Page 24 of 64 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #231
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    unlike Amar who is intellectually honest, Cornell starts off with "how do I justify gun bans" and works backwards in an attempt to undercut the clear intent of the second.
    You see, that's just it. I recognize that the individual right to self defense is not there, and I am working backwards from a "how do I justify individual right to self defense." On an originalist interpretation, just like the right to privacy, the individual right to self defense just isn't there. The individual right to bear arms for the purpose of a militia for the collective defense against tyranny is there, and nothing more, as I see it. It will take more than originalism to bring about an intellectually honest account of the individual right to bear arms in self defense, and I would no more try to account for this right in terms of originalism than I would the right to privacy.

  2. #232
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,541

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    You see, that's just it. I recognize that the individual right to self defense is not there, and I am working backwards from a "how do I justify individual right to self defense." On an originalist interpretation, just like the right to privacy, the individual right to self defense just isn't there. The individual right to bear arms for the purpose of a militia for the collective defense against tyranny is there, and nothing more, as I see it. It will take more than originalism to bring about an intellectually honest account of the individual right to bear arms in self defense, and I would no more try to account for this right in terms of originalism than I would the right to privacy.
    well given the founders believed that owning and keeping and bearing weapons was an inalienable right we really don't have to spend too much time worrying what the purpose one would own a gun for. Its like the right to speech-the issue is not what you say but that you have the right to say it

    and yes, in the time the constitution was written, weapons were used for indivudal defense all the time-

    against wild animals, "indians", and of course "redcoats"

    Blackstone clearly recognized self defense as a fundamental right and that was influence



  3. #233
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    well given the founders believed that owning and keeping and bearing weapons was an inalienable right we really don't have to spend too much time worrying what the purpose one would own a gun for. Its like the right to speech-the issue is not what you say but that you have the right to say it
    I agree, it is just like speech. And I think that on an honest originalist reading, the first amendment only protects political speech. It takes something above and beyond originalism to arrive at the robust first amendment we have today. The purpose does matter. Likewise, on an honest originalist reading the second amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of the militia.

    By the way, did you get a chance to look at that Tench Coxe quotation on the previous page?

  4. #234
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,541

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I agree, it is just like speech. And I think that on an honest originalist reading, the first amendment only protects political speech. It takes something above and beyond originalism to arrive at the robust first amendment we have today. The purpose does matter. Likewise, on an honest originalist reading the second amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of the militia.

    By the way, did you get a chance to look at that Tench Coxe quotation on the previous page?
    the difference is that (and I agree political speech not say advertising but the government has a want of power to restrict say advertising) that guns can be used for many legitimate uses including self defense, defense of the nation or of the local community (ie Militia) while POlitical speech is different than say Advertising.



  5. #235
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,541

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Ok, here's one:


    He makes no mention of the right extending to self defense or hunting/sport. What do you make of it?
    The right is the right to keep and bear arms

    not how you use them

    we have legitimate laws restricting use (ie no hunting in the middle of downtown NY or no shooting high powered rifles in a municipal park)

    the issue is ownership and possession

    you may be confusing a necessary reason for owning an arm vs a sufficient one



  6. #236
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    the difference is that (and I agree political speech not say advertising but the government has a want of power to restrict say advertising) that guns can be used for many legitimate uses including self defense, defense of the nation or of the local community (ie Militia) while POlitical speech is different than say Advertising.
    The relationship between protected political speech and unprotected advertising seems like a very apt analogy to the protected individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes and the unprotected keeping and bearing of arms in self defense. From a strictly originalist reading, neither of those things are what the Framers envisioned those amendments applying to. They just weren't contemplating the possibility that the government federal government would curtail those things, it wasn't on their radar. Their concerns were with the protection of the state from the federal government and its standing army. I'm not saying you can't read in the self defense right, or the advertising right for that matter. It might be something we want to do for the value of society. But that's not originalism.

  7. #237
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    The right is the right to keep and bear arms

    not how you use them
    [...]
    you may be confusing a necessary reason for owning an arm vs a sufficient one
    I disagree, the use is necessary to the right. This is just saying "it's a right to freedom of speech, not how you use speech, therefore advertising is protected."

  8. #238
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,541

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I disagree, the use is necessary to the right. This is just saying "it's a right to freedom of speech, not how you use speech, therefore advertising is protected."
    disagree all you want-find some founder who said Unless you serve in the militia the federal government shall have the power to deprive you of arms.

    I bet you cannot



  9. #239
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    disagree all you want-find some founder who said Unless you serve in the militia the federal government shall have the power to deprive you of arms.

    I bet you cannot
    I don't have to. You can't find a founder who said, "unless your speech is political it won't be protected" either. They don't have to have said it specifically, we can infer it from context and history. How else are we supposed to determine original intent? It was just generally understood the first amendment was to protect political speech, because things like trumped up sedition charges were so common in the colonies. Likewise, they weren't thinking about protecting a right the self defense or hunting, because nobody was worried about those things being infringed. What they were worried about was a federal government curtailing the right of the people to put up an arm resistance to tyranny. You can't read anything more into it than that, or else you're projecting modern sensibilities onto it.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-29-10 at 11:28 PM.

  10. #240
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,541

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I don't have to. You can't find a founder who said, "unless your speech is political it won't be protected" either. They don't have to have said it specifically, we can infer it from context and history. How else are we supposed to determine original intent? It was just generally understood to be protecting political speech, because things like trumped up sedition charges were so common in the colonies. Likewise, they weren't thinking about protecting a right the self defense or hunting, because nobody was worried about those things being infringed. What they were worried about was a federal government curtailing the right of the people to put up an arm resistance to tyranny. You can't read anything more into it than that, or else you're projecting modern sensibilities onto it.
    you are getting silly

    the premise I have proffered is that gun ownership was seen by the founders as an inalienable INDIVIDUAL Right

    you claimed that many founders did not believe that and I asked you to provide sources

    speech is not relevant to this debate

    the originalist position is that the second amendment recognizes an inalienable right that the founders assumed existed prior to the creation of the consitution. attempts to limit that right to specific uses is specious

    I don't have much use for mental masturbation.

    Those who wrote about arms who also were influential on the creation of the constitution clearly assumed it was a natural right

    period



Page 24 of 64 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •