Page 43 of 64 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #421
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,748

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    This is an interesting position... but no matter HOW you slice it, militias as an arm of the millitary, or as a part of the people... it's the PEOPLE that have the right to bear arms, and it's a right that shall not be infringed. Look, if the millitary / government gets out of control, there's a part of the constitution that describes how it's the PEOPLE's responsibility to remove the out of control people in pwer from their positions of power. You can't do that as people if you are disarmed.

    However, with the level of technology available to the US, even armed, it would now depend on millitary resources to not get wiped out.
    what is really sad is the mentality that caused the first and second wave of gun control in the USA

    the first wave was to prevent the freedmen from owning weapons

    the second wave was to disarm "papist" immigrants

    the latter part of that second wave was directed at Italians by the Irish politicians in NYC



  2. #422
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,748

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    So, you are saying that implication and interpretation beyond what is actually written is appicable in assessing what the Constitution allows and does not. Hmmm... interesting concept.



    Well, I completely reject the concept of the existence of natural rights, but that's for another thread/argument. The point you seem to be making... as are others, is that historical context... precidence if you will, implications and interpretation is applicable when dscussing what the Constitution actually allows and the rights it identifies. Am I getting this right with you?
    thus you reject the underlying premise upon which the founders were operating and therefore your interpretation of the bill of rights is going to be very different from those who accept that premise. Ultimately the question comes down to--did the founders delegate to the federal government the power to regulate small arms? If the answer is no then all the sematincs about what the second amendment guarantees really is not all that interesting because the federal government has to have that delegated power to do anything and I note it properly does not.



  3. #423
    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
    civilian police officers are lousy shots for the most part. I would bet my house that the average class III machine gun owner is far more skilled in shooting than the average cop. Tell me-where does the federal government get the proper power to regulate machine guns

    quick question to see if you are able to play in this game. What is the intended purpose of a full auto selector switch on an M4 rifle versus the semi auto switch?
    It gets the power from the phrase "public interest". For example in Walz v NY Tax Commission the supreme court ruled that even though it is probably against the 2d amendment to give churches tax free status that it was in the public interest to do so.

    In a case where the dangers to society outweigh the benefits of a right the public interest could trump certain enumerations. No right is completely absolute. Each one carries a certain responsibility to the common weal.

  4. #424
    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 LiberalAvenger View Post
    It gets the power from the phrase "public interest". For example in Walz v NY Tax Commission the supreme court ruled that even though it is probably against the 2d amendment to give churches tax free status that it was in the public interest to do so.

    In a case where the dangers to society outweigh the benefits of a right the public interest could trump certain enumerations. No right is completely absolute. Each one carries a certain responsibility to the common weal.
    No no no. A million times no, there is no public interest served in limiting what people can own in the terms of firearms, only in what they do with them such as indiscriminate fire in public, attempted murder, actual murder, etc.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #425
    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 LiberalAvenger View Post
    It is a fallacy to use the oldest definition of a word to define it. Words often change meanings over time.
    The fallacy is the one you're proposing on using the current definitions for a law written 220+ years ago. You have to use the definition from the time of when the law was written to ascertain what the authors of the law meant.

  6. #426
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Post the links to the definitions. Everyting that I have seen says quite the opposite, that "to bear" means only "to possess and carry". It is irrelevant as to whether or not use is "implied". I am talking about what is actually said, not what one can interpret. From what I see, the actual definition is "to possess and carry"... and this is also why Goobieman's counter argument is absurd. The actual definition of speech is the one I posted, therefore it applies.


    Oh, Captain, my Captain... why must you do this, when you have to know it is neither a sensible nor logical nor supportable position?

    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)




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


    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 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)


    Your position is one where you are straining and stretching a point in an attempt to adopt a position contrary to the Founders' intent.... re-read the first Jefferson quote, this is not a valid position.

    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. #427
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    No no no. A million times no, there is no public interest served in limiting what people can own in the terms of firearms, only in what they do with them such as indiscriminate fire in public, attempted murder, actual murder, etc.
    Exactly, it is called "prior restraint" and American jurisprudence despises it. "We're going to prevent you from owning a car, because you might run over someone with it, even though we have no reason to think you in particular would do so." This is prior restraint, and it sucks in all cases.

    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.'.."

  8. #428
    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 The_Patriot View Post
    The fallacy is the one you're proposing on using the current definitions for a law written 220+ years ago. You have to use the definition from the time of when the law was written to ascertain what the authors of the law meant.
    Etymological fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Etymology is sometimes thought of as the study of the "true meaning" of a word, but this is not what it is. It is the concern of etymology to study the history of a word. Thus it examines when and how a word entered the language, how its original form changed over the years and how its meaning evolved. Etymology, then, studies the true provenance of words, while in the etymological fallacy it is mistakenly thought to be the study of their true meaning."

  9. #429
    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 LiberalAvenger View Post
    Etymological fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Etymology is sometimes thought of as the study of the "true meaning" of a word, but this is not what it is. It is the concern of etymology to study the history of a word. Thus it examines when and how a word entered the language, how its original form changed over the years and how its meaning evolved. Etymology, then, studies the true provenance of words, while in the etymological fallacy it is mistakenly thought to be the study of their true meaning."
    Did James Madison and the other founding fathers use the current modern definitions of the words found in the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights? It's a simple enough question for you to answer.

  10. #430
    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 Goshin View Post
    Exactly, it is called "prior restraint" and American jurisprudence despises it. "We're going to prevent you from owning a car, because you might run over someone with it, even though we have no reason to think you in particular would do so." This is prior restraint, and it sucks in all cases.
    Exactly, I cringe at times when I hear a small portion of people talk about their firearms and "wishing" something would happen because they are always held up as an example by those looking to preemptively ban certain weapons classes. I like the car example as well, certain cars are banned in the U.S. because a few powerful police lobby groups argued they cannot be overtaken by traditional police interceptors, well........nothing outruns radio.

    Same thing with pretty much any class of automatic rifle, I'm not looking to outrun or outgun the police and would argue that most americans wouldn't either by a decidedly high population percentage, I simply want those things for a couple of reasons, I marvel at the way they were built, love the challenges they present, and just plain think they are cool as hell.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 43 of 64 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... 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
  •