Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 153

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

  1. #71
    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 winston53660 View Post
    Can we agree that Constitutionally people have the right to own property can we also agree the government has the right to keep records on the peoperty as well as tax it?
    Aren't property taxes part of the state government?

    And aren't they used for municipalities that service that piece of land?

    Why would the FED get involved in the state's business of it's land?
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  2. #72
    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 jamesrage View Post
    I guess only a liberal anti-2nd amendment nut such as yourself has complete faith that the government will not turn on its people or that we will never be invaded.
    I think he's more of a RINO...
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  3. #73
    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
    In criminal cases, the gun needs to be traced. If there was no gun crime, then no registration would be needed.
    The "need" here does not rise to the constitutional standard of a "compelling state interest", as tracing guns to the lawful owner is not a necessary component in solving a gun-related crime.

    This is especially the case in that most guns used in crime are stolen, and that criminals will not register the guns they illegally own - indeed, they cannot be legally required to do so.

  4. #74
    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
    Can we agree that Constitutionally people have the right to own property can we also agree the government has the right to keep records on the peoperty as well as tax it?
    Certain types of porperty, under cetain conditions, for certain reasons.

  5. #75
    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
    Certain types of porperty, under cetain conditions, for certain reasons.
    And these certain conditions are?

  6. #76
    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
    And these certain conditions are?
    Consider the difference between your house and your TV.
    One is real property, the other is chattle.
    You have a title to the former, and not the latter.
    The transfer of one is recorded and its possession taxed, the other is not.

  7. #77
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 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 Goobieman View Post
    I say again:

    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.
    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. We do, however, have the National Firearms Act (NFA) which defines what firearms are, and the Gun Control Act (GCA), which outlines violations in the use, possession and purchasing of handguns.

    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". And while neither the NFA nor the GCA prohibit anyone from purchasing certain types of weapons as long as they are of legal age, U.S. citizens, pay the appropriate tax and properly register same, I do think that crack in Pandora's Box where "personal protection" is concerned remains too wide open.

    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 question, rightly enough, now becomes what weaponry can a person rightfully possess as weapons that would normally be required of a militia? And since the SCOTUS upheld the state's right to form militias, you rightully have to answer this question in that context. I think it's the wrong way to go, but it is within this framework bywhich the states must address their laws on gun control.

    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). 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...at least not in the way such was formed two centuries ago. And if there's no need for a militia, then WE, the people no longer need to take up arms in defense of the state inwhich we reside. Again, we have the National Gurd for that (which, of course, is an all-volunteer force). But WE will fight to preserve this right for the sake of "self-protection" which I also agree with.

    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. 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.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-01-09 at 06:25 PM.

  8. #78
    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 Oftencold View Post
    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.
    Never happen.... We The People will have to do it, after all, it's our fault we let them get as far as they have.

  9. #79
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    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. We do, however, have the National Firearms Act (NFA) which defines what firearms are, and the Gun Control Act (GCA), which outlines violations in the use, possession and purchasing of handguns.

    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". And while neither the NFA nor the GCA prohibit anyone from purchasing certain types of weapons as long as they are of legal age, U.S. citizens, pay the appropriate tax and properly register same, I do think that crack in Pandora's Box where "personal protection" is concerned remains too wide open.

    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 question, rightly enough, now becomes what weaponry can a person rightfully possess as weapons that would normally be required of a militia? And since the SCOTUS upheld the state's right to form militias, you rightully have to answer this question in that context. I think it's the wrong way to go, but it is within this framework bywhich the states must address their laws on gun control.

    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). 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...at least not in the way such was formed two centuries ago. And if there's no need for a militia, then WE, the people no longer need to take up arms in defense of the state inwhich we reside. Again, we have the National Gurd for that (which, of course, is an all-volunteer force). But WE will fight to preserve this right for the sake of "self-protection" which I also agree with.

    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. 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.
    You seem to think that the National Guard is a state entity. It isn't. It's a Federal body.

    In any case, it's not a militia. In fact, in several significant ways, it works against the idea of a militia.

    And besides, the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the existence of a militia . . . otherwise, it would have been the "right to form a militia" which was protected.
    “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. #80
    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
    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.
    How many police forces would show up with a fully automatic weapon if they decided to use those gun registration forms to confiscate our guns... like they did in Germany, England, Australia, etc?

    How could the common citizen vote out a government that decided they were going to denie all rights from the constitution and become a dictatorship and have a president and congress for life?

    Of course that could never happen, could it.

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •