Page 37 of 64 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #361
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    it is state governments that regulate how guns are used

    That is probably proper

    It is the federal government that regulates what type of weapons people can own etc and that is not legitimate. There have always been prohibitions on firing weapons under certain circumstances and that is not an infringement IMHO as long as the restrictions meet certain tests. Clearly shooting a pistol off in a courtroom or a postal office unless you are under attack or engaging in a military operation is clearly a bad thing.
    I would say that what you are saying here is pretty much what I am saying. It is not an infrngment to regulate the how, where, what, and why of firing a weapon, but it is an infringement to restrict the possession or carrying.

    See? A 2nd Amendment lawyer agrees with me.
    "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"

  2. #362
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Firstly, LA is right. I'm no one's fool. ANY regulation is regulation. I read post 311 and the historical definitions of bearing arms. I have also posted the dictionary definitions, which consistently indicate "possessing and carrying" and do NOT indicate firing. Further, most of your examples in post 311 use the definition in a military sense. That would exclude any private individual rights to your definition of bearing arms any way. Most of the other statements were interpretations or assumption, not definitive statements. If we are going to look at the Constitution in a completely literal sense, we must take it for what it says, not for what we think it means. Definitively, bearing arms is about "carrying and possessing". I would think that if the founders had mean using them, they would have said so. This is why the regulation of carrying and possessing should not be infringed. but regulations on usage is within the government's ability.
    The founding fathers did intend for weapons to be used see Militia Act of 1792. The Militia Act of 1792 orders drills to be conducted by the militia; comprised of every citizen between the ages of 18-45.* Part of the drills are live fire exercises with the weapons a citizen carries or is assigned to use; in the case of artillery and warships.

    *I use this phrasing because in modern times women and minorities are not disbarred from serving in the military and the discipline standards the militia uses are the ones from the federal military.
    Last edited by The_Patriot; 07-02-10 at 04:21 PM.

  3. #363
    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 The_Patriot View Post
    Is that from a modern dictionary or from one written about the time the Constitution was written? I ask because Webster's 1828 Dictionary gives the definition of to bear arms as to carry weapons of war. Therefore, under the proper definition shooting is absolutely a part of owning firearms.
    Notice what you said. To "carry weapons of war". Nothing about firing/using them.
    "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"

  4. #364
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Notice what you said. To "carry weapons of war". Nothing about firing/using them.
    Yes, we all know that the military issues weapons of war and never, ever fires them.... /sarcasm

  5. #365
    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 would say that what you are saying here is pretty much what I am saying. It is not an infrngment to regulate the how, where, what, and why of firing a weapon, but it is an infringement to restrict the possession or carrying.
    These regulations, and their constitutionality, have nothing to do with your absurd argument. These things are allowed to be regulated by the government because of some constitutional loophole, but because the regulations in question cover thngs that exist wholly outside the right to arms itself.

    It is illegal to fire a gun up in the air within city limits not because of your abusurd loophole but because it wantonly endangers others. Like yelling fire in a theater, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

    Similarly, it is illegal to commit murder with a gun not because of your abusurd loophole but because it directly causes harm to others. Like engaging in slander and libel, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

    I defy you to definitively ciite -any- restiction n the right to arms that is based on your silliness.

  6. #366
    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
    Firstly, LA is right. I'm no one's fool. ANY regulation is regulation. I read post 311 and the historical definitions of bearing arms. I have also posted the dictionary definitions, which consistently indicate "possessing and carrying" and do NOT indicate firing. Further, most of your examples in post 311 use the definition in a military sense. That would exclude any private individual rights to your definition of bearing arms any way. Most of the other statements were interpretations or assumption, not definitive statements. If we are going to look at the Constitution in a completely literal sense, we must take it for what it says, not for what we think it means. Definitively, bearing arms is about "carrying and possessing". I would think that if the founders had mean using them, they would have said so. This is why the regulation of carrying and possessing should not be infringed. but regulations on usage is within the government's ability.
    Again, you're not being careful. There was a large debate over whether or not initially the 2nd referred to military use. But that wasn't the point of the post. The point was that in continually refers to the verb "to bear" as also including the functionality of the item being borne. Which is why the Founders use "To keep and bear arms". It is pointless to have arms if you cannot use them. Also, while you are talking of regulation in the broader sense of the exercise of the right, specifically what I was responding to was someone who claimed that the very act of firing the gun itself was regulated. But that's not true, there are definitely situations in which you fire your gun and face no repercussions for doing so. That shows that it is not merely the act of firing your gun which is regulated. But rather there are many factors including why you fired your gun, what you were firing your gun at, and where you were firing your gun that comes into play with these laws.

    And again, I didn't say you had to be anyone's fool, you can be an independent fool if you wish.
    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. #367
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I would say that what you are saying here is pretty much what I am saying. It is not an infrngment to regulate the how, where, what, and why of firing a weapon, but it is an infringement to restrict the possession or carrying.

    See? A 2nd Amendment lawyer agrees with me.
    reasonable restrictions on usage based on intent or place are clearly constitutional.



  8. #368
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    These regulations, and their constitutionality, have nothing to do with your absurd argument. These things are allowed to be regulated by the government because of some constitutional loophole, but because the regulations in question cover thngs that exist wholly outside the right to arms itself.

    It is illegal to fire a gun up in the air within city limits not because of your abusurd loophole but because it wantonly endangers others. Like yelling fire in a theater, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

    Similarly, it is illegal to commit murder with a gun not because of your abusurd loophole but because it directly causes harm to others. Like engaging in slander and libel, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

    I defy you to definitively ciite -any- restiction n the right to arms that is based on your silliness.
    this argument is sound as well



  9. #369
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Yes, we all know that the military issues weapons of war and never, ever fires them.... /sarcasm
    I disagree-but only in France



  10. #370
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    I disagree-but only in France
    Speaking of which....

    Why were coalition casulaties so very, very light in the 1991 gulf war?

    French forces operated unopposed.

Page 37 of 64 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... 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
  •