Page 22 of 64 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #211
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I wish more people had your intellectual honesty, Tucker. Personally, I cannot abide the hypocritical nature of these recent decisions, because I see the slippery slope that such an incoherent jurisprudence can lead to. Scalia is a very persuasive jurist, but when he "uses his powers for evil" so to speak, it undermines both his commitment to his textualist philosophy and the foundation of the decision itself, which in turn undermines the existence of the right itself. This is not simply a question of ends justifying the means, but the means could at some point in the future come to endanger the end. While I support the outcome, I abhor the contradiction. If this decision was rooted in a "living Cosntitution" theory, no such hypocrisy would be necessary.

    Along with the assertion that the 2A did not originally provide for an individual right to bear arms, this is utter nonsense.

    The Founders were quite clear on the matter. The 2A is and always was intended to be an individual right.

    What the Founders of the US said about guns:

    Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
    inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
    better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
    may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
    Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

    John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
    defense.
    " (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
    people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
    99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
    atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime
    ]. When firearms go, all goes,
    we need them every hour
    ." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

    George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
    Debates at 380)

    Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
    almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
    Chronicle.)

    Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
    334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

    James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
    other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
    On what is the militia:

    George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
    Debates, 425-426)

    Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
    include all men capable of bearing arms
    ." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

    James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
    best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
    emphasis added.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
    standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
    does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
    to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
    militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
    by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
    but not from the second amendment.

    Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

    Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
    of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
    (Federalist Paper #29)

    "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
    and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
    something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
    is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #212
    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 Goshin View Post
    Along with the assertion that the 2A did not originally provide for an individual right to bear arms, this is utter nonsense.
    You're a little late, I've already acknowledge elsewhere that the Second Amendment clearly protects an individual right rather than a collective one. However, the idea that it protects an individual right to self defense and hunting is what is actually utter nonsense. The quotations you provided from certain founding fathers are largely irrelevant to the discussion or taken out of context. The scope the Framers originally intended for the Second Amendment and how it has been historically understood are very clearly in support of a curtailment of federal government restrictions of the individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purpose and nothing more.

  3. #213
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, guns should be treated similarly to driving.
    Driving is a privilege, not a right.
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  4. #214
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    . However, the idea that it protects an individual right to self defense and hunting is what is actually utter nonsense. The quotations you provided from certain founding fathers are largely irrelevant to the discussion or taken out of context. The scope the Framers originally intended for the Second Amendment and how it has been historically understood are very clearly in support of a curtailment of federal government restrictions of the individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purpose and nothing more.

    BS. Read what they wrote and tell me they didn't support a right to self-defense.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #215
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I'm being hypocritical because I reject the notion of "federal constitutional rights". I see the BoR as what it was intended to be: a Restriction of Federal Authority, not a "granting of rights".

    I hold many of the same views espoused by the anti-federalists. I'm looking back in hindsight regarding their initial concerns over the adoption of th econstitution, and I see their fears not only totally justified, but that the majority of those fears they had have come to fruition.

    The arguments of people like Madison, who wanted a limited federal government but still supported the adoption Constitution, have been proven wrong (and these were teh one's that ended up swaying the anti-federalists in the end).

    The Hamiltonian, powerful federal government, mindset ended up winning.

    The Bill of Rights came into existence to appease the anti-federalists, who feared that the constitution created a Federal government that was too strong and had too much authority. The BoR wasn't meant to increase federal authority over the states by denying the States powers. It was designed to decrease Federal authority over the states and the people by denying the federal government certain powers.

    Incorporation of the Bill of rights not only contradicts that very clear intention of the BoR, it actually causes the exact opposite of what they were intended to do to happen.

    It's impossible for me to honestly reconcile my political views with any instance of incorporation of the bill of rights. Even if I personally agree that nobody should be denied those rights. My personal beliefs and my political beliefs (at a federal level) are often in conflict. It's a natural byproduct of my political ideology.
    *head assplodes*

  6. #216
    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 Goshin View Post
    BS. Read what they wrote and tell me they didn't support a right to self-defense.
    That is precisely what I have been doing. I am in agreement with Tucker on a number of issues (where I differ from Tucker is that I have no philosophical objection to incorporation.), this right bear arms in self defense is not contained within the Constitution for no other reason than at the time it did not need to be. There was no danger of the right to bearing arms in self defense being infringed by the state, and even if they did this would have been seen as a valid exercise of state power. The Framers did see a need to protect the right to bear arms in self defense or for purposes of hunting/sport/etc because they could not envision a scenario where it would have been necessary. But the fact remains, such a right is simply not contained within the Second Amendment, nor was the creation of such a right the intent of the amendment. The Second Amendment had the singular purpose of limiting the federal government's ability to restrict the armament of the people of the several states, which served as a check on the federal government's power. The original intent of the Framers was to leave the regulation of arms to the States.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-29-10 at 07:30 PM.

  7. #217
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    That is precisely what I have been doing. I am in agreement with Tucker on a number of issues (where I differ from Tucker is that I have no philosophical objection to incorporation.), this right bear arms in self defense is not contained within the Constitution for no other reason than at the time it did not need to be. There was no danger of the right to bearing arms in self defense being infringed by the state, and even if they did this would have been seen as a valid exercise of state power. The Framers did see a need to protect the right to bear arms in self defense or for purposes of hunting/sport/etc because they could not envision a scenario where it would have been necessary. But the fact remains, such a right is simply not contained within the Second Amendment, nor was the creation of such a right the intent of the amendment. The Second Amendment had the singular purpose of limiting the federal government's ability to restrict the armament of the people of the several states, which served as a check on the federal government's power. The original intent of the Framers was to leave the regulation of arms to the States.
    Thing is, these days a State government can be just as invasive as it was feared the Federal government would be, and thus I think preventing state as well as federal power from eliminating or even severely restricting firearms is a good thing, overall.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  8. #218
    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 The Mark View Post
    Thing is, these days a State government can be just as invasive as it was feared the Federal government would be, and thus I think preventing state as well as federal power from eliminating or even severely restricting firearms is a good thing, overall.
    No disagreement there. I think it is important to make the distinction that my disagreement with the Heller and McDonald decisions are with judicial philosophy, not the practical outcome of the case. If you want to protect an individual right to bear arms for self defense by appeal to the second amendment, you cannot do so under and "originalist" or "textualist" philosophy, but you can if you interpret the Constitution in light of modern values and sensibilities. I think this is the proper way to look at all judicial decisions, generally. The Constitutions grows and means different things from one generation to the next. It is impossible to reconcile an "originalist" interpretation with an Second Amendment individual right to bear arms in self defense, and anyone who claims to do so is misunderstanding history and doing violence to the original intent of the Framers.

  9. #219
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    No disagreement there. I think it is important to make the distinction that my disagreement with the Heller and McDonald decisions are with judicial philosophy, not the practical outcome of the case. If you want to protect an individual right to bear arms for self defense by appeal to the second amendment, you cannot do so under and "originalist" or "textualist" philosophy, but you can if you interpret the Constitution in light of modern values and sensibilities. I think this is the proper way to look at all judicial decisions, generally. The Constitutions grows and means different things from one generation to the next. It is impossible to reconcile an "originalist" interpretation with an Second Amendment individual right to bear arms in self defense, and anyone who claims to do so is misunderstanding history and doing violence to the original intent of the Framers.

    Nonsense.

    The proper view of the Constitution is "what did the Founders intend?"

    If you read what they had to say about firearms, you can be damn sure they intended to protect the right to self-defense, individual ownership of arms, as well as other considerations, unless you're going to claim that they didn't mean what they actually literally said.

    FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

    Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
    States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms
    ." (Convention of the Commonwealth
    of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

    Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
    Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
    who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
    to be masters." (Source still being sought)

    Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
    back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
    and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
    [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed
    ." (June 12 1823, Letter to
    William Johnson)
    WikiAnswers - Founding fathers quotes on guns

    Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

    Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison)

    Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

    John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

    Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

    George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

    George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

    George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

    Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

    James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose rulers are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

    Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

    Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, 1787-1788).

    Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed" (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
    Last edited by Goshin; 06-29-10 at 08:59 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #220
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,605

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Way to oversimplify everything that Daly has said about gun regs....

    Daly is part of the Mayor's Collation.

    The Chicago law will be rewritten within the month. -- I agree there should never have been an all out ban.

    California requires a fingerprint to purchase certain types of ammo.-- Chicago should implement that.
    why--do you think requiring people to have prescriptions before buying crack will end the drug wars?



Page 22 of 64 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... 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
  •