Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 153

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

  1. #21
    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 Orius View Post
    I used to be one of them. I think uncontrolled arms isn't necessarily a good thing. Just because someone can afford their own nuclear silo does not mean they should get one. If it infringes upon public safety en mass, then it's not a weapon people should have.
    Interesting that the only people that bring up nuclear weapons in a discussion about the 2nd amendment are those that look to increase regulations on guns - all the while oblivious to the face that the 2nd doesn't have anything to do with nukes, and so any and every restriction on nukes is meaningless when discussing guns.

    I do think registration should be mandatory though, mostly for criminal investigation purposes.
    Registration violates the constitution as it is a precondition to a right not inherent to that right - it is no more constitutional than forcing people to register their blogs with the government before they can express their opinions.

  2. #22
    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
    Interesting that the only people that bring up nuclear weapons in a discussion about the 2nd amendment are those that look to increase regulations on guns - all the while oblivious to the face that the 2nd doesn't have anything to do with nukes, and so any and every restriction on nukes is meaningless when discussing guns.


    Registration violates the constitution as it is a precondition to a right not inherent to that right - it is no more constitutional than forcing people to register their blogs with the government before they can express their opinions.
    Nevermind the fact that historically registration has led to confiscation..


    Even here in this Country... when Cali and New York required registration of their firearms... everyone was like.. "oh sure, npnp."...

    Then California and New York banned some weapons.. and went knocking on people's door's to get them.


    Sounded like a good idea.. up until the state's jack booted thugs came knocking.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  3. #23
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,121
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    you do realize that regulation doesn't work, right?
    Yes, it hasn't worked... But the alternative is to allow anyone to buy a handgun, and we can't let that happen either. I'm talking about firm requirements... background checks, no felony convictions and such. I'm not talking about restricting law abiding citizens from handgun ownership.
    Last edited by Grim17; 09-30-09 at 04:44 PM.

  4. #24
    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 stevenb View Post
    Nevermind the fact that historically registration has led to confiscation.
    Understandng that 'compelling state interest' means 'something necessary for state to be able to do to allow for the function of society', the government has no compelling interest to know which of its citzens has which guns, just as it has no compelling interest to know which of its citizens has a blog.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 09-30-09 at 04:46 PM.

  5. #25
    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 Grim17 View Post
    Yes, it hasn't worked... But the alternative is to allow anyone to buy a handgun, and we can't let that happen either. I'm talking about firm requirements... background checks, no felony convictions and such. I'm not talking about restricting law abiding citizens from handgun ownership.
    Registration is imposing restrictions on ownership.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Does anyone have an argument -against- incorporation?
    I'm sure there is a slew of arguments, none of them logical.

  7. #27
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

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

    FWIW, this was the case we discussed in this thread:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...eld-court.html
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #28
    Sage

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I don't see how the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the States. When the States signed on to the Republic, they accepted the Bill of Rights. Those rights have been specifically reserved by the People. It's like saying the federal government can't infringe on free speech, but if I want to say something I'd need the proper permit from the State government. It makes no sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Thats what the 14th amendment does -- officially applies the BoR to the actions of the states.
    The first paragraph to the 14th Amendment essentially says that no state shall make laws that take away the rights given to the people by the Constitution. If we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the strictest sense of the word as we've done with the "natural born citizen" issue from Articel 2, Section 1 to the Constitution, then the states cannot restrict the people from owning firearms of any kind be it a pistol, a shotgun, a high powered riffle, or a bazooka!

    However, I would hope that people and politicians would look at the issue of gun control from a more reasonable standpoint as it is clear that owning such firearms as high powered riffles or bazookas would not be prudent in today's society where the need for self-protection is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Based on the current members of the SCOTUS, I think they will strike down bans against handgun ownership, which is consistent with the bill of rights.

    Strong regulation is necessary, especially in inner cities, but banning them violates our rights.
    I think ultimately, this is what the SCOTUS will rule in favor of. But here again, the problem is this:

    What firearms would reasonably constitute weaponry used in today's "militia" that would not violate the people's right to bear arms in the event of hostilities invoked upon the people by its government or from an enemy from outside our nation's boarders or from an individual (or individuals) who wishes to do harm to a person, his/her family or property?
    Of course, the other side of this debate is:

    Is it even necessary for the people to bear arms for the sake of self-protection against all enemies, foreign or domestic, considering that the very nature of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the people of the several states the right to bear arms against foreign enemies when called upon to do so by our government in forming a militia to protect the nation?
    We have the National Guard to do that for us now. Thus, it could be argued that the people no longer need to take up arms for that reason. I doubt one would have any success making such an argument, but they could try. The issue with the 2nd Amendment, IMO, really isn't resticting people from buying firearms, but rather controlling what firearms they buy. It's just not reasonable for the people to own certain types of firearms, i.e., assault riffles and such, for self-protection or even for sport (hunting or hobbyist/collectors). The very nature of a militia group would likely restrict certain weapons on the grounds of functionality alone. Therefore, I can't see the rational of allowing the people to own any type of weapon they want. But here's the rub...

    If a militia would use an AK-47, would it not then be permissable for the people to have the right to own same?
    That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real puzzlers here:
    What firearms would be deemed "reasonable" for individuals owners for self-protection or in the event one is called to help form a militia group?
    Again, I think the argument could be made that the people would no longer be called upon to form a militia. We have other agencies to do that for the several states (National Guard) and the nation (Armed Services). The only reasonable question that remains in present day is "Who can own what type of firearm for what purpose?"

    In answering this question, I think it's important that the states lay the foundation for gun control laws that enact tougher restrictions against (or ban the sale of same altogether) the purchase of certain types of weapons from the common, everyday consumer. I don't think you can do it at the federal level without amending or abolishing the 2nd Amendement. This is something the states must do, but perhaps with alittle clarification from the fed or the SCOTUS.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-30-09 at 06:01 PM.

  9. #29
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    The first paragraph to the 14th Amendment essentially says that no state shall make laws that take away the rights given to the people by the Constitution. If we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the strictest sense of the word as we've done with the "natural born citizen" issue from Articel 2, Section 1 to the Constitution, then the states cannot restrict the people from owning firearms of any kind be it a pistol, a shotgun, a high powered riffle, or a bazooka!

    However, I would hope that people and politicians would look at the issue of gun control from a more reasonable standpoint as it is clear that owning such firearms as high powered riffles or bazookas would not be prudent in today's society where the need for self-protection is concerned.



    I think ultimately, this is what the SCOTUS will rule in favor of. But here again, the problem is this:



    Of course, the other side of this debate is:



    We have the National Guard to do that for us now. Thus, it could be argued that the people no longer need to take up arms for that reason. I doubt one would have any success making such an argument, but they could try. The issue with the 2nd Amendment, IMO, really isn't resticting people from buying firearms, but rather controlling what firearms they buy. It's just not reasonable for the people to own certain types of firearms, i.e., assault riffles and such, for self-protection or even for sport (hunting or hobbyist/collectors). The very nature of a militia group would likely restrict certain weapons on the grounds of functionality alone. Therefore, I can't see the rational of allowing the people to own any type of weapon they want. But here's the rub...



    That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real puzzlers here:

    Again, I think the argument could be made that the people would no longer be called upon to form a militia. We have other agencies to do that for the several states (National Guard) and the nation (Armed Services). The only reasonable question that remains in present day is "Who can own what type of firearm for what purpose?"

    In answering this question, I think it's important that the states lay the foundation for gun control laws that enact tougher restrictions against (or ban the sale of same altogether) the purchase of certain types of weapons from the common, everyday consumer. I don't think you can do it at the federal level without amending or abolishing the 2nd Amendement. This is something the states must do, but perhaps with alittle clarification from the fed or the SCOTUS.
    There's very little difference between all of this and all the typical "justifications" of gun control given throughout the years, save that you give some acknowledgment that the Supreme Court recognizes the 2A to protect an individual, not a state's, right.

    As such, like it or not (and you obviously do not), none of this matters; the right is protected, and it can't be "reasoned" away. These may be arguments for abolishing the 2A (though I disagree with them), but they are not arguments which should -- or can -- be taken into account when applying the 2A to the states. It protects what it protects, regardless.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #30
    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 Orius View Post
    I used to be one of them. I think uncontrolled arms isn't necessarily a good thing. Just because someone can afford their own nuclear silo does not mean they should get one. If it infringes upon public safety en mass, then it's not a weapon people should have.

    But scaling down to the more practical level... I don't see anything wrong with bearing arms. I do think registration should be mandatory though, mostly for criminal investigation purposes.
    If you can get all of the criminal gun owners to register their guns, I'll register mine.... until then...

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •