Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 153

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

  1. #41
    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
    No. I was merely attempting to look at both sides of the weapons coin where "militia" -v- the people's right to bear arms equal to that which would ordinarily be issued to members of a militia would be required to possess.

    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)
    It's not my argument, it's what the constitution says.

  2. #42
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    No. I was merely attempting to look at both sides of the weapons coin where "militia" -v- the people's right to bear arms equal to that which would ordinarily be issued to members of a militia would be required to possess.

    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)
    As a fundamental right, any restriction would have to pass strict scrutiny -- it would have to be a compelling state interest, and it would have to be narrowly tailored to serve ONLY that interest. The "reasonable man" standard doesn't apply.

    Now, there would be a compelling state interest in preventing the private ownership of nukes, and it's not hard to restrict that and only that.

    But just saying "he doesn't need that gun to protect his home" or "why does he need that many guns?" do NOT cut 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

  3. #43
    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
    Hence, the reason for stricter gun control laws in every state.
    You are right.... I think all this shooting with one hand should be banned.... the improved Weaver stance should be mandatory nation wide.

  4. #44
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    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.
    One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment is that the population can overthrow the government if it ever became to corrupt or fascist and to be able to defend this county against a armed invasion, that means the people having the same access to the same weapons as the government does. If the government does not want average citizens having nukes the the government itself should not have nukes. 2nd amendment opponents especially liberals from NewYork who do not mind anti-2nd amendment laws always like to use extremes like biological weapons and nukes in a discussion about 2nd amendment rights.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #45
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 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
    As a fundamental right, any restriction would have to pass strict scrutiny -- it would have to be a compelling state interest, and it would have to be narrowly tailored to serve ONLY that interest. The "reasonable man" standard doesn't apply.

    Now, there would be a compelling state interest in preventing the private ownership of nukes, and it's not hard to restrict that and only that.

    But just saying "he doesn't need that gun to protect his home" or "why does he need that many guns?" do NOT cut it.
    Again, it's just my opinion. From my point of view, firearms possession has gotten out of hand. It's as one poster said, "Just because you can get it doesn't mean you should own it."

    I don't own a gun. Never saw the need to have one. The neighborhoods where I've lived over the course of my adult life have all been relatively safe. Should ever the need arise that I feel I should get one, I'm sure my Constitution (as well as state) right will still be there. But I seriously doubt I'll find a need to own an AK-47. The guy next in line might, but that's his choice and his right.

  6. #46
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    There are no laws here that requier me to register my guns.... yet.
    Most states do not have laws requiring firearms registrations.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #47
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Again, it's just my opinion. From my point of view, firearms possession has gotten out of hand. It's as one poster said, "Just because you can get it doesn't mean you should own it."

    I don't own a gun. Never saw the need to have one. The neighborhoods where I've lived over the course of my adult life have all been relatively safe. Should ever the need arise that I feel I should get one, I'm sure my Constitution (as well as state) right will still be there. But I seriously doubt I'll find a need to own an AK-47. The guy next in line might, but that's his choice and his right.
    Then what did you mean by this?

    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.
    “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

  8. #48
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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.
    How does that follow? What reason, and how does what I wrote demonstrate this reason?
    “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

  9. #49
    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
    Definition of Arms from dictionary.net

    Take it up with the constitution, or change it.
    I have no clue what you think that means.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment is that the population can overthrow the government if it ever became to corrupt or fascist and to be able to defend this county against a armed invasion, that means the people having the same access to the same weapons as the government does. If the government does not want average citizens having nukes the the government itself should not have nukes.
    I think this is an absurd and illogical conclusion. Along with nukes, I'm assuming we don't want average citizens to have missile defenses, F-16s, tanks, etc. Using your logic, the government should get rid of all those things.

    Do you actually think that's a good idea, or is it just one of those things that sounds really cool on paper until you think about it?

    2nd amendment opponents especially liberals from NewYork who do not mind anti-2nd amendment laws always like to use extremes like biological weapons and nukes in a discussion about 2nd amendment rights.
    Yea, it's called "taking an argument to its logical conclusion." If you tried it, you would end up realizing the absurdity of your position before others had to point it out.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #50
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I think this is an absurd and illogical conclusion. Along with nukes, I'm assuming we don't want average citizens to have missile defenses, F-16s, tanks, etc. Using your logic, the government should get rid of all those things.

    I could care less if average citizens has those things. If they have a place to park those things then I have no problem with it.


    Do you actually think that's a good idea, or is it just one of those things that sounds really cool on paper until you think about it?
    I have no faith that the government will not turn on the people. So yes those are good things because a government is less likely to turn on its citizens if the government knows the citizens can take them out. If there is ever a armed invasion I would feel alot better knowing that I had the means to defend my loved ones and property.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 09-30-09 at 07:21 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •