Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 153

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

  1. #31
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    If you can get all of the criminal gun owners to register their guns, I'll register mine.... until then...
    ...you'll ignore laws requiring you to register your guns, thus committing a felony (depending on your location)?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #32
    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
    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.
    The purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't for people to keep guns for hunting and shooting cans, it's to keep our government in line... great big PERIOD here.

    With that in mind, citizens in good standing have to be able to keep and bear arms equal to what the government has, or the intention of the founders goes right out the window.

  3. #33
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post

    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...
    Oh, and on this point . . .

    You're arguing that an assault rifle would have no place in militia service?

    Seriously?
    “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

  4. #34
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    With that in mind, citizens in good standing have to be able to keep and bear arms equal to what the government has, or the intention of the founders goes right out the window.
    So the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect your right to deploy nuclear-tipped ICBMs in your backyard?

    Something about that seems a little off.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #35
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    I don't necessarily have a problem with people owning firearms...just the type(s) of firearms they own, the quantity and how irresponsible some people are with them. Other than that, I think it's a person's choice to determine if they need self-protection. I just don't think one needs an assault riffle to do it. A 357 Magnium, 9mm handgun and/or a small caliber riffle should be plenty.

    Just my opinion...

  6. #36
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I don't necessarily have a problem with people owning firearms...just the type(s) of firearms they own, the quantity and how irresponsible some people are with them. Other than that, I think it's a person's choice to determine if they need self-protection. I just don't think one needs an assault riffle to do it. A 357 Magnium, 9mm handgun and/or a small caliber riffle should be plenty.

    Just my opinion...
    Yes, well, individual opinions about other people's options don't mean much when it comes to a Constitutionally-protected right. That's kind of the point of protecting it.
    “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

  7. #37
    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 RightinNYC View Post
    ...you'll ignore laws requiring you to register your guns, thus committing a felony (depending on your location)?
    There are no laws here that requier me to register my guns.... yet.

  8. #38
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Oh, and on this point . . .

    You're arguing that an assault rifle would have no place in militia service?

    Seriously?
    No. I was merely attempting to look at both sides of the weapons coin where "militia -v- the people's right to bear arms" equate to weapons that would ordinarily be issued to members of a militia group acting on behalf of the state. In that sense, it is reasonable to assume that the common man would be allowed under the 2nd Amendment to own the same type(s) of weapons as would be required of a militia group. However, a reasonable person wouldn't need to own an M-16 or an AK-47. It's overkill for the purposes of self-protection or even for sport. But I can see it for a gun enthusiast (collector). This is part of the problem with the 2nd Amendement/gun control debate. "Hey, don't take away my right to bear arms" -v- "Don't take away my guns, period!" (Crunch's argument)
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-30-09 at 06:39 PM.

  9. #39
    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 RightinNYC View Post
    So the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect your right to deploy nuclear-tipped ICBMs in your backyard?

    Something about that seems a little off.
    ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h.t. 2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that 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." In Kentucky, a statute "to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90; while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional. 3 Blackf. R. 229. Vide Story, Const. Sec. 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen, 176; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 300 Rawle on Const. 125.

    Source: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
    Definition of Arms from dictionary.net

    Take it up with the constitution, or change it.

  10. #40
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Yes, well, individual opinions about other people's options don't mean much when it comes to a Constitutionally-protected right. That's kind of the point of protecting it.
    Hence, the reason for stricter gun control laws in every state.

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •