Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 195

Thread: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

  1. #141
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    And yet that distrust of their fellow citizens is EXACTLY why many 'gun nuts' demand ARs and high cap mags- because they fear an armed biker gang attacking their house...

    is there a point to that stupidity other than you feel a need to whine about conservatives?



  2. #142
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    `
    Dropping the "gun nuts" disparaging moniker, it still comes down to the point that a large segment of particular gun owners have voiced enough potential violence should anyone threatened their guns rights, that they now represent a clear and present danger to society as a whole.
    well that is moronic given that there is no evidence of that happening when stupid gun laws are passed. The government has been less responsible with guns than the citizenry-example, Waco and Ruby Ridge



  3. #143
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,973

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Gun rights advocates try to make a principled argument, but when it comes down to it; they believe regulation is needed, they just think it's a lot less than what a gun control advocate would want. That is a policy debate. Turning it into a constitutional question means that there is no policy debate; the government cannot restrict arms.
    Just curious, because I'm trying to understand your argument here.

    So would you suggest that if someone is in favor of slander and libel as laws then any disagreement over regulated speech...such as a law making it illegal to speak negatively about the President in public...would have to be from a "policy debate" perspective to them as opposed to a "constitutional debate"? That the logic or reasoning behind why you may support certain regulation as constitutional is irrelevant...that simply put, regulation of ANY kind, to ANY degree, for ANY reason instantly regulates ALL regulation, for ANY reason, to ANY degree into the "policy" sphere as opposed to "Constitutional" sphere?

    Allow unwarranted search and seizure in any situation, and then you can't consider any other matters of serach and seizure as "unconstitutional"?

    Allow any exception to equal protection and then any other exceptions to equal protection are a matter of policy, not of constitutionality?

  4. #144
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:44 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Just curious, because I'm trying to understand your argument here.

    So would you suggest that if someone is in favor of slander and libel as laws then any disagreement over regulated speech...such as a law making it illegal to speak negatively about the President in public...would have to be from a "policy debate" perspective to them as opposed to a "constitutional debate"? That the logic or reasoning behind why you may support certain regulation as constitutional is irrelevant...that simply put, regulation of ANY kind, to ANY degree, for ANY reason instantly regulates ALL regulation, for ANY reason, to ANY degree into the "policy" sphere as opposed to "Constitutional" sphere?

    Allow unwarranted search and seizure in any situation, and then you can't consider any other matters of serach and seizure as "unconstitutional"?

    Allow any exception to equal protection and then any other exceptions to equal protection are a matter of policy, not of constitutionality?
    If someone was for slander and libel laws then they'd be arguing that the first amendment was not absolute. Someone couldn't logically argue that a restriction on free speech was unconstitutional because the first amendment is absolute while also supporting libel and slander laws. So Zyphlin, I think I agree with the point you're making here.

    There's a lot of nuance and I make no guarantees that I'm actually capable of communicating it.. but here goes:

    One argument made in favor of the SCOTUS striking down the NJ CC law is that the Second Amendment says that the government can't make laws restricting firearms, ergo the law is unconstitutional. My point, is that the court couldn't have done this without either striking down all firearms laws or else nationalizing a set of firearm regulations from the bench. It's difficult to see how you could deny the state the right to licence conceal carry permits while simultaneously allowing the state to ban guns on planes, schools, stadiums, or in the vicinity of public figures. The state either has the authority to place restrictions on firearms or it doesn't. The court doesn't get to judge if a law is a good idea or a bad idea. They don't get to make policy. The court can't strike down a law as unconstitutional without striking down every other law derived from the same authority unless the court first authors a constitutional test.

    So that leaves more or less three choices. One could be in favor of an absolute reading of the second amendment which means that all restrictions are out the window (and I was arguing that literally no one is in this camp). One could also come up with a new constitutional test which balances the safety of the state with the rights of the people, (I don't think anyone has taken this route). Therefore, failing those; one is left with arguing that NJ is constitutionally allowed to enforce their cc laws; but the laws should be changed.

    Hopefully I didn't butcher that too badly.

  5. #145
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,973

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Well, I see your point. If your argument is that "they can't make this law because the government can't restrict firearms in any way", then yes...it is an issue of inconsistent application of a point.

    HOWEVER....

    You seemed to be suggesting that if you agree the state can regulate firearms in specific instances, for specific reasons then you MUST agree that in general they constitutionally can regulate firearms in ANY instance, for ANY reason.

    Which is why I brought up slander.

    That is a SPECIFIC instance, for a SPECIFIC reason, that limits freedom of speech. Going with how it appeared you were presenting your argument, agreeing with Slander meant then that you couldn't claim ANY instance of free speech being revoked, for ANY reason, was "unconstitutional".

    There are concievable arguments suggesting why the competing rights of individuals allows for a legitimate ability on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in certain fashions (such as on an air plane) while at the same time suggesting there are NOt legitimate factors on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in other fashions.

    Just like there are concievable arguments suggesting there are times where restriction of speech can be constitutional, while acknowledging there are other times where the lack of such factors mean it ISN'T constitutional.

    That is not a "policy" debate, but a debate still centered around the notion of constitutionality.

    I'm unsure, unless you can quote them, that there are individuals on the forum using the sole argument that "The Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms" who have also been advocating for regulations on firearms.

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    `
    In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.
    What is a "gun nut"?

  7. #147
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:44 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, I see your point. If your argument is that "they can't make this law because the government can't restrict firearms in any way", then yes...it is an issue of inconsistent application of a point.

    HOWEVER....

    You seemed to be suggesting that if you agree the state can regulate firearms in specific instances, for specific reasons then you MUST agree that in general they constitutionally can regulate firearms in ANY instance, for ANY reason.

    Which is why I brought up slander.

    That is a SPECIFIC instance, for a SPECIFIC reason, that limits freedom of speech. Going with how it appeared you were presenting your argument, agreeing with Slander meant then that you couldn't claim ANY instance of free speech being revoked, for ANY reason, was "unconstitutional".

    There are concievable arguments suggesting why the competing rights of individuals allows for a legitimate ability on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in certain fashions (such as on an air plane) while at the same time suggesting there are NOt legitimate factors on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in other fashions.

    Just like there are concievable arguments suggesting there are times where restriction of speech can be constitutional, while acknowledging there are other times where the lack of such factors mean it ISN'T constitutional.

    That is not a "policy" debate, but a debate still centered around the notion of constitutionality.

    I'm unsure, unless you can quote them, that there are individuals on the forum using the sole argument that "The Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms" who have also been advocating for regulations on firearms.
    I was arguing that even the people who say that Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms actually want the government to regulate firearms. They just don't like a particular form regulation. If people actually thought it was a good idea for everyone to have guns, we'd be passing them out in downtown Detroit.

    From my personal position, i'd say that the second amendment gives the state broad regulatory authority. They can't prevent people from obtaining weapons unless they're a threat to public safety, but the state can place some of the burden of proof of competence on the individual. I think this also jives with most of the gun owners I know. They're very serious about the right to carry their weapon(s) safely, and don't take kindly to people carrying who don't know what the hell they're doing.

  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NE WI.
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    What is a "gun nut"?
    `
    Let me google that for you

  9. #149
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,854

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    I was arguing that even the people who say that Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms actually want the government to regulate firearms. They just don't like a particular form regulation. If people actually thought it was a good idea for everyone to have guns, we'd be passing them out in downtown Detroit.

    .
    This is still a ridiculous and unfounded example. Not remotely based in reality. Why arent people handing out cell phones? Food? Bikes to promote energy savings? Money? Those are all great ideas, esp. for those in poverty in inner cities or places like Detroit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,854

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post

    From my personal position, i'd say that the second amendment gives the state broad regulatory authority. They can't prevent people from obtaining weapons unless they're a threat to public safety, but the state can place some of the burden of proof of competence on the individual. I think this also jives with most of the gun owners I know. They're very serious about the right to carry their weapon(s) safely, and don't take kindly to people carrying who don't know what the hell they're doing.
    What other rights do we have to demonstrate 'competence' for before we can use them?

    You make gun owners sound very elitist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •