How are our Vegas AngelsWin peeps doing?

[stormngt]

13 hours ago, DMVol said:

Of course not...but the technology of 230 years ago doesn't fit well with 2017...the right to bear arms was and is a sacred thing, part of our fabric...but it shouldn't be worshiped to the point that we can't apply common sense to modern technology...hunting weapons, weapons made for protection just aren't the same as weapons that can cause the carnage we saw Sat night...

Than start a movement to change the constitution.  Not liking the 2nd amendment isnt an eccuse to ignore it.  The amendment us there.  If you think it should be changed than pressure you congressman to propose changing the constitution.  

[stormngt]

13 hours ago, DMVol said:

Never gonna happen...and there will be many, many more mass shootings while nothing changes.  

I agree we need to throw out the constitution.  You know what will also reduce crime?  Allow police to randomly stop people and search them.  Allow stop and frisk.  Than stop giving defendents the right to council because good attorneys get guilty people off.  

Maybe we ought to change the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt. 

 

You either respect the entire constitution or disrespect the entire constitution.  You cant ignore part out of convenience.  You dont like an amendment dtart a movement to get it changed.  BTW  to do that you need a 2/3 vote joint resolution in both the Senate and House of Representatives and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify the change.

[DMVol]

2 hours ago, stormngt said:

I agree we need to throw out the constitution.  You know what will also reduce crime?  Allow police to randomly stop people and search them.  Allow stop and frisk.  Than stop giving defendents the right to council because good attorneys get guilty people off.  

Maybe we ought to change the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt. 

 

You either respect the entire constitution or disrespect the entire constitution.  You cant ignore part out of convenience.  You dont like an amendment dtart a movement to get it changed.  BTW  to do that you need a 2/3 vote joint resolution in both the Senate and House of Representatives and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify the change.

Silly...just silly....Read my lips---there is nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment on its face...it doesn't need to be repealed, I never said it did.....it does need to be interpreted to reflect life in 2017, same as any other law passed 230 years ago....The Constitution has been interpreted by Courts since it was written.  Do you respect the part that made slaves 3/5 a person for representative purposes? Good grief, why is that hard to understand?

[Chuck]

12 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Found out today that my stepdaughter's boyfriend lost a friend, and two of his sister's friends were shot, one in critical condition.

So sad.

 

[stormngt]

4 hours ago, DMVol said:

Silly...just silly....Read my lips---there is nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment on its face...it doesn't need to be repealed, I never said it did.....it does need to be interpreted to reflect life in 2017, same as any other law passed 230 years ago....The Constitution has been interpreted by Courts since it was written.  Do you respect the part that made slaves 3/5 a person for representative purposes? Good grief, why is that hard to understand?

No i dont respect the 3/5th comprimise....especially since tbe 13th, 14th, and 15th Amebdments negates it!

Tge 3/5th comprimise was not changed through a new interpretation.  It was eliminated through the anendment process.  

And 2008 the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

Now if you read all my post would recognise the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right of the people to possess all weapons.  We already have automatic weapons illegal.  Criminalizing the "bump" stocks seens rational.  

We tried to criminalize semiautomatic weapons in 1994.  That had problens because most guns are semiautomatic.

What most dont want to recognize is that 2nd Amendment does not apply to state governments.  Thats why stares hace different gun policies .

I do find it ironic that most of the gun violence occurrs in the states with the most restrictive gun control.

[DMVol]

 

33 minutes ago, stormngt said:

What most dont want to recognize is that 2nd Amendment does not apply to state governments.  Thats why stares hace different gun policies .

The constitution applies to all state laws, by virtue of the supremacy clause....any state law is subject to federal constitutional interpretation, which means a state or city law that is too restrictive can be challenged on 2nd amendment grounds ( a good summary here: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php) ...Otherwise, I apologize if I got you bent out of shape, not my intent....It's a tough issue...I am not anti gun but I think the pendulum needs to swing toward some restriction, at least some sensible restrictions....Now, I'm back to baseball....

[stormngt]

14 minutes ago, DMVol said:

 

The constitution applies to all state laws, by virtue of the supremacy clause....any state law is subject to federal constitutional interpretation, which means a state or city law that is too restrictive can be challenged on 2nd amendment grounds ( a good summary here: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php) ...Otherwise, I apologize if I got you bent out of shape, not my intent....It's a tough issue...I am not anti gun but I think the pendulum needs to swing toward some restriction, at least some sensible restrictions....Now, I'm back to baseball....

You didnt get bent out of shape.  However have to correct you again.

The Bill of Rights do not apply to the states.  It applies tp federal action only.   The 14th amendment due process clause makes most of the bill of rights but not all applicable to the states.  Its a process called "selective incorporation".  Look it up. 

Now that said i am mistaken.  The supreme court has interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual right (see Heller)  and recent court has incorporated the 2nd Amendment.

I was mistaken under selective incorporation    in 2010 the 2nd Amendment was incorporated. 

[stormngt]

12 minutes ago, DMVol said:

 

The constitution applies to all state laws, by virtue of the supremacy clause....any state law is subject to federal constitutional interpretation, which means a state or city law that is too restrictive can be challenged on 2nd amendment grounds ( a good summary here: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php) ...Otherwise, I apologize if I got you bent out of shape, not my intent....It's a tough issue...I am not anti gun but I think the pendulum needs to swing toward some restriction, at least some sensible restrictions....Now, I'm back to baseball....

The supremacy clause does not apply to the 2nd amendment becsuse it was intended to restrict federal action not the state.  Therefore the stste law would contradict it.

In 2010 in the case Mcdonald v. City of Chicago the supreme court did incotporate the 2nd Amendment under 14th amendment due process clause