Page 46 of 64 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #451
    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
    you are dismissed from the argument since you really have no clue

    Need has nothing to do with rights

    and when you figure out the usage of full auto weapons get back to me
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    necessary is stated right in the 2nd amendment.

    since you are an expert, what does a civilian use a light machine gun for other than maybe extremely expensive target practice? I have no idea why supresive fire would be needed in a self-defense or hunting situtation.

  2. #452
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    necessary is stated right in the 2nd amendment.

    since you are an expert, what does a civilian use a light machine gun for other than maybe extremely expensive target practice? I have no idea why supresive fire would be needed in a self-defense or hunting situtation.
    The "security of a free state" is a cause which is exponentially greater than the mere right of one person to defend him or herself.

    If the right to keep and bear arms was solely for an individual's right to defend themself,.... there would have been no need to specifically mention the "militia."

  3. #453
    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 Chuz Life View Post
    The "security of a free state" is a cause which is exponentially greater than the mere right of one person to defend him or herself.

    If the right to keep and bear arms was solely for an individual's right to defend themself,.... there would have been no need to specifically mention the "militia."
    Ok, well we have a malitia, and its known as the state patrol and national gaurd. They all require training, aka they are well regulated. Why should we not require the same of every citizen if they want to use the same guns as the military.

  4. #454
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Ok, well we have a malitia, and its known as the state patrol and national gaurd. They all require training, aka they are well regulated. Why should we not require the same of every citizen if they want to use the same guns as the military.
    It seems you have a problem appreciating the composition of a Militia and what their purpose is.

    Indiana State Constitution; Article 12, section 1;

    "Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."

    Emphasis mine.

    Other States and codes have similar definitions.
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 07-03-10 at 05:32 PM.

  5. #455
    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 Chuz Life View Post
    It seems you have a problem appreciating the composition of a Militia and what their purpose is.

    Indiana State Constitution; Article 12, section 1;

    "Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."

    Emphasis mine.

    Other States and codes have similar definitions.
    So what does that prove? Everyone over 17 can be part of a state malitia.

  6. #456
    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
    So what does that prove? Everyone over 17 can be part of a state malitia.
    It proves that everyone above the age of 17 is in the militia. A citizen is automatically enrolled upon reaching the age of 17.

  7. #457
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Oh, Captain, my Captain... why must you do this, when you have to know it is neither a sensible nor logical nor supportable position?
    Two reasons. Firstly, it is completely logical in keeping with a strictly literalist position of the Constitution. Secondly, it is completely logical in keeping with a strictly literalist position of the Constitution.

    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)
    I can show you quotes from Hamilton that oppose Jefferson's perception. He believed that the Constitution needed to evolve.
    Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
    Yet the fact that this is NOT written in the 2nd Amendment either indicates that the 2nd is more narrow than what Jefferson says, or can be more loosely construed. If we look at this from an originist standpoint, I think the first possibility is more likely.


    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)
    Very true. But still not in the 2nd Amendment.


    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)
    Adams along with Hamilton is probably my favorite founding father. Similar to what I said about Jefferson, though, either this was not included in the 2nd to narrowly construe it and accentuate the importance of the possessing of arms to prevent government tyranny, or to leave it open to interpretation for future generations. Remember, the Federalists did not want the Bill of Rights included, as they felt this could be too narrow and lead to government tyranny. Since many of them worked on the Constitution, it is conceivable that their wording was left vague to prevent these kinds of abuses and to allow for future issues to be included.


    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)
    Look at what I placed in bold. Washington gets it. It is not use that causes the restriction of government tyranny. It is their PRECENCE. Action is irrelevant, since by the time action is taken, tryanny has already occurred. The founders wanted the 2nd Amendment to PREVENT tyranny, not to stop it. That is why carry and possess is there, and use is not.


    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.
    Actually, my position is quite literally what the Constitution says, and since the original intent of the 2nd was to prevent government tyranny... and as I am often told by those who are pro-2nd Amendment... without the 2nd, the 1st cannot be defended, the 2nd is a preventative measure. My assessment is not only on target via originalist interpretation (which isn't actually interpretation at all), but it is also on target for the basic tenet of the Amendment itself. Anything veerring from this is interpretation and implication and does not adhere to a constructionist position.
    "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"

  8. #458
    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 drz-400 View Post
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    necessary is stated right in the 2nd amendment.

    since you are an expert, what does a civilian use a light machine gun for other than maybe extremely expensive target practice? I have no idea why supresive fire would be needed in a self-defense or hunting situtation.
    False premise, that the only valid purpose to have a gun is hunting or personal self-defense.
    The purpose for the amdnemnt is to to make sure the militia will always have the proper weapons. LMGs fall into that caategory.

  9. #459
    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
    This is an example of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy Goobie
    \
    The fact that you cannot cite a single restriction on the right to arms based on your silly argument is proof of the silliness of that argument.

  10. #460
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    So what does that prove? Everyone over 17 can be part of a state malitia.
    Militia.

    M-I-litia.

    And what it proves is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms "for the security of a free State" is greater than the mere right for each and every citizen to defend themself individually.

Page 46 of 64 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... 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
  •