Meanwhile, 1500 miles from the Mexican border

[Winehole23]

*benghazi!!!!*

yeah, red team couldn't cash that check either.

[DMC]

Bull .

And of course you don’t.
You think wind speed is measured by finger and read in braille.

Stop interjecting with your brain droppings you semi-re ed .

[pgardn]

Stop interjecting with your brain droppings you semi-re ed .

m

Nice old man!

[Blake]

New trade deal Mexico is paying for it
If Mexico had walls to keep illegall coming in
USA would not need to

Mexico is not gonna pay for anything.

[ducks]

If they were smart the would folk money for solar walls and help their economy
Or
Would
You rather tax all money going there from USA
Since it is their second biggest contribute to their economy

[midnightpulp]

Sure it exists but it doesn't exist as a caveat. It doesn't say that a well regulated militia has to exist prior to someone having the right to keep and bear arms. The ability to form a well regulated militia is paramount according to Madison in The Federalist Papers. How can that happen if you don't have the right to keep and bear arms?

Then the Supreme Court rule that a well regulated militia isn't the only reason to keep and bear arms, that's self-defense is a reason as well.

If you're going to throw out the Supreme Court decisions with interpretation to the Bill of Rights then you have a long hard road ahead of you. The 2nd Amendment has been around since the original writing of the Bill of Rights and and the couple hundred years since its existence for some reason it's still there. so although technology has changed and certainly our forefathers couldn't have imagined some of the things we have today with regards to firearms, this issue has been Revisited Time and Again by our Supreme Court since it was originally penned. Please don't act like we rely solely on the original text. However the original text does clearly State shall not be infringed upon. Everything you're trying to do includes infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Whether I agree or disagree with some of your suggestions is beside the point.

If you had a good friend you knew was a raging alcoholic and who drove intoxicated on a regular basis, and you owned a car dealership and your friend wanted to buy a vehicle from you, would you sell it to them?

If you say you would then aren't you just contributing to the eventual death of a family by this drunk driver? If you say you would not, does that mean that everyone who wants to buy a vehicle should have to go through alcohol screening to make sure they're not an alcoholic? Do they have to be observed by a doctor and have blood work taken?

But again, you're imparting an infallibility on the Supreme Court. The do ent is 250 years old, written in a different English standard, so I don't logically see how their interpretation is more valid than anyone else's? Furthermore, that interpretation often changes depending on the political leanings of the judges involved.

Raging alcoholics who like to drive drunk eventually get pinched for a DUI and have their licenses suspended. And yes, a car dealership should be prohibited from selling a vehicle to someone with a suspended license (I think they are anyways). No need for blood tests, since the raging alcoholic's driving record with his litany of DUI arrests will be on record. And yes, it should be against the law to sell a car to a raging alkie who gets arrested for a DUI every year. I'm all for second chances, though, so if the alkie sobers up for 5 years and gets his license reinstated, then sure.

[midnightpulp]

Sure it exists but it doesn't exist as a caveat. It doesn't say that a well regulated militia has to exist prior to someone having the right to keep and bear arms. The ability to form a well regulated militia is paramount according to Madison in The Federalist Papers. How can that happen if you don't have the right to keep and bear arms?

Then the Supreme Court rule that a well regulated militia isn't the only reason to keep and bear arms, that's self-defense is a reason as well.

If you're going to throw out the Supreme Court decisions with interpretation to the Bill of Rights then you have a long hard road ahead of you. The 2nd Amendment has been around since the original writing of the Bill of Rights and and the couple hundred years since its existence for some reason it's still there. so although technology has changed and certainly our forefathers couldn't have imagined some of the things we have today with regards to firearms, this issue has been Revisited Time and Again by our Supreme Court since it was originally penned. Please don't act like we rely solely on the original text. However the original text does clearly State shall not be infringed upon. Everything you're trying to do includes infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Whether I agree or disagree with some of your suggestions is beside the point.

If you had a good friend you knew was a raging alcoholic and who drove intoxicated on a regular basis, and you owned a car dealership and your friend wanted to buy a vehicle from you, would you sell it to them?

If you say you would then aren't you just contributing to the eventual death of a family by this drunk driver? If you say you would not, does that mean that everyone who wants to buy a vehicle should have to go through alcohol screening to make sure they're not an alcoholic? Do they have to be observed by a doctor and have blood work taken?

Oh, also you probably think I'm advocating compulsory psych evaluations for ALL would be gun owners. Not at all. But if the background check comes in that the buyer was committed for bi-polar disorder last week, then he should be prohibited from purchase until cleared by a professional.

[DMC]

But again, you're imparting an infallibility on the Supreme Court. The do ent is 250 years old, written in a different English standard, so I don't logically see how their interpretation is more valid than anyone else's? Furthermore, that interpretation often changes depending on the political leanings of the judges involved.

Raging alcoholics who like to drive drunk eventually get pinched for a DUI and have their licenses suspended. And yes, a car dealership should be prohibited from selling a vehicle to someone with a suspended license (I think they are anyways). No need for blood tests, since the raging alcoholic's driving record with his litany of DUI arrests will be on record. And yes, it should be against the law to sell a car to a raging alkie who gets arrested for a DUI every year. I'm all for second chances, though, so if the alkie sobers up for 5 years and gets his license reinstated, then sure.

There's no higher court. I don't consider them infallible, but the cons ution grants them the power to interpret these things. This is the same cons ution you're considering infallible by the way.

A gun dealer is prohibited from selling to a convicted felon or to someone adjudicated as mentally disabled. You're moving the goalpost.

Should the dealership require a medical evaluation to determine if the potential buyer has a drug or alcohol issue?

Illinois law

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.

A person commits the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly:

Sells or gives any firearm to any person who has been a patient in a mental ins ution within the past 5 years; or

Sells or gives any firearms to any person who is a person with an intellectual disability.

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.1.

A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when:

He has been a patient in a mental ins ution within the past 5 years and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession; or

He is a person with an intellectual disability and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession.

[DMC]

Oh, also you probably think I'm advocating compulsory psych evaluations for ALL would be gun owners. Not at all. But if the background check comes in that the buyer was committed for bi-polar disorder last week, then he should be prohibited from purchase until cleared by a professional.

That's already the law. How educated are you on existing gun laws? Wouldn't you think that's the first order of business before rallying for new ones?

[midnightpulp]

There's no higher court. I don't consider them infallible, but the cons ution grants them the power to interpret these things. This is the same cons ution you're considering infallible by the way.

A gun dealer is prohibited from selling to a convicted felon or to someone adjudicated as mentally disabled. You're moving the goalpost.

Should the dealership require a medical evaluation to determine if the potential buyer has a drug or alcohol issue?

Illinois law

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.

A person commits the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly:

Sells or gives any firearm to any person who has been a patient in a mental ins ution within the past 5 years; or

Sells or gives any firearms to any person who is a person with an intellectual disability.

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.1.

A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when:

He has been a patient in a mental ins ution within the past 5 years and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession; or

He is a person with an intellectual disability and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession.

I don't consider the cons ution infallible, just that it might be a better tactic to attach meaning to the actual words themselves than attempt a variety of subjective interpretations, considering how long ago the do ent was written. "Well regulated" exists, and I believe a 2008 court decision defined well regulated as responsible and trained. States don't have identical gun laws. In your native Texas, the mentally ill are only prohibited from buying handguns.

Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.172.
A person is eligible for a license to carry a handgun if the person:
Is not a chemically dependent person; and
Is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun.
A person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
Has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
Suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition that:
Is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
Requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment.
Has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person’s own affairs; or
Has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Furthermore, it's much harder to "commit" someone to an ins ution today. Many times they're released after a 72 hour hold (my aunt went through this nightmare with my schizophrenic cousin. They kept releasing him after 72 hours when it was clear to anyone with a brain he should've been committed). Though I'm not sure if a 72 hold cons utes involuntary commitment. In any event, it probably allows a loose interpretation of the commitment and patient concepts.

[midnightpulp]

That's already the law. How educated are you on existing gun laws? Wouldn't you think that's the first order of business before rallying for new ones?

"Cleared by a professional" or "adjudicated by a professional" is not included in many of the gun laws from state-to-state (nor in the federal law). Here's Alabama's:

Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-72.
No person of unsound mind shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.

Who's the determiner here? A psychologist? The state/courts? The gun shop owner? Also, these provisions don't seem to have much efficacy in certain states. Cruz legally bought his gun, despite there existing video of him cutting his arms and saying he hates n---ers. He was also Baker Acted (but never hospitalized, illustrating my point that you basically have to be a raving lunatic times ten for them to commit you). He was also on meds.

[Th'Pusher]

Oh look. DMC turned another thread into a second amendment discussion.

[ducks]

6 illegal immigrants linked to Mexican cartel arrested in NC for drug trafficking operation, officials say