@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:They are not facts, unless you subscribe to Kellyanne Conway's incredulous theory that LIES are "alternative facts."
I just gave you government links showing that the Obama Administration attempted every single thing that I accused them of.
Debra Law wrote:The NRA lies and you have fits of hysteria. That's a FACT. The supporting evidence of that FACT is all found all over this discussion board.
I doubt that anyone can show any untrue statements by the NRA.
Objecting to the grave violation of my civil rights is hardly hysteria.
Debra Law wrote:You have not shown that a legislative ban on assault weapons would violate your rights under the Second Amendment.
That's easy. A law is only allowed to impact Constitutional rights if there is a good reason for that law. That is long-established doctrine regarding all of our Constitutional rights.
There is no reason whatsoever for a ban on assault weapons. Therefore any such law runs afoul of the above doctrine.
Debra Law wrote:The ban was subject to many constitutional challenges, and all challenges were rejected by our courts.
The fact that Democratic appointees maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated is exactly why it was so important to elect Trump.
Note the ages of the following Left-wing extremists:
Anthony Kennedy: 80
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 83
Stephen Breyer: 78
Once Trump has nominated their replacements, the Supreme Court will begin to enforce the Second Amendment.
The election of Donald Trump has saved this country's freedom. We'd be in big trouble right now if not for Trump.
Debra Law wrote:The proposed 2013 bill did not pass. Apparently the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School was insufficient for our lawmakers to re-enact the ban.
I know. I was on the front lines of the fight to stop it.
But it certainly showed the Democrats' intent to violate the Second Amendment.
Luckily that fight had the unintended side effect of destroying liberalism as a political force in America.
Debra Law wrote:Again, however, even if the ban had been enacted, your "rights" would not have been violated.
Banning a weapon when there is no reason to ban it is very much a violation of my Constitutional rights.
Debra Law wrote:You don't have an unlimited right to own whatever arms you desire to own.
However, I do have a right to own a weapon if there is no plausible reason for banning it.
Debra Law wrote:Assault weapons are extremely dangerous and highly unusual for members in society at large to keep in their homes.
No they aren't. Adding harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip to a gun does not make it any more dangerous than it would be without that harmless cosmetic feature.
And assault weapons are some of the most popular guns in America. Hardly unusual.
Debra Law wrote:Our courts have consistently rejected constitutional challenges to assault weapon bans.
That's because the Democrats put judges on the courts who maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated.
That's why it was so important to elect Donald Trump. He will put justices on the Supreme Court who will finally enforce the Second Amendment.
Debra Law wrote:Your allegation that such a ban would be a grave violation of the Second Amendment has no foundation in fact or law.
That is incorrect. The principle that "a law is only allowed to impact a Constitutional right if there is a very good reason for that law" is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence.
Debra Law wrote:Not even Scalia would have found such a ban unconstitutional.
Sure he would have. He believed in upholding the Constitution.
Debra Law wrote:This is NOT an executive order issued by Obama.
Close enough. It is the action that the federal government took as a direct result of Obama's executive order telling them to do it.
Debra Law wrote:There is no such "horrendous executive order".
Unfortunately there is. But Donald Trump will soon overturn it.
Debra Law wrote:You provided a link to a publication in the federal register setting forth the final rules (promulgated by the Social Security Administration) necessary to comply with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which was signed into law by President Bush.
The Social Security Administration is promulgating these rules because Obama ordered them to do so.
Donald Trump is going to scrap that order and forbid them from doing so.
Debra Law wrote:NICS is the "National Instant Criminal Backgrounds Check System". The Social Security Administration is required by law to report the names of all persons who have been adjudicated to be mentally ill and must have their mental illness disability checks sent to a representative payee.
That is quite different from what Obama's executive order would do. His order covers all disabled people who don't handle their own finances.
There is a big difference between a mental disability and a mental illness. Someone with dyslexia could be banned from having guns under Obama's executive order.
I'm sure the Left would be happy to take guns from everyone who has dyslexia, but fortunately disabled people have rights in America.
There is also a big difference between someone who *must* have their checks sent to a third party and someone who *does* have their checks sent to a third party. Some guys merely have their wife handle all their fiances. Having your spouse handle the checkbook is not grounds for losing your rights.
Debra Law wrote:Scalia noted in the Heller decision, see above, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. . . ."
There is a big difference between a mental illness and a mental disability.
Dyslexia is not a reason for violating someone's Constitutional rights.
Debra Law wrote:However, evidence of an adjudicated mental illness or of a criminal conviction for a felony is longstanding justification for prohibiting mentally ill persons and felons from possessing guns.
A mere mental disability (like dyslexia) however is not a justification for violating someone's rights.
Debra Law wrote:And as much as it causes you pain, even mentally ill vets cannot possess firearms.
Vets who have a disability but are not mentally ill, however, do have the right to possess firearms.
Debra Law wrote:Do you remember this sad story:
Guilty verdict for troubled vet who murdered American Sniper
http://ew.com/article/2015/02/25/american-sniper-guilty-verdict/
Quote:The ex-Marine who shot Chris Kyle, the Navy SEAL better known as the American Sniper, was convicted of murder by a Texas jury and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Eddie Ray Routh, 27, had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the 2013 gun-range shooting that killed Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Routh’s attorneys claimed that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder, and said they intended to appeal the decision after the jury needed only two hours to come to its conclusion.
I don't remember it. But there is a significant difference between a serious mental illness and someone who has a disability like dyslexia.
Debra Law wrote:Even if a person who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and PTSD is a "law-abiding citizen" (normally), he still shouldn't be given access to guns. He was mentally ill.
A law-abiding person who is merely dyslexic however has every right to have guns.
Debra Law wrote:Every court that has ever considered a ban on assault weapons has rejected your allegation that such a ban is a "grave violation" of the Second Amendment.
That is because the Democrats have packed the courts with judges who maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated.
That is why it was so important to elect Donald Trump.
After a few of the liberal justices on the court retire and Trump picks their replacements, the Supreme Court will overturn rulings like this.
Debra Law wrote:Not even Scalia would agree with you.
Sure he would. He believed in upholding the Constitution.
Debra Law wrote:The Fourth Circuit opinion cited Scalia's decision in Heller.
Leftist judges say all sorts of things when they concoct nonsense to justify violating the Constitution.
Debra Law wrote:Your argument has no support in fact or law.
That is incorrect. It is a longstanding legal principle that a law can only impact a Constitutional right if there is a very good reason for that law.
Debra Law wrote:Stop drinking the NRA Kool-Aid.
Another compliment to the NRA by associating them with facts.
Debra Law wrote:Why don't you read the Heller decision and the Fourth Circuit opinion and educate yourself.
Because I already know everything that there is to know about the Heller case. I even helped out with an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.
Debra Law wrote:If you don't feed your mind through self-education, then there's nothing worthwhile swirling around in your brain to ponder.
My mind is very well fed.
