Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #181
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ConservaBill View Post
    True'dat... BUT the SCOTUS is now offering waivers for the uS Constitution to local municipalities... another slippery slope...

    Let's say OK locals can pass laws to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, where do you then draw the line? Nothing is now sacred and the states can just do damnwell as they please IE: Cal.'s legalization of marijuana... or for giggles let's say slavery in Alabama...

    We can't demand adherence to PART of the Constitution, and we should damnwelll repeal any past laws that do so.. The Constitution is a signed (ratified) contract and the Federalist Papers where the "Bill of Goods" which was "sold" to the States.. Which I for one, DEMAND adherence to... ALL of IT, NOT PART of IT.
    Unless it makes all types of offensive weapons ilegal, then it dosn't break the letter of the constitution.

  2. #182
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Unless it makes all types of offensive weapons ilegal, then it dosn't break the letter of the constitution.
    If it infringes in the least, it does break the letter of the Constitution.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #183
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If it infringes in the least, it does break the letter of the Constitution.
    Nowhere in the constitution does it enumerate what is and isn't an "arm". What is widely accepted are restrictions of some type or another on those. That means that the only difference between Chicago/DC etc. and anywhere else is where that line is drawn.

  4. #184
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Nowhere in the constitution does it enumerate what is and isn't an "arm".
    It doesn't need to, arms are weapons.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #185
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    My point isn't about the technology changing itself, its about the increase in destructive capacity that change brings. And if you think that has nothing to do with the argument, you're completely wrong because it has everything to do with the argument.
    It is still the technology argument, and as such, it still fails.

    That technology has progressed to the point where it is 'more dangerous' is not limited to weapons; if your argument regarding weapons is sound, then it is also sound in those other areas - but no, the 4th still applies to telephones and the 1st still applies to CNN and the internet.

    The reasons you can't own an F-15...
    We're talking about guns, not F15s.

    An F-15 is an "arm" a howitzer is an "arm", a nuclear bomb is a "arm,"
    Not as the term is used in the context of the 2nd.

    a full automatic machine gun is an arm.
    Yes, yes it is. As such, it is protected by the 2nd.

    But no one has a right to purchase one of these things...
    You very certainly have the right to purchase and use a machinegun.

    I am not advocating the complete and total outlawing of guns or firearms, I am a gun owner myself, what I am advocating is reasonable regulation.
    "Reaonable regulation" miust pass the strict scrutiny test.
    That is, it must acheieve a compelling state interest in the most narrow and least limiting way possible.
    Show that your ban on machineguns does this.

    I think the line drawn at fully-automatic is a reasonable regulation, a line which most states agree too.
    Um...no. Most states do not agree as most states do not ban machineguns - and even if they did, popular consensus in state law does not trump the 2nd amendment.

    Under both of the relevant SCotUS decisions, machineguns qualify as 'arms' and as such fall under the protection of the 2md.

    I know exactly what the Constitution says, and I know exactly what the intention of the 2nd Amendment is.
    If that's the case, it is then impossible to argue how machineguns do not qualify as 'arms' and thus fall under its protection.

    But fact is that it came into the Constitution in 1790, 220 years ago, and the changes that have taken place in the mean time need to be considered.
    This is just a re-statement of the unsound technology argument.

    The Constitution is NOT the Bible, it is not some holy document which changing is some kind of sin.
    Of course not -- that's why there is an Article V.
    Until it is changed, however, it must be adhered to, including the protection of the right to arms.

    Its a malleable document that is meant to be changed, has been changed(not just with amendments but with judicial rulings and interpretation, and comes with procedures for how to change it.
    You're confusing 'interpretation' and/or 'clarification' with 'change'.

  6. #186
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people?
    You do realize that if you have a penis, you could rape hundreds of women?
    You do realize that if you have a vagina, you could turn hundreds of tricks?

    Point is, we do not restrict peoples rights becuase of what the might do with them - that's called prior restraint, and violates the Constitution.

    What I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned.
    The SCotUS hase defined 'arms', and it includes all classes of firearms.

  7. #187
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Nowhere in the constitution does it enumerate what is and isn't an "arm".
    The court has.

    What is widely accepted are restrictions of some type or another on those
    Yes. Those that pass the strict scrutiny test, just like for all other constitutional rights.

    Take the restrcitions on the first amendment, apply them to guns, and you'll see what I mean.

  8. #188
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It doesn't need to, arms are weapons.
    Here have a stick with a nail in it.

    Your armed.

    Have a nice day.

  9. #189
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Here have a stick with a nail in it.

    Your armed.

    Have a nice day.
    At the cost of infringing upon which arms I can have. Which violates the Constitution.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #190
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Here have a stick with a nail in it.
    Your armed.
    Have a nice day.
    This is no different than arguing the banning of Catholocism does not violate the 1st amendment, as you can still be a Lutheran.

    Or that banning criticism of the President does not violate the 1st amendment becaus eyou can still criticize Congress.

Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... 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
  •