Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122
Results 211 to 213 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #211
    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 jamesrage View Post
    Firing a gun in a theater.
    If there were an actual fire (or, in this case, a legitimate reason to do so), its OK to yell fire in a theater (or, in this case, fire a gun in a theater).

  2. #212
    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 Goobieman View Post
    Makes -me- wonder if Alvin is arguing in good faith.
    The point I am trying to continually make is that there are limits to ownership of firearms. And the state can infringe on the right to own them be it through due process or whatever.
    IOW the constant stance of "shall not be infringed" is not totally correct.

    In the 2nd amendment it qualifies it by using the term "Malitia". I incorerctly interpreted that term as meaning what it means over here. i.e an armed group of irregular soldiers under the control of the military in times of war. A "Dads Army".
    Apparently it's everyone in the US. (Which makes conscription constitutional?)
    Goshin in another thread pointed out the original intent of the founding fathers and it does include a purpose of home defence.
    I didn't know that and now I do.

    However I feel the point I am trying to make (ie that there are limits on ownership of firearms) is still a valid one. Which brings us back to the idea that if that is correct then it is just a matter of where those limits lie.

  3. #213
    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
    The point I am trying to continually make is that there are limits to ownership of firearms.
    No one argues that there are no valid restrctions whatsoever.
    However, the specific points you make to that effect arent relevant, or are unsupportable.

    And the state can infringe on the right to own them be it through due process or whatever.
    No... the state can REMOVE the right thru due process.
    If you do not have the right, then your right cannot be infringed.

    IOW the constant stance of "shall not be infringed" is not totally correct.
    It is - the confusion arises in what is an infringement.
    Restricting something that is outside the right is not an infringement on the right; restricting something inside the right, is.

    In the 2nd amendment it qualifies it by using the term "Malitia". I incorerctly interpreted that term as meaning what it means over here. i.e an armed group of irregular soldiers under the control of the military in times of war. A "Dads Army".
    This 'qualification' has nothing to to with who has the right - it is an individual right, regardless of his actual relationship to the militia.
    It does have some effect on the nature of the right, particularly in what weapons are protected.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 04-01-10 at 09:52 AM.

Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •