Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 153

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

  1. #51
    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
    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.
    For this to stick, you need to make the argument that these weapons are not "arms" as the term is used under the 2nd.

    If you think you can do this, I'd love to see it.

  2. #52
    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
    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.
    I do not, nor do I suppose I will ever, see the need to burn the flag in protest or wear a jacket that says 'f-the draft' into a federal courthouse -- but the Constitutional clearly protects my right to do so.

    So... what's your point?

  3. #53
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,725

    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.
    I disagree. One of the first things Hitler did was force registration of firearms. Soon after that, he took them away.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #54
    Advisor Don't Tase Me Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-22-09 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    446

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I do think registration should be mandatory though, mostly for criminal investigation purposes.
    It's not the business of the police or any other government agency as to whether or not I own a gun or how many.

  5. #55
    Advisor Don't Tase Me Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-22-09 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    446

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

    I will be interested to see how Sotomayor comes down on this one. I can guess, of course.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

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

    Since the Court has Ruled that the First Amendment's clear ban on strictly Congressional bans of regulating religion applies to all aspects of government and public property, it would follow in the interests of consistency that they should rule that the second amendment which is far less restrictive similarly applies.

    Of course, the flaw in my reasoning is encapsulated in the word "consistency."
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  7. #57
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

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

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    How is it that the first and fourth amendment are taken so seriously at face value... by the liberals / politicans.


    yet the second amendment continues to fall under scrutiny.. when it's so clearly worded?

    And, didn't the states have to comply with the constitution when they joined the Union? Last I checked the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed was still part of the constitution?

    blah.
    Ah, but the First Amendment isn't taken at face value. If it were, the only constitutional bar on religion by government would be a prohibition on Congressional action. In other words for instance, States should be able to have Official Religions, and the Federal Government should have no say whatever in issues such as prayer in schools.

    Somehow, we've allowed the Court to make up law as it pleases. It is past time for the other branches to rein it in.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  8. #58
    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 jamesrage View Post
    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.
    Then I don't think there's any point in me responding further, because to me, that position is so absurd that I don't know where to begin.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #59
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    if u haven't noticed, there hasn't been very many liberals in this thread.
    There are liberal groups filing amicus briefs in support of the right to bear arms being strengthened. The case has implications for other constitutional rights as well; strengthening this right also will strengthen the right to privacy, for example, according to a cable right/left discussion on this case I heard recently. The rightie and the leftie both agreed that the ruling in this case will affect more than just 2nd amendment rights.

    It's supposed to be a pretty interesting case, in terms of ramifications.

  10. #60
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    How does that follow? What reason, and how does what I wrote demonstrate this reason?
    It's not what you wrote, but rather the idea behind it.

    We tend to argue over sematics without looking at common sense as it applies to the rational behind a law or rule. For instance, the 2nd Amendment does provide for the citizenry to protect themselves, their family and their property from unlawful takeover or assault by an enemy, foreign or domestic. And that enemy could be the U.S. government. Now, as Crunch and others have pointed out, if "the enemy" has such and such type of weapon, then by God, WE, the People have the protected right under the 2nd Amendment to possess these same types of weapons in order to hault tarrany against our government. But what people with such far flung mindsets forget is that WE, the People, also have the power to vote out ANY political representative who would advocate such actions against, WE, the People. Furtheremore, there's no need for WE, the People, to form a militia in order to aid the state in which we reside to fight any enemy from without. We have the National Guard and the Armed Services for that now.

    These were the merits behind giving WE, the People, the right to bear arms, but the intended purpose behind that need for protectionism from "enemies of the state" no longer exists. Furthermore, there is no dictatorship in the U.S., never has been since the U.S. became an independent nation. Our system of government provides a means bywhich WE, the People, can remove such a dictatorship from power or from ever coming into power for that matter. And none of that limitation of power can be attributed directly to the 2nd Amendment as much as it can be attributed to the rules bywhich our three levels of government must operate as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

    In the end, WE, the People, still do have the right to bear arms. And in doing so in most cases, the law doesn't place very many restrictions on what "arms" we can buy for our own protection or how many. But in not doing so, the states leave Pandora's Box ajar just enough to allow for carelessness, wrecklessness and irresponsiblity to creep in.

    As the saying goes, you can't legistlate morality, but common sense should prevail. You don't need a nuclear missle silo in your backyard to protect yourself from any enemy let alone the U.S. government any more than you'd need an M16 to protect yourself from some cat burgelor. But it is your right to do so under state and/or federal law. I personally wouldn't do it because it just doesn't make sense to do so. A Gloch 9mm will stop pretty much anyone dead in their tracks (pun intended) just as will a .38 revolver. But there are those who would prefer buying an assault riffle or even going as far as mounting a .50 Caliber machine gun on their roof if the law doesn't specifically restrict same just because they can.

    All I'm saying is where common sense fails us, the law should pick up the slack. The fed gave us the right to bear arms; the several states need to set laws in place to restrict what "level of protection" the people can posses. It just makes sense to do so.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-01-09 at 01:24 PM.

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •