Page 31 of 64 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #301
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Just making a distinction between a right and a privilege to show consistency with my driving=gun usage argument. Also, to demonstrate, based on the 2nd Amendment, taken literally, what the government can and cannot regulate. The government CANNOT regulate the bearing of arms. This shall not be infringed. Accordingly, from an originalist point of view, one can own/have/carry any gun they choose. However, since there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says anything about firing/using those arms, the government CAN regulate this. When, how, where, and why. Now, from what I know, there ARE laws that regulate this; according to the literal reading of the 2nd Amendment, this does NOT infringe on one's rights to bear arms. Only to shoot arms.
    So you want to license or tax someone to fire a gun before they can purchase a gun and or ammo? It would still conflict with the shall not infringe part.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 07-01-10 at 03:46 AM.
    "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

  2. #302
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    So you want to license or tax someone to fire a gun before they can purchase a gun and or ammo? It would still conflict with the shall not infringe part.
    No it wouldn't. They could purchase the gun unrestricted... as long as they have no intention of firing it. If they intend to fire it, THEN they would need to go through a training/licensing/registration process. Purchasing/owning... BEARING... will not be infringed.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #303
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    It took me a few posts to see that I was dealing with a rope a dope contrarian.

    some of these newbies act as if they have some novel trick that I haven't seen in the 35 years I have been dealing with the ARC
    Yeah there are too dam many uppity newbies here.

  4. #304
    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: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I would think a firing range would be considered private property.
    Not necessarily, one shooting range around my area is operated by that city's sheriff's office and is part of the corrections complex, it is quite public.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #305
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No it wouldn't. They could purchase the gun unrestricted... as long as they have no intention of firing it. If they intend to fire it, THEN they would need to go through a training/licensing/registration process. Purchasing/owning... BEARING... will not be infringed.
    To keep and bear arms is protected. Bearing arms is not just holding it, to bear is a verb which includes the functional use of the device, in this case arms. Otherwise, it would just be the right to keep arms which was protected. But that's not the wording, it's to keep and bear arms. Which means the functional use of arms is necessary as well. As alluded to in the first part of the second amendment which reminds us that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The term to bear arms is used more to describe. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the phrase To bear arms as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

    So yes, what you call for most certainly does infringe upon the right to bear arms.
    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."

  6. #306
    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
    It took me a few posts to see that I was dealing with a rope a dope contrarian.
    Right back at ya, buddy. The only thing I'm interested in is getting to the truth of the matter, not moving some agenda. I am supportive of gun rights, but I'm not willing to lie and distort facts about "original intent" to accomplish this end. If that makes me a contrarian- it doesn't- then so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude
    some of these newbies act as if they have some novel trick that I haven't seen in the 35 years I have been dealing with the ARC
    When you fall back on "I've been doing this for 35 years" in place of an argument, you really aren't doing yourself any favors, and it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you do, for all I know, but you're not acting like it. Give me facts and persuasive arguments, not some blatant fallacy.

    That self-defense is a right protected under the original meaning of the Second Amendment is arguable, but very weak. To argue that hunting is protected under the original meaning of the second amendment is disingenuous, underinformed nonsense.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-01-10 at 01:31 PM.

  7. #307
    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
    Right back at ya, buddy. The only thing I'm interested in is getting to the truth of the matter, not moving some agenda.
    Still waiting for you to supply the quotes that show the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd intended to protect the exercise of the collective right of self-defense to the absolute exclusion of the individual right to same.

    You've had 2 days and thus far supplied nothing to support your claim to that effect.

  8. #308
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Also, to demonstrate, based on the 2nd Amendment, taken literally, what the government can and cannot regulate. The government CANNOT regulate the bearing of arms. This shall not be infringed. Accordingly, from an originalist point of view, one can own/have/carry any gun they choose. However, since there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says anything about firing/using those arms, the government CAN regulate this.
    Firing/using falls under "bearing" arms.
    How silly is it to protect the right of ownership of a someting but not the right to use that something, especially given that the use of that somethng in so fundamnetally necessary to the right itself?

  9. #309
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    To keep and bear arms is protected. Bearing arms is not just holding it, to bear is a verb which includes the functional use of the device, in this case arms. Otherwise, it would just be the right to keep arms which was protected. But that's not the wording, it's to keep and bear arms. Which means the functional use of arms is necessary as well. As alluded to in the first part of the second amendment which reminds us that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The term to bear arms is used more to describe. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the phrase To bear arms as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

    So yes, what you call for most certainly does infringe upon the right to bear arms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Firing/using falls under "bearing" arms.
    How silly is it to protect the right of ownership of a someting but not the right to use that something, especially given that the use of that somethng in so fundamnetally necessary to the right itself?
    I was pretty careful and looked up the definition of "bearing arms" Carry and possessing firearms is what came up. Nothing about use. So, no, it doesn't fall under that as defined, quite literally in the Constitution. Now, if YOU want to interpret it a different way, be my guest, but as it reads, the government can not infringe in the "bearing" of arms, but can on the "firing" of arms.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #310
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I was pretty careful and looked up the definition of "bearing arms" Carry and possessing firearms is what came up. Nothing about use. So, no, it doesn't fall under that as defined, quite literally in the Constitution. Now, if YOU want to interpret it a different way, be my guest, but as it reads, the government can not infringe in the "bearing" of arms, but can on the "firing" of arms.
    This is absurd, on its face and beyond belief.

Page 31 of 64 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •