Bahamas Warns Citizens About USA

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31130.pdf

There's lots of references available. It's apparently been pointed out twice by your courts. Shouldn't be new. Considered a breach of the 4th.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't followed that argument when it occurred and hadn't looked it up to learn more about it.

ETA: I'll add that the Bahamian law where firearms are allowed but are required to be reported is fine by me. Their country their laws. I'm happy that people can carry firearms.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by siamese

If anyone on the no-fly list is prohibited from exercising their constitutional right to own and bear a gun, then the government would have the ability to take away a citizen's right simply by placing them on the list. Whether they belong there or not.

That takes away due process. ...

Are you saying there is no "due process" in the first place i.e when they put you on the no fly list? You realise that you are saying that you have the right to "due process" when you want to own a gun but not when you want to fly somewhere.

Hence it look likes Americans have the fundamental right to carry guns but not the fundamental right to travel freely. And you guys accept this willingly?

Originally Posted by siamese

... Guns don't kill people, people kill people. ....

Technically it's the projectile that does the damage not the gun.

The ratio of available guns to number of incidents in the US is actually the second lowest of any country in the world (behind Switzerland). Unfortunately the number of guns in the US is quite high and therefore the number of incidents is high too, which brings the US quite high up on the list.

I also think it is a good idea to arm the population, which makes the government a bit more "careful". Again I do not understand the urge to carry a concealed weapon or to carry any weapon at all. I only would consider that if I would feel not safe in my environment, but if I I would not feel safe in my own country I would say we have the wrong government.

Look at Switzerland. Every male over 18 has a assault rifle plus ammunition at home. At home is the keyword here.

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Well here is a dilemma. Racial profiling has been found to be against your constitutional rights

Not so sure, back then owning slaves was good stuff, by all means, get a few more to pick cotton.
The gun thingy was also cool: Protect your property and your slaves against a heavy handed Government, you know they are out to get you.
Guess they had to give up one, but not the other.
Everything is a compromise so now the guns are here to stay regardless how many innocent people get killed in mass-shootings. The NRA of courses says that we need more guns, the more the better.
The more killings, the more we are defending our Constitutiononal Rights of course. Don't you libs see it?

[Pelagic]

Before Weaves closes this thread... Can we get off this polarising Gun issue and discuss / help visiting cruisers new to the USA .

Foe example Which entry ports on East Coast are considered 'yacht friendly'?

Any Tips-suggestions?

[landlockedsquid]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Oh, yeah? Tell that to Philando Castile

The Crip Drug addict with an arrest record that DIDNT have a concealed weapons permit but who had a gun on his lap?
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...lice-shooting/

Sorry I didn't get it from huffiest, but they wouldn't report the truth about this anyway.

How to not get killed by the cops.
If you happen to have the misfortune of needing to deal with Law Enforcement Officers in the U.S. follow these few simple rules and more than likely you will not die.
#1 Don't run from the cops.
#2 Don't fight with the cops.

[Sea Dreaming]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Are you saying there is no "due process" in the first place i.e when they put you on the no fly list? You realise that you are saying that you have the right to "due process" when you want to own a gun but not when you want to fly somewhere.

Hence it look likes Americans have the fundamental right to carry guns but not the fundamental right to travel freely. And you guys accept this willingly?



Technically it's the projectile that does the damage not the gun.

Thats a "no fly list", not a no travel list. But frankly its silly. Bush pushed through a number of pieces of legislation in the wake of 911 that infringe on our constitutional rights and rhe fear of the American population allowed it. Some WANTED these afronts to "protect" them.

But the constitution is supposed to protect us from government and give the people power to govern ourselves. Thats tricky because when the people choose to imprison themselves for their own safety, thats a right written into our Constitution through due processes. The signers of the Constitution might not have imagined that, in giving the people power, we might choose the very things they wanted to protect us from. For our own saftey of course.

"The great experiment " has proven to be fickle in its ability to protect us from our selves.

[salticrak]

A huge assumption made by the Anti gun lobby is that criminals will heed any laws passed to restrict firearm ownership. These called for laws on the left would impact mostly law abiding citizens.

[deblen]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

ETA: The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Yes they do. Every US citizen who owns a gun belongs to their state's militia.

That solves the individual vs. collective right to keep and bear arms, but in the event that a state were to dissolve its militia a resident could still keep and bear arms, the argument being that the founders could not have possibly foreseen the eventuality when people would need it enumerated on parchment that the army could have guns.

I did not know that. Thank you Jason.

[Celestialsailor]

Well...I can see where this thread is now going...Bahama's warn citizens to guns to politics to...

[darylat8750]

Originally Posted by Jdege

Chasing votes could be complicated.

The Dems offered a bill that trampled on fundamental rights without even a shred of due process. The GOP countered with a bill that offered an after-the-fact band-aid to create the appearance of due process. (Any right-thinking person would have opposed both.)

The fact that not a single Dem voted for the GOP bill indicates to me that the Dem leadership was far more interested in generating outrage and maintaining this as an issue they could shout about than actually accomplishing anything.

You need to understand that the "No FLY List" is very arbitrary and if one is put on there in error it is a monster task to get yourself removed. Many of us think the no fly list is offensive because of this and giving the beauracrats even more power is not acceptable. It is amazing to me that the media outlets that would go nuts if the bill said that they could be stopped from printing a paper or doing a TV documentary about anything think nothing of fellow citizens other rights being trampled.

One of "the old time guys" said (paraphrasing) "If you give up freedom for security will get and deserve neither ."

[darylat8750]

"Are you saying there is no "due process" in the first place i.e when they put you on the no fly list? You realise that you are saying that you have the right to "due process" when you want to own a gun but not when you want to fly somewhere.

Hence it look likes Americans have the fundamental right to carry guns but not the fundamental right to travel freely. And you guys accept this willingly?"

Yes! That is what we are saying and why many of us are working hard to limit the over reaching of the government employees in any way we can. We have too many government agencies out of control. The boarding of private yachts is only a small example. The IRS can ruin your life with a small (to them) mistake and never even say "By your leave."

The previously mentioned vote that the NRA backed was not about gun control. It was about the government being told NO.

[REsCat]

Originally Posted by deblen

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If the words "for the greater good" had been included with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" or be amended to read such then perhaps the 2nd Amendment would more accurately reflect the will of the people now as it exists or allow the people to exercise it.

No constitution of any nation in the history of mankind has yet proven to be a definitive document/charter without reproach or one that can uphold and adapt fully to the will of the people (as it was originally contstructed) and endure the test of time.

I am sure if the Founding Fathers were gathered today and asked, they would acknowledge this.

The current US political process, parties etc seem to have lost the concept of "for the greater good" , as have many other nations in the world. JMHO

Bob

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by landlockedsquid

The Crip Drug addict with an arrest record that DIDNT have a concealed weapons permit but who had a gun on his lap?
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...lice-shooting/

Sorry I didn't get it from huffiest, but they wouldn't report the truth about this anyway.

How to not get killed by the cops.
If you happen to have the misfortune of needing to deal with Law Enforcement Officers in the U.S. follow these few simple rules and more than likely you will not die.
#1 Don't run from the cops.
#2 Don't fight with the cops.

Castile did have a carry permit. True, it wasn't issued by Ramsey County, but he was a resident of Hennepin County when he applied.

Castile had never been convicted of a felony, or a violent misdemeanor, or of domestic assault, or of use of illegal drugs, and he wasn't in the Minnesota criminal gang database - any of which would have resulted in a mandatory denial.

[TurninTurtle]

You non-US people don't like the US?

Good.

Stay the hell out.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by REsCat

If the words "for the greater good" had been included with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" or be amended to read such then perhaps the 2nd Amendment would more accurately reflect the will of the people now as it exists or allow the people to exercise it.

Well said Bob. The so-called US constitutionalists remind me of the biblical literalists (or torah or quran) who cannot seem to understand that there is a historic context in which these documents were created. To read them literally, divorced from their historic background, is to read them without understanding.