Page 16 of 64 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #151
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    The trouble is that is isn't clear. It's actually very vague. There is a reason it took over two hundred years for the individual right to bear arms to come into existence. It's because reasonable people can disagree.
    No... its becauise the individual right was never questioned until the mid-20th century

    A much better historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the collective right to bear arms
    Please read the historucal arguments made by the SCotUS in support of their individual rights rulings and show how they are wrong.

    I have no problem with an individual right to keep and bear arms. But I do have a problem with hypocritical Justices who claim to want to follow the "original meaning" if the Constitution, but make decision like this that are flagrantly activist.
    This is only true f you can show that the original intent of the people that wrote the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.
    This, you cannot show, and thus, your statement is not true.

  2. #152
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No... its becauise the individual right was never questioned until the mid-20th century
    Wrong! Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Please read the historucal arguments made by the SCotUS in support of their individual rights rulings and show how they are wrong.
    Happily, I don't have to. Judge Richard Posner, one of this country's leading conservative legal theorists did it for me:

    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Posner
    The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias’ effectiveness. Suppose part of a state’s militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia’s commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.
    The Court evaded the issue in Heller by cutting loose the Second Amendment from any concern with state militias (the “National Guard,” as they are now called). The majority opinion acknowledges that allowing people to keep guns in their homes cannot help the militias, because modern military weapons are not appropriate for home defense (most of them are too dangerous), and anyway the opinion says that the only weapons the Second Amendment entitles people to possess are ones that are not “highly unusual in society at large.” Modern military weapons are highly unusual in society at large. By creating a privilege to own guns of no interest to a militia, the Court decoupled the amendment’s two clauses. from Richard Posner, In Defense of Looseness.
    The reason why you are so very very wrong about this Goobie, is that the 2nd Amendment's original intent is not to protect an individual right, both on its face and in its history. I would love it if that was the case, but it ain't so. The fact that Scalia and company cling to this nonsense idea of originalism is the problem, I'd prefer it if they were honest enough to just admit that they are making new law from the bench.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-29-10 at 12:45 PM.

  3. #153
    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: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    California requires a fingerprint to purchase certain types of ammo.-- Chicago should implement that.
    Why should our 4th amendment rights be curtailed in order to exercise our 2nd amendment rights?
    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."

  4. #154
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Why should our 4th amendment rights be curtailed in order to exercise our 2nd amendment rights?
    They're not being curtailed if the search or seizure is "reasonable." You think documenting the ownership of a firearm is unreasonable?

  5. #155
    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: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    The trouble is that is isn't clear. It's actually very vague.
    Actually it is pretty clear.Arms refers to weapons. Infringe means to encroach upon a way that violates the law or the rights of another. So shall not infringe at the end of the 2nd amendment means the government has no business taking away 2nd amendment rights from the people. Only a liar seeking to restrict the 2nd amendment and to take arms away from people says it isn't clear.


    There is a reason it took over two hundred years for the individual right to bear arms to come into existence.
    It did not take 200 years to come into existence.It was written in 1791. Its scumbags blatantly misinterpreting the constitution that does not recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms.


    It's because reasonable people can disagree.
    Reasonable people do disagree. However lying about the 2nd amendment being vague and how it doesn't apply to individuals is just straight up lying. Therefore not reasonable.

    A much better historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the collective right to bear arms. In order to provide for an effective militia, it is entirely reasonable to have laws that restrict personal gun ownership, for instance what if the state militia required all guns be kept in a militia storage facility for better access in time of war?


    I have no problem with an individual right to keep and bear arms. But I do have a problem with hypocritical Justices who claim to want to follow the "original meaning" if the Constitution, but make decision like this that are flagrantly activist. If you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a living and growing thing, that's great. But Scalia, Thomas, Alito, they're all violating their expressed judicial philosophy in this and the DC v. Heller decision. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.
    More BS by the anti-2nd amendment crowd. The right to keep and bear arms is not a collective right nor has it ever been, which is why it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to keep ad bear arms.The only thing the SC did was reaffirm the right to keep and bear arms, basically they just actually read the constitution.
    "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

  6. #156
    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: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    They're not being curtailed if the search or seizure is "reasonable." You think documenting the ownership of a firearm is unreasonable?
    I think the exercising of a right is not enough to warrant a "reasonable" search. Should you be fingerprinted for the friends you hang out with? Maybe for running your mouth? Maybe if you go to a particular church? How about it, Mr. Exercising-a-right-is-enough-to-constitute-reasonable-search?
    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."

  7. #157
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Wrong!.
    Reakky? Show where, before the mid 20th centuryt, that the right to keep and bear arms was meaningfully held as a collective right to the exclusion of the individual right.

    Happily, I don't have to. Judge Richard Posner, one of this country's leading conservative legal theorists did it for me:
    This isnt a rebuttal or a refutation of the argument made by the SCotUS, this is an unsupported optinion piece.
    Try again.

    The reason why you are so very very wrong about this Goobie, is that the 2nd Amendment's original intent is not to protect an individual right, both on its face and in its history.
    If this were true, then you could actually show this to be the case, with ease.
    So, get busy showing that the original intent of the people that wrote the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 06-29-10 at 12:57 PM.

  8. #158
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    They're not being curtailed if the search or seizure is "reasonable." You think documenting the ownership of a firearm is unreasonable?
    It doesnt pass a test of strict scrutiny, so not only is it 'unreasoable'. it is unconstitutional.

  9. #159
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Actually it is pretty clear.Arms refers to weapons. Infringe means to encroach upon a way that violates the law or the rights of another. So shall not infringe at the end of the 2nd amendment means the government has no business taking away 2nd amendment rights from the people. Only a liar seeking to restrict the 2nd amendment and to take arms away from people says it isn't clear.
    Well, you're obviously wrong because I am neither a liar not trying to restrict the Second Amendment. I am glad to see it broadened by activists Justices, and I am as happy with the outcome of Heller as a with the out come of Brown v. Board of Education. Right should gradually be expanded over time and the Constitution should be a living document. However, if you espouse the idea that the Consitution is "dead" and we should look only to the original intent, it is simply dishonest to try to read an individual right to bear arms into the Second amendment, when only a collective right is present or was intended by the framers.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    It did not take 200 years to come into existence.It was written in 1791. Its scumbags blatantly misinterpreting the constitution that does not recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms.
    The only one misinterpreting the Constitution here is you, my friend. Why resort to ad hominem attacks? This is really a question of history, and I am just trying to be honest about it. If you are interested in an individual right to bear arms, then we're on the same side here. But how do we go about it? N ot by looking to history, that does us no favors. We need to look to how society has changed, and how interpretations of the Second Amendment have grown over time. That is implicit in the Heller decision, even if it is rooted in bad history and shoddy legal philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Reasonable people do disagree. However lying about the 2nd amendment being vague and how it doesn't apply to individuals is just straight up lying. Therefore not reasonable.
    I am not lying, and I do not think you are, either. One of us is mistaken, though, and I haven't see you provide any compelling historical information on how the Second Amendment ought to be interpreted. Tell me, if the second amendment was not intended as collective, what are we to make of the militia clause? Is it just fluff?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    More BS by the anti-2nd amendment crowd. The right to keep and bear arms is not a collective right nor has it ever been, which is why it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to keep ad bear arms.The only thing the SC did was reaffirm the right to keep and bear arms, basically they just actually read the constitution.
    You're just making a bare assertion here with no argument. Moreover, you claim that "only thing the SC did was reaffirm the right to keep and bear arms" is demonstrably wrong, because they never "re" affirmed anything, since there has been no affirmation of such a right from the SC to begin with. They created a new right. And that's great! But unless they are honest about their legal reasoning they are setting themselves up for failure. When the court changes back to a liberal bent (as it will inevitably do, these things go in cycles), all they have to do is look at the fact that Heller was based on original intent, and then the new liberal court will just have to say, "New historical information being considered, we see that Heller was mistaken in the facts about the second amendment's original intent, and overturn it." I want to see a robust individual right that can withstand an assault from antigun justices. But such a right would have to be rooted in sound jurisprudence.

  10. #160
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I think the exercising of a right is not enough to warrant a "reasonable" search. Should you be fingerprinted for the friends you hang out with? Maybe for running your mouth? Maybe if you go to a particular church? How about it, Mr. Exercising-a-right-is-enough-to-constitute-reasonable-search?
    Why so touchy? A firearm is a deadly weapon, and thus a finger print search is reasonably warranted under the fourth amendment. Moreover, a fingerprint search does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms, so no right is lost there either. Going to a church, free association, no of that is potentially deadly, speech and no search is reasonable. However, things like "running your mouth" as you put it can require a search or a permit or some such depending on the time place and manner. This is a little more complicated than you make it out to be, and the oversimpiification is obscure the larger issue, and imputing constitutional violations where there are none.

Page 16 of 64 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •