Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 153

Thread: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans

  1. #91
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    That goes back to the U.S. -v- Miller where [fire]arms ownership was upheld, but did not clearly define "arms" at it applies to the 2nd Amendment. Thus, point taken.
    MIller notes that to be protected by the 2nd, a weapon must be one that has some reasonable relationship to the efficacy of the militia, part of the ordinary military equipment, and in common use that the time.

    That covers any firearm you care to mention, and thus, all firearms are covered by the 2nd.


    That said, I do believe that some people have taken the 2nd Amendment to the extreme in using it as a permission slip to buy whatever weapons/arms they wish to define as a "personal defensive weapons".
    The operative term is 'arms', not 'personal defense weapons'. You're trying to set up a strawman.

    The problem with the 2nd Amendment as I see it is that it uses the words "well regulated militia", "security of a free state" and "right of the people" all in the same sentence. However, I don't believe the context matches the content as the situation applies today. Nonetheless, the SCOTUS upheld the state's right to form citizen militias and as such protected the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
    The SCotUS said that the right was individual, and had no relationship to that individual's participation in any militia.

    The question, rightly enough, now becomes what weaponry can a person rightfully possess as weapons that would normally be required of a militia?
    I believe this was discussed, above.
    Whatever the upper limit, the term "arms" clearly covers all firearms.

    And since the SCOTUS upheld the state's right to form militias, you rightully have to answer this question in that context.
    False. See above.
    The SCotUS said that the right was individual, and had no relationship to that individuals participation in any militia.

    Again, as I've stated in my last post, I believe the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was so that the states could call upon it's residents to take up arms in defense of said state. But we now have other entities to defend the state against a hostile takeover from within (domestic) and without (foreign).
    Irrelevant. See above.
    The SCotUS said that the right was individual, and had no relationship to that individuals participation in any militia.

    Yet, the later part of the 2nd Amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the part that WE, the people continue to fight tooth and nail to preserve. Well, if you take the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and apply it in the content for which it was truly entended, I think most people would agree there's no need for a citizen militia in any state anymore.
    Again, irrelevant. See above.
    The SCotUS said that the right was individual, and had no relationship to that individuals participation in any militia.

    I think the best thing the SCOTUS can do is to take up U.S. -v- Miller again and define what [fire]arms are for personal protection.
    Again: false standard.
    The operative term is 'arms', not 'personal defense weapons'

    It's the only way to keep certain types of firearms as identified under the NFA out of the hands of this nation's citizens where they can potentially be used irresponsibly.
    Show that this is necessary, and that any such restriction doe snot run afoul of the Constitution.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 10-02-09 at 12:03 PM.

  2. #92
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Baseball bats are meant to hit base balls and hand guns are meant to kill people.
    Really?
    If I use one of my guns to to do something other than kill someone, am I using it improperly?

  3. #93
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Really?
    If I use one of my guns to to do something other than kill someone, am I using it improperly?
    Of course you are.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  4. #94
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Really?
    If I use one of my guns to to do something other than kill someone, am I using it improperly?
    Pssst BTW I think you do have the right to own a handgun. But you can use as a hammer for all I care.

  5. #95
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Pssst BTW I think you do have the right to own a handgun. But you can use as a hammer for all I care.
    You didnt answer the question.
    It goes directly towards your statement that handguns are meant to kill people.

    And, even if you're right.... so?

  6. #96
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Pssst BTW I think you do have the right to own a handgun. But you can use as a hammer for all I care.
    Now that should be against the Law!!!!!

  7. #97
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Goobieman, Goshin, Crunch:

    Back up, okay? I'm essentially agreeing with you guys here. Not once have I said a person's right to bear arms should be taken away. Restricted somewhat, maybe...yes, but only insofar as I believe there just shouldn't be certain types of weapons out there on the streets or in one's possession as a civilian. Again, that's my opinion. Still, I'm a long way from saying a person doesn't have the right to purchase a firearm (i.e., a handgun or riffle) to protect themselves, their family or property.

    I've outlined where I believe the "abuse" stems from, i.e., the right of states to still form militia groups, and how as a result some people have taken their right to bear arms to the extreme! But, to each his own. As long as they abid by the law of the land, it's their choice and their right to buy whatever the law allows. I think some people have gone overboard with it, but again it's their right to do so.

  8. #98
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Goobieman, Goshin, Crunch:

    Back up, okay? I'm essentially agreeing with you guys here. Not once have I said a person's right to bear arms should be taken away. Restricted somewhat, maybe...yes, but only insofar as I believe there just shouldn't be certain types of weapons out there on the streets or in one's possession as a civilian. Again, that's my opinion. Still, I'm a long way from saying a person doesn't have the right to purchase a firearm (i.e., a handgun or riffle) to protect themselves, their family or property.

    I've outlined where I believe the "abuse" stems from, i.e., the right of states to still form militia groups, and how as a result some people have taken their right to bear arms to the extreme! But, to each his own. As long as they abid by the law of the land, it's their choice and their right to buy whatever the law allows. I think some people have gone overboard with it, but again it's their right to do so.
    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.
    It's a very short amendment, in very plain language.... what is so hard to understand about it?

    Yet you keep wanting to put restrictions on it... look up infringed, then apply "shall not".
    Last edited by Crunch; 10-02-09 at 02:53 PM.

  9. #99
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Goobieman, Goshin, Crunch:
    Back up, okay? I'm essentially agreeing with you guys here. Not once have I said a person's right to bear arms should be taken away. Restricted somewhat, maybe...yes, but only insofar as I believe there just shouldn't be certain types of weapons out there on the streets or in one's possession as a civilian.
    Yes... and as we have asked numerous times, how do these weapons not qualify as 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd?

  10. #100
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-22-11 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    463

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    C'mon, now. How many burglers do you know walk around breaking into houses carrying an assault riffle slung over their shoulder? Instead of replying with hyperbole, let's try staying in the reality of the real.

    Again, I fully understand where the hardline viewpoint is on this matter, but let's use some common sense here, folks.
    The "common sense" is if your aim is protect your family and property from those that would do you harm, you'd better damnwell be BETTER armed than them... Have you ever heard of a little thing called a home invasion?? ..maybe not..

    It's the moral difference between explaining to the police why you killed some number of thugs or watching your wife being raped after your kids were killed and you were hauled to 10 different ATMs to extract your money before you yourself are killed..

    The liberal "hardline" will not save your life or that of your children..nor will the police... they are far to busy out on the highway collecting revenue for the county!

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •