?

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress."

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788