Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1119202122 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Technology has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment and the reasons restrictions on arms sales exist. An "arm" can be an F-15, howitzer, anything that is widely considered to be a weapon is considered an "arm," which is why when we sell F-15s to Israel for example its called an "Arms sale." So then why can I not, as a private citizen, own one of those F-15s sent to Israel, same spec and model?
    Its precisely because if I did own one, along with all the other parts and logistics to make it work, I could wreck havoc with it. IE, the technological change that "arms" as a broad category have seen in the past 200 years, has made private ownership of some of these unsafe for the general public. Don't tell me that technology has nothing to do with it because it has everything to do with the reason gun and weapons laws have changed since 1790 to the present.

    As for the comparison between the 1st and 2nd Amendment and how technology has changed regarding both, how can someone not see the difference? One increases the capacity of an individual to communicate, share information, etc. The other technology advances increases the capacity of an individual to kill others and destroy property. Just because the two rights are written down on the same piece of paper doesn't mean they have to be considered the same way as people, society, technology, and the world changes.

    As for this Ben Franklin quotation in response to my considers about security regarding unregulated firearms selling/trading "Those who would give up a little freedom to gain a little security, desire neither, and will lose both." Is being taken radical out of context and being held up here as some holy law which always must be taken as true. Sorry but you can easily taken this quotation to an extreme end while maintaining its literal meaning. For example, the purpose of laws is to provide security but also limit freedom. For example I do not have the right to murder someone, which is a limit on my freedom of action, but exist for security reasons because all want to live in a secure country. To exist in any kind of social community, all humans give up some kind of freedom and step away from total anarchy for the security benefit those laws provide.

    Also consider that 1st Amendment rights have been infringed upon in several cases in both digital and real space. For example I have no right to advocate killing the President, or how to explain ways to build bombs online or in books, or to distribute child pornography. There are all reasons for these restrictions on speech existing, but if you only read the literal interpretation of the 1st Amendment they are all violations of it.

    Consider also the implications of fear upon the general public, a society living in fear is not free. We only need to look at countless examples of people being ruled by fear. People who are afraid of bodily harm, death, or property destruction are not truly free. The kind of arms proliferation many people are discussing in here I believe would result in a society of fear for many people. Now you might say that "Well its my right to do ______, and to hell with everyone else. If they are scared of my technical pick-up truck too bad." Wong, you do not have the right to inflict that kind of emotional state upon people. For example if you were to run up to a small child and scare the **** outta them with screaming/yelling/whatever but never actually physically touch, prevent their free movement, do any physically harm or whatever else. You could still be arrested, because that child, along with everyone else in this country, has the right not to subjected to that mental status.
    I'm well aware that there is a fine line in this argument because people can claim to be, and may honestly be, scared of all kinds of things other people too. And that the line changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and throughout time.

    Now again, I am a gun owner, no one accuse me of being some anti-gun left wing nut.

  2. #202
    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: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Technology has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment and the reasons restrictions on arms sales exist.

    No it doesn't.Rights do not expired just because technology changes.



    An "arm" can be an F-15, howitzer, anything that is widely considered to be a weapon is considered an "arm," which is why when we sell F-15s to Israel for example its called an "Arms sale." So then why can I not, as a private citizen, own one of those F-15s sent to Israel, same spec and model?

    As an American you should be able to own any thing the government and law enforcement has their hands on. Assuming you have a place to put those things and pay for it yourself.


    Its precisely because if I did own one, along with all the other parts and logistics to make it work, I could wreck havoc with it.
    If you can get your hands on one would other people be able to get their hands on one? So this scenario of you being about to freely commit mass murder would not exist.


    IE, the technological change that "arms" as a broad category have seen in the past 200 years, has made private ownership of some of these unsafe for the general public.

    Totally irrelevant. A right does not expire just because of technolofy. Your right to free speech did not expire just because we have new high speed printing presses, computers and other electronic devices. Your right against unreasonable searches did not expire just there is technology out there that does not require the presence of anyone to be able to search you.

    Don't tell me that technology has nothing to do with it because it has everything to do with the reason gun and weapons laws have changed since 1790 to the present.

    Technology has nothing to do with it.The reasons for the 2nd amendment do not change or go away just because a change in technology. The only reason why any unconstitutional anti-2nd amendment laws exist is to restrict the population of their 2nd amendment rights,they did it to restrict blacks from owning firearms they did it to restrict the poor from owning arms and they did it to restrict the average person.


    As for the comparison between the 1st and 2nd Amendment and how technology has changed regarding both, how can someone not see the difference?

    Again both are constitutional rights that the government has no business restricting.

    One increases the capacity of an individual to communicate, share information, etc. The other technology advances increases the capacity of an individual to kill others and destroy property.
    Irrelevant.

    Just because the two rights are written down on the same piece of paper doesn't mean they have to be considered the same way as people, society, technology, and the world changes.
    They are the same.

    As for this Ben Franklin quotation in response to my considers about security regarding unregulated firearms selling/trading "Those who would give up a little freedom to gain a little security, desire neither, and will lose both." Is being taken radical out of context and being held up here as some holy law which always must be taken as true. Sorry but you can easily taken this quotation to an extreme end while maintaining its literal meaning.
    The quote is not taken out of context.


    For example, the purpose of laws is to provide security but also limit freedom.
    If that law violates the constitutional then that law should never be obeyed.

    For example I do not have the right to murder someone, which is a limit on my freedom of action, but exist for security reasons because all want to live in a secure country.
    There is not right to murder weapon so your argument is not valid.


    To exist in any kind of social community, all humans give up some kind of freedom and step away from total anarchy for the security benefit those laws provide.
    Constitutional rights have nothing to do with anarchy.


    Also consider that 1st Amendment rights have been infringed upon in several cases in both digital and real space. For example I have no right to advocate killing the President
    Many consider death threats to be a totally different matter.
    0or how to explain ways to build bombs online or in books,
    I am not sure if that is illegal.

    Consider also the implications of fear upon the general public, a society living in fear is not free.
    Freedom is not meant to keep you totally safe.Again if you want to be totally safe then get yourself locked up in a supermax prison.


    We only need to look at countless examples of people being ruled by fear.
    And the vast majority of the times it is because of a government and the people's lack of ability to overthrow it.

    People who are afraid of bodily harm, death, or property destruction are not truly free.
    Nonsense. Paranoia of anti-2nd amendment nuts such as yourself is not excuse to infringe on my rights.

    Now again, I am a gun owner, no one accuse me of being some anti-gun left wing nut.


    Owning a gun, knife, bow and arrow,sword,pipe bomb, lead pipe, a baseball with nails sticking out of it or what ever else does not make you 2nd amendment proponent. When you advocate the restriction/infringement of a right you are not amendment proponent of that right you wish to have restricted/infringed. The Technology argument is nothing more than a load of hogwash that rights opponents use try to justify restricting rights. Dictators have guns ,it doesn't mean they want every one else to have one.
    "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

  3. #203
    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
    Technology has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment and the reasons restrictions on arms sales exist. An "arm" can be an F-15, howitzer, anything that is widely considered to be a weapon is considered an "arm," which is why when we sell F-15s to Israel for example its called an "Arms sale." So then why can I not, as a private citizen, own one of those F-15s sent to Israel, same spec and model?
    This has been addressed; you are simply re-stating an unsound premise.
    "Arms", in context, does not mean F15s. It DOES mean any and every class of firearm you care to mention, weapons that are clearly protected by the 2nd.

    As for the comparison between the 1st and 2nd Amendment and how technology has changed regarding both, how can someone not see the difference? One increases the capacity of an individual to communicate, share information, etc. The other technology advances increases the capacity of an individual to kill others and destroy property.
    How can you not see that the increased ability to communicate also increases the ability to kill others and destroy property?

    Just because the two rights are written down on the same piece of paper doesn't mean they have to be considered the same way as people, society, technology, and the world changes.
    The restrictions on the right to free speech are all based on any given action directly causing harm (like libel/slander) or placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger (like inciting a riot, fighting words, or yelling fire in a theater). These exact same principles are used to govern the restrictions of all other rights, and rightly so.

    Thus, any restrictions laid upon the right to arms must follow the same pattern, lest they run afoul of the protection afforded by the 2nd.

    What do you consider the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater?

    For example, the purpose of laws is to provide security but also limit freedom. For example I do not have the right to murder someone, which is a limit on my freedom of action, but exist for security reasons because all want to live in a secure country.
    Um... as you said, you do not have the right to murder, so restrictions against same do -not- limit your freedoms.

    Also consider that 1st Amendment rights have been infringed upon in several cases in both digital and real space. For example I have no right to advocate killing the President, or how to explain ways to build bombs online or in books, or to distribute child pornography.
    This has been addressed, above.

    There are all reasons for these restrictions on speech existing, but if you only read the literal interpretation of the 1st Amendment they are all violations of it.
    On the contrary - you do not have the right to do any of those things, and so the 1st does not protect them.

    Consider also the implications of fear upon the general public, a society living in fear is not free.
    This is unsupportable, and if true, then no society has ever been. nor will ever be, free.

    The kind of arms proliferation many people are discussing in here I believe would result in a society of fear for many people.
    It hasnt yet, and given that the weapons you discuss have been in provate hands for almost 100 years, there's no reason to believe that it will.

    Now you might say that "Well its my right to do ______, and to hell with everyone else. If they are scared of my technical pick-up truck too bad." Wong, you do not have the right to inflict that kind of emotional state upon people.
    My simple posession of a machinegun inflicts no harm whatsoever on anyone; your irrational response to same is not a legitimate basis for restricting my right any more than your offense to seeing Jesus slatered in feces is a legitimate basis for restrcting my right to free speech.

  4. #204
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-22-11 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    463

    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.
    INFRINGE:
    Infringe \In*fringe"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. & vb. n. Infringing.]

    [L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere to break. See Fraction, and cf. Infract .]

    1. To break; to violate; to transgress;


    You fail to include the word infringe because everything that you've claimed "doesn't break" the Constitution is indeed infringement...

    "Shall not be infringed"... Limiting, permitting, selectively banning, ALL are infringing.. infringement "breaks" the Constitution... so the balance of your arguments don't meet constitutional muster.
    CROUCH DOWN AND LICK THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU; MAY YOUR CHAINS WEIGH LIGHTLY UPON YOU; AND MAY PROSPERITY FORGET THAT YE WERE MY COUNTRYMEN. -SAMUEL ADAMS

  5. #205
    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
    INFRINGE:
    Infringe \In*fringe"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. & vb. n. Infringing.]

    [L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere to break. See Fraction, and cf. Infract .]

    1. To break; to violate; to transgress;


    You fail to include the word infringe because everything that you've claimed "doesn't break" the Constitution is indeed infringement...

    "Shall not be infringed"... Limiting, permitting, selectively banning, ALL are infringing.. infringement "breaks" the Constitution... so the balance of your arguments don't meet constitutional muster.
    Lets take infringements as a given.
    Can a prisoner in jail posess a gun?

    No.

    Then these rights can be infringed.

  6. #206
    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
    Lets take infringements as a given.
    Can a prisoner in jail posess a gun?
    No.
    Then these rights can be infringed.
    No... because the prisoner's right was removed by due process.
    Removal by due process does not create an infringement; as the prisoner does not have the right to be infringed, the right is not infringed by said prohibition.

  7. #207
    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
    Lets take infringements as a given.
    Can a prisoner in jail posess a gun?

    No.

    Then these rights can be infringed.
    Of course, it's called due process of law Einstein. It's the one valid way by which government force can be used against the rights and liberties of the individual. Jesus. Now, people who are not in jail you can't do that to. They are not on trial, there is no due process. Thus their rights must be recognized in full.
    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."

  8. #208
    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 Goobieman View Post
    No... because the prisoner's right was removed by due process.
    Removal by due process does not create an infringement; as the prisoner does not have the right to be infringed, the right is not infringed by said prohibition.
    Man...I didn't think this notion was so difficult. Makes me wonder how bad our schools have really gotten.
    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."

  9. #209
    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 Ikari View Post
    Man...I didn't think this notion was so difficult. Makes me wonder how bad our schools have really gotten.
    Makes -me- wonder if Alvin is arguing in good faith.

  10. #210
    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: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    What do you consider the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater?
    Firing a gun in a theater.
    "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 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1119202122 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
  •