Are the Parkland kids requests violating your 2nd Amendment rights?

[independentusa]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-second-amendment/?utm_term=.1788ded99a86
According to this article they generally are not. If fact the courts have ruled either they were constitutional or refused to overturn such laws in states where they were enacted. And in all cases the majority of Americans are in favor of these proposals. So the argument that they want to take away your "rights" doesn't apply to the laws these students want enacted for their safety. They may reduce your choices inn guns you wish to buy, but not your rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[Lutherf]

Well then, let's talk about their points - https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/
1. Fund gun violence research and gun violence prevention/intervention programs. - There is no restriction on private companies researching gun violence. There is also no restriction on the CDC investigating gun violence but, because of the Dickey Amendment, it can't advocate for gun control. Furthermore, the spending bill Trump just signed has language which clarifies the intent of that amendment IN FAVOR OF having the CDC investigate gun violence - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/?utm_term=.8201d02c6136

2. Eliminate absurd restrictions on ATF. - The complaint here is that the ATF can't digitize records of gun sales. That's because they aren't allowed to create a registry and THAT is really what this complaint is about. This complaint should be rewritten as "We want a national gun registry". We have already seen how certain registries work out with a paper in NY releasing names and addresses of concealed carry license holders.

3. Universal background checks. - Well sure, it doesn't make much sense to have a national registry if you can't cover private sales too

4. High-capacity magazine ban. - It's got the word "ban" right in there and is an obvious stepping stone to the next demand

5. Limit firing power on the streets. - This means "assault weapon ban".


Now look, I understand that these kids feel all important as they're spouting the propaganda fed to them by the social progressive political machine. I'm glad that they feel important. Self esteem is a good thing. Unfortunately, they are being lied to. Bans don't work except as a way to more state control over more stuff. Honest research might work but the key word is "honest" and research merely to promote a political agenda only helps the political agenda, not the problem that agenda is based on.

With regard to national registries...what is the REAL point of that? Maybe some of these kids should explain to us why a national registry is important. A registry obviously doesn't stop anything from happening and if it doesn't mitigate crime then what could the purpose possibly be? Maybe the kids (or their handlers) will explain that to us but I suspect that doing so would require more integrity than they have.

 

[sangha]

Well then, let's talk about their points - https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/
1. Fund gun violence research and gun violence prevention/intervention programs. - There is no restriction on private companies researching gun violence. There is also no restriction on the CDC investigating gun violence but, because of the Dickey Amendment, it can't advocate for gun control. Furthermore, the spending bill Trump just signed has language which clarifies the intent of that amendment IN FAVOR OF having the CDC investigate gun violence - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/?utm_term=.8201d02c6136

2. Eliminate absurd restrictions on ATF. - The complaint here is that the ATF can't digitize records of gun sales. That's because they aren't allowed to create a registry and THAT is really what this complaint is about. This complaint should be rewritten as "We want a national gun registry". We have already seen how certain registries work out with a paper in NY releasing names and addresses of concealed carry license holders.

3. Universal background checks. - Well sure, it doesn't make much sense to have a national registry if you can't cover private sales too

4. High-capacity magazine ban. - It's got the word "ban" right in there and is an obvious stepping stone to the next demand

5. Limit firing power on the streets. - This means "assault weapon ban".


Now look, I understand that these kids feel all important as they're spouting the propaganda fed to them by the social progressive political machine. I'm glad that they feel important. Self esteem is a good thing. Unfortunately, they are being lied to. Bans don't work except as a way to more state control over more stuff. Honest research might work but the key word is "honest" and research merely to promote a political agenda only helps the political agenda, not the problem that agenda is based on.

With regard to national registries...what is the REAL point of that? Maybe some of these kids should explain to us why a national registry is important. A registry obviously doesn't stop anything from happening and if it doesn't mitigate crime then what could the purpose possibly be? Maybe the kids (or their handlers) will explain that to us but I suspect that doing so would require more integrity than they have.

The op asks about the constitutionality of their proposals. You have not addressed that question at all

 

[DamnYankee]

Are the Parkland kids requests violating your 2nd Amendment rights?

No. The 2nd Amendment restricts gov't.

People who demand I surrender a means of protecting myself are pissing in the wind, because it will never happen. I believe if leftists want to give up their firearms, than I will support them in their efforts. I think they ought to set the example.

 

[Lutherf]

The op asks about the constitutionality of their proposals. You have not addressed that question at all

Simple, bans and registries are direct infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Such infringements, whether they have been done in the past or not, are unconstitutional.

 

[Renae]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-second-amendment/?utm_term=.1788ded99a86
According to this article they generally are not. If fact the courts have ruled either they were constitutional or refused to overturn such laws in states where they were enacted. And in all cases the majority of Americans are in favor of these proposals. So the argument that they want to take away your "rights" doesn't apply to the laws these students want enacted for their safety. They may reduce your choices inn guns you wish to buy, but not your rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

These kids are pushing for heavy restrictions on freedom, liberty and demonizing law abiding citizens and their solutions will do nothing to stop another school shooting.

**** these kids and their demands, I have no use for emotionally driven political agendas.

 

[sangha]

Simple, bans and registries are direct infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Such infringements, whether they have been done in the past or not, are unconstitutional.

Do you have anything to support that other than simply declaring it to be so, and ignoring the fact that bans, registries, and other so-called infringements have been found to be constitutional in the past?

 

[trixare4kids]

Their mission statement on the Never Again website admits that they are for banning "assault" rifles.

 

[sangha]

These kids are pushing for heavy restrictions on freedom, liberty and demonizing law abiding citizens and their solutions will do nothing to stop another school shooting.

**** these kids and their demands, I have no use for emotionally driven political agendas.

he op asks about the constitutionality of their proposals. You have not addressed that question at all

 

[minnie616]

Here Is the 5 point policy agenda that the Parkland student March for Our Lives organizers say will reduce the tool of gun violence in the US.



1. Fund gun violence research
2. Strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
3. Universal background checks
4. A high-capacity magazine ban
5. A ban on assault weapons

 

[sangha]

Their mission statement on the Never Again website admits that they are for banning "assault" rifles.

Are you suggesting that an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional?

That would be an odd conclusion given that we have already had one and constitutional challenges to it were rejected by the courts

 

[Renae]

Here Is the 5 point policy agenda that the Parkland student March for Our Lives organizers say will reduce the tool of gun violence in the US.



1. Fund gun violence research
2. Strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
3. Universal background checks
4. A high-capacity magazine ban
5. A ban on assault weapons

4 and 5 are absolutely non-starters, 1 is fine, 2... how and 3? I can't see it being feasible.

 

[independentusa]

Simple, bans and registries are direct infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Such infringements, whether they have been done in the past or not, are unconstitutional.

According to our court system that interprets our constitution these requests do not violate the 2nd Amendments. I guess you feel you know better than they do, I don't think so. Even Scalia, a very right wing judge said that reasonable gun control laws could be made. Other wise most of the gun nuts in this country would have ma duces set up i their yards.

 

[trixare4kids]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-second-amendment/?utm_term=.1788ded99a86
According to this article they generally are not. If fact the courts have ruled either they were constitutional or refused to overturn such laws in states where they were enacted. And in all cases the majority of Americans are in favor of these proposals. So the argument that they want to take away your "rights" doesn't apply to the laws these students want enacted for their safety. They may reduce your choices inn guns you wish to buy, but not your rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

Nobody can make a call on this but the courts.

 

[minnie616]

4 and 5 are absolutely non-starters, 1 is fine, 2... how and 3? I can't see it being feasible.

Why are 4 and 5 non starters?

There were bans on them before them and those bans were Constitutional. Just because congress let the ban expire does not mean congress cannot ban them again.

 

[trixare4kids]

Are you suggesting that an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional?

That would be an odd conclusion given that we have already had one and constitutional challenges to it were rejected by the courts

See post #14.

 

[independentusa]

These kids are pushing for heavy restrictions on freedom, liberty and demonizing law abiding citizens and their solutions will do nothing to stop another school shooting.

**** these kids and their demands, I have no use for emotionally driven political agendas.

So you would just say like so many of NRA followers that these killings are just the price we pay for freedom. I hope it is never one of yours. We are guaranteed by our constitution life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You do realize that life comes before liberty in that statement for a reason. When your so called liberty comes before others right to live, your liberty loses out. And in this situation the lives of our students comes before your right to own what ever weapon you want and the size of magazine.

 

[independentusa]

Did you read the article. It shows that the courts have already decided that these requests by the students have been decided by the highest court in the land.

 

[minnie616]

No. The 2nd Amendment restricts gov't.

People who demand I surrender a means of protecting myself are pissing in the wind, because it will never happen. I believe if leftists want to give up their firearms, than I will support them in their efforts. I think they ought to set the example.

Banning the sale of Assault Weapons is not taking anyone’s guns away from them.

Banning the sale means manufactures will no longer be able to sell Assault Weapons or Parts for them and those who already own them can No longer sell them to someone else.

However , current owners can keep the ones they already have.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

If these kids want to get into college I think they should think about being students instead of politicians. If they do too many politics then no schools are going to accept them for fear of them politicizing the student body.

 

[independentusa]

Banning the sale of Assault Weapons is not taking anyone’s guns away from them.

Banning the sale means manufactures will no longer be able to sell Assault Weapons or Parts for them and those who already own them can No longer sell them to someone else.

However , current owners can keep the ones they already have.

You are right. So many people on this message board that support all weapons seem to be saying the opposite. That banning the sale of assault rifles means the government is coming after their weapons and as you point out it just isn't so. they too often listen to the NRA and its constant blaring of the Government is coming for your guns. Something that just never happened. I have a friend that told me he has buried guns in his back yard to keep them from the government when they come to get his guns. I couldn't help but laugh after I got far enough from him that he couldn't see. Hate to lose a friend.

 

[independentusa]

If these kids want to get into college I think they should think about being students instead of politicians. If they do too many politics then no schools are going to accept them for fear of them politicizing the student body.

Now that is a pile. If anything, many schools will be after these kids as they see they may be the future leaders of this country.

 

[trixare4kids]

Banning the sale of Assault Weapons is not taking anyone’s guns away from them.

Banning the sale means manufactures will no longer be able to sell Assault Weapons or Parts for them and those who already own them can No longer sell them to someone else.

However , current owners can keep the ones they already have.

As I said above, it will all depend on what the courts decide but since Scalia already has said the right is not unlimited, I believe we can conclude that the kids are NOT trying to take away our second amendment rights.

Btw, anyone have the kid's definition of "assault weapons"?

ETA: For clarity's sake, I am not for gun bans.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

 

[Chillfolks]

Did you read the article. It shows that the courts have already decided that these requests by the students have been decided by the highest court in the land.

No the courts refused to hear many cases on the issue. That's not the same thing. The article says bits and pieces of each of there points MAY be constitutional but only because they haven't been heard by a higher court. Most of those examples are of state level restrictions not federal as these juveniles are asking for.



It's a propaganda article of the highest caliber thanks for sharing. It's an opinion piece masquerading as a legitimate news story