Page 38 of 64 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #371
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,663

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Speaking of which....

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

    French forces operated unopposed.
    I am sure you have seen the advertisement for Surplus French army rifles

    Never fired and dropped only once!



  2. #372
    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 am sure you have seen the advertisement for Surplus French army rifles

    Never fired and dropped only once!
    I thought those were ARVN rifles...?

  3. #373
    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 Ikari View Post
    I understand that. But still, give it some effort instead of that lame POS statement you had last time.
    Ok, I'll try. But, it's hard because you are so special.

  4. #374
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Not an interpretation. A dictionary definition of what speech is. "Bearing arms" is defined as "possessing or carrying weapons". Nothing about shooting them. If one is to take the Constitution definitively and absolutely literally, this is how these terms are defined.
    The constition is a charter, not a list. You have to interpret it. The 2nd amendments right to bear arms is not there so we can all walk around with unloaded shiny pistols on our hip. It is there because it is "necessary for the security of a free state." Self-defense, security, and a well ordered society are all principles laid down by the 2nd amendment. These are things that alone carring a gun will not fulfill, since it may be necessary to use the gun to maintain security, or protect yourself, etc.

    We can make laws against reckless gunfire because it directly goes against the principles the 2nd amendment is there to protect, not because the constitution is silent about it.

    Similarly we can make laws against citizens owning a full auto machine gun because it is not necessary for the security of a free state, self defense or security.

    Your basic weapons, or arms though are protected because they fit within all the criteria. I need to be able to protect my self, but I don't need a machine gun to do it. I own a gun to feel secure, but I am obviosly not contributing to the security of the state when I fire it off in a highly populated area.

    Thats my take of it anyway.
    Last edited by drz-400; 07-02-10 at 09:14 PM.

  5. #375
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,663

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    The constition is a charter, not a list. You have to interpret it. The 2nd amendments right to bear arms is not there so we can all walk around with unloaded shiny pistols on our hip. It is there because it is "necessary for the security of a free state." Self-defense, security, and a well ordered society are all principles laid down by the 2nd amendment. These are things that alone carring a gun will not fulfill, since it may be necessary to use the gun to maintain security, or protect yourself, etc.

    We can make laws against reckless gunfire because it directly goes against the principles the 2nd amendment is there to protect, not because the constitution is silent about it.

    Similarly we can make laws against citizens owning a full auto machine gun because it is not necessary for the security of a free state, self defense or security.

    Your basic weapons, or arms though are protected because they fit within all the criteria. I need to be able to protect my self, but I don't need a machine gun to do it. I own a gun to feel secure, but I am obviosly not contributing to the security of the state when I fire it off in a highly populated area.

    Thats my take of it anyway.


    BS-if civilian police officers have machine guns (they do) then the entity that employs them is estopped from claiming such weapons have no legitimate use for other civilians



  6. #376
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    BS-if civilian police officers have machine guns (they do) then the entity that employs them is estopped from claiming such weapons have no legitimate use for other civilians

    Strictly speaking, I think anything that can be and might be carried by a modern infantryman, which falls under the definition of a "small arm", ought to be considered protected for civilian possession under the 2A. Also any weapon used by any police department or federal agency as a personal weapon. Also any weapon suitable for self-defense, sport, hunting, or "any other lawful purpose".

    As a compromise, I'm okay with the current law in my state: you have to have a Class III license to possess things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, and suchlike, and there are storage requirements and etc.

    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.'.."

  7. #377
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,663

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Strictly speaking, I think anything that can be and might be carried by a modern infantryman, which falls under the definition of a "small arm", ought to be considered protected for civilian possession under the 2A. Also any weapon used by any police department or federal agency as a personal weapon. Also any weapon suitable for self-defense, sport, hunting, or "any other lawful purpose".

    As a compromise, I'm okay with the current law in my state: you have to have a Class III license to possess things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, and suchlike, and there are storage requirements and etc.
    THe hughes amendment is clearly unconstitutional

    as is the 200 dollar NFA fee

    In fact the license requirements are as well


    M16 rifles and HK MP5s ought to be sold under the same rules as currently apply to AR 15's and Glocks

    explosive devices such as RPGs-now that bruises the concept of an individual infantry weapon so I might concede that the current Title II rules should apply

    but if civilian police departments use a weapon, that should take it out of the Class III licensing arena



  8. #378
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Strictly speaking, I think anything that can be and might be carried by a modern infantryman, which falls under the definition of a "small arm", ought to be considered protected for civilian possession under the 2A. Also any weapon used by any police department or federal agency as a personal weapon. Also any weapon suitable for self-defense, sport, hunting, or "any other lawful purpose".

    As a compromise, I'm okay with the current law in my state: you have to have a Class III license to possess things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, and suchlike, and there are storage requirements and etc.
    I agree with that. Since fully auto (in my opinion) is not really needed for anything outside military and certain law enforcement areas I think we can regulate it by a permitting process (since military and law enforcement already require training I don't think this is unfair). But as you said self defense and hunting type guns I think should be completely free of regulation except maybe a background check. Pretty much what we got now.

  9. #379
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    BS-if civilian police officers have machine guns (they do) then the entity that employs them is estopped from claiming such weapons have no legitimate use for other civilians
    Civilian police officers have to go through quite a bit of training to get their machine guns, so I don't see why we would not require the same for your average citizen. In my opinion this justified by my prior position.

    Law enforcement IMO could be thought of as a well regulated malitia (meaning they are trained), so I think if a citizen wants to have the same firepower they need to have similar qualifications. If they want a non-military gun just to protect themselves I don't think we should stop them.
    Last edited by drz-400; 07-03-10 at 01:38 AM.

  10. #380
    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 drz-400 View Post
    I agree with that. Since fully auto (in my opinion) is not really needed for anything outside military and certain law enforcement areas I think we can regulate it by a permitting process (since military and law enforcement already require training I don't think this is unfair). But as you said self defense and hunting type guns I think should be completely free of regulation except maybe a background check. Pretty much what we got now.
    I disagree since police are a relatively new phenomena as is a full time military. When the Constitution of the United States was written, the only standing military and police the states had were the militias. Militias handled not only military functions, but also police functions in the arrest and detainment of criminals. This is where citizen's arrest comes from. I'm not including sheriffs in this since anyone could be a sheriff if they won an election. Under the Militia Act of 1792, it stipulates that militia members were to be armed with artillery and other heavy weapons in addition to warships and standard military arms. As technology moved forward, so did the ownership of new technological weapons like tanks, machine guns, etc... If the government can have it the people should have it as a deterrant against the government. People can buy all manner of weapons, including machine guns, tanks, etc... provided they pay the tax stamp to own it. Taxing a fundamental right runs contrary to what the founding fathers wanted since under the Militia Act of 1792 military arms is prohibited from being taxed among other things.

    That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
    An interesting note, is that Article I Section VIII Clause XVI states that the federal government is responsible for arming the militias. Here's the full text of the clause.

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Under said clause, the federal government must buy every citizen a military grade weapon in the performance of their duties in the militia. The National Guard is not part of the militia and the Supreme Court has ruled that the National Guard functions as part of the federal military due to the dual oath of enlistment that members take. There hasn't been a Constitutional militia since the early 1900's.

Page 38 of 64 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... 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
  •