Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

  1. #21
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post

    Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
    Because there are people out there that like to hurt others. I almost became a victim a few years back.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    Because there are people out there that like to hurt others. I almost became a victim a few years back.
    Fair enough -- just fill out the proper forms, register the gun per your state/county laws, and no problem.

  3. #23
    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: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Fair enough -- just fill out the proper forms, register the gun per your state/county laws, and no problem.
    Or we could properly uphold the 2nd amendment and tell the gun control crowd to "go **** themselves", you know, since the second shall not be infringed.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #24
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    This is overzealous...??

    Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

    If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

    Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.

    Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
    Why do you need to live, I want you to fill out paperwork, and I want the govt to do a monthly anal check and then you have to fill out paperwork every month justifying your existence. Damn right abortion-supporter, you need to justify why you shouldn't be aborted.

    I just applied your logic.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #25
    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: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    They only look scary.
    Most guns used in crimes are hand guns.

    Technically, the vast majority of people who own guns, don't own "assault weapons."
    They relabeled semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" to make them sound a whole lot worse than what they are.

    Traditionally, an assault weapon is fully automatic.
    Those that are banned are not.

    This is considered an assault weapon by their standards.
    Select fire. Intermediate cartrige, magazine fed.

  6. #26
    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: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post

    I believe the legality of government infringements on private arms should have to meet the "Strict" test of Constitutionality: that is, they should require an overwhelming societal intrest to justify the intervention; the restriction should be very narrowly targeted to address a specific problem; pre-emptive infringement should be avoided if possible (that is, restricting a law-abiding citizen just because he might commit a crime) and there should be good reason to believe that such a law will actually have beneficial effects in the real world, as opposed to simply "because some politicians want to do this."
    My take on it?
    If you want one for hunting, then fine. Apply for a long rifle or shotgun license. The state or Feds must have a "shall issue" policy on that. Ditto for home defense. With a transport allowance for carrying to and from events or practice.

    You want one for personal protection?
    Sure, demonstrate a specifc threat. A barring order or security job or carrying cash etc.

    You want a military grade weapon?
    Sure. Demonstrate membership in a recognized regulated militia.

  7. #27
    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: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    My take on it?
    If you want one for hunting, then fine.
    Rights are not based on need, the opening premise is flawed.
    Apply for a long rifle or shotgun license.
    No, wrong, licensing applies to priveledges, not rights, I do not have to ask the government's permission to exercise a right.
    The state or Feds must have a "shall issue" policy on that.
    No, they shall not infringe the right to bear arms. Without compelling interest and the strictest test of scrutiny, in which none of your ideas pass, they would be overstepping their boundaries. The second amendment invalidates any "Federal shall issue gun permit" by rendering it redundant.
    Ditto for home defense.
    Rights are not based on need.
    With a transport allowance for carrying to and from events or practice.
    You do not need to seek permission to exercise a right.
    You want one for personal protection?
    Sure, demonstrate a specifc threat. A barring order or security job or carrying cash etc.
    You do not need to demonstrate anything, it is a right.
    You want a military grade weapon?
    Sure. Demonstrate membership in a recognized regulated militia.
    All able bodied males 18-45 are considered to be the militia. But that is irrelevant, everyone has a right to bear arms, the only compromise I could see about military grade weapons would be an easily obtainable license that is inexpensive, applies universally to all military grade weaponry minus WMDs, and requires a background/psychological analysis.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #28
    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: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    [quote=LaMidRighter;1058651619]
    Rights are not based on need, the opening premise is flawed.
    I never used the word "Need" I specifically said "Want". there is a difference.



    No, wrong, licensing applies to priveledges, not rights, I do not have to ask the government's permission to exercise a right.
    Yes you do. Because the great caviet on the exercising of any right is it's impact on others. - You need permits for parades (free assembly) there are restrictions on speach (liable and slander laws etc).
    The free excercise of rights is constantly being restricted. The alternative to that is what we call Anarchy.


    All able bodied males 18-45 are considered to be the militia.
    Lets not forget to quote the whole clause, most importantly the preceeding two words prior to "Militia". Those of course being "Well" and "Regulated".


    But that is irrelevant, everyone has a right to bear arms, the only compromise I could see about military grade weapons would be an easily obtainable license that is inexpensive, applies universally to all military grade weaponry minus WMDs, and requires a background/psychological analysis.
    That would be "Well" and "Regulated" taken care of. Now for the trifecta specified in the first four words in the darn amendment you need to be part of a militia. Which means certified recognizable verifiable organization.

  9. #29
    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: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    I never used the word "Need" I specifically said "Want". there is a difference.
    Wrong, you qualified a want with a need. "If you want one for hunting......".



    Yes you do. Because the great caviet on the exercising of any right is it's impact on others. - You need permits for parades (free assembly) there are restrictions on speach (liable and slander laws etc).
    The free excercise of rights is constantly being restricted. The alternative to that is what we call Anarchy.
    So simply owning the gun is infringing on your right how?



    Lets not forget to quote the whole clause, most importantly the preceeding two words prior to "Militia". Those of course being "Well" and "Regulated".
    That is a secondary, it preceeds the primary clause as a qualifier, but not exclusive to that right.



    That would be "Well" and "Regulated" taken care of. Now for the trifecta specified in the first four words in the darn amendment you need to be part of a militia. Which means certified recognizable verifiable organization.
    Going to a shooting range and maintaining your weapon are considered drilling, so that would fall as a a well regulated militia, it has NOTHING to do with government involvement or answering to drills. Again, we are all the militia, those being male 18-45 specifically charged with the duty of defense.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #30
    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: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    [quote=LaMidRighter;1058651764]
    Wrong, you qualified a want with a need. "If you want one for hunting......".
    ...ditto for home defence.
    Thats sport and security covered. You know the real reasons you own a gun.



    So simply owning the gun is infringing on your right how?
    Thats what the "Shall Issue" policy takes care of. Simply owning a gun doesn't, and the state can't deny you the right to own one absent a bloody good reason.



    That is a secondary, it preceeds the primary clause as a qualifier, but not exclusive to that right.
    Which is why it's in there first....



    Going to a shooting range and maintaining your weapon are considered drilling, so that would fall as a a well regulated militia,
    No. That falls into the catagory of "Going to the range and cleaning your weapon....

    it has NOTHING to do with government involvement or answering to drills. Again, we are all the militia, those being male 18-45 specifically charged with the duty of defense.
    You are not the militia in the same way as everyone between the ages of 18-45 is not a hooker.

    In both cases you meet the qualifications, but only a certain few actually are.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •