• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

This is a great victory in the war for recognition of our rights
Remember these aren't granted by the government but they are naturally ours, as someone else has already said.

It's not a time to rest though, there are other legislative acts that need to be overturned like the Hughes Amendment, 922 compliance rules and other nonsensical restrictions.
 
Goshin said:
That's known as the Amendment process. If the Constitution needs changed, Amend it. "Interpreting" it out of anything like it was orginally intended to be is not an option, not without Amendments.
Click to expand...

Except you're wrong about that. Pretty much everything we need to deal with current and future societal issues is already in the Constitution. The Founders knew that... that's why the Amendment process is so difficult, and why it has rarely needed to be used in our history. Everything we need is right there. No need to change it.
 
Goobieman said:
There's two sides to this.
Interpretation to clarify terms or whatnot is a certain necessity - but interpretation that broadens the power of the federal government is not.
This is, after all, why there is an amendment process and the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

And what you just said is open to interpretation.
 
As to the decision by SCOTUS, support it as it supports what is clearly in the Constitution. I see no evidence that banning guns from law-abiding citizens reduces gun-crime. From a scientific point of view, NOT support the decision make no sense to me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As to the decision by SCOTUS, support it as it supports what is clearly in the Constitution. I see no evidence that banning guns from law-abiding citizens reduces gun-crime. From a scientific point of view, NOT support the decision make no sense to me.
Click to expand...

If you think banning doesn't make sense, you should see some of the other laws relating to firearms.
Completely stupid stuff in firearms regulation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you think banning doesn't make sense, you should see some of the other laws relating to firearms.
Completely stupid stuff in firearms regulation.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, guns should be treated similarly to driving.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As far as I'm concerned, guns should be treated similarly to driving.
Click to expand...

In about 2-3 weeks, I'll be able to receive some guns through the mail.
Currently waiting on ATF paperwork.

Even then though, it's moronic what I can and cannot receive in the mail.
Not the ATF's fault, they are following the law as written, legislators on the other hand. :roll:

I can get this in the mail.

product_thumb.php


But not this.

product_thumb.php
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
In about 2-3 weeks, I'll be able to receive some guns through the mail.
Currently waiting on ATF paperwork.

Even then though, it's moronic what I can and cannot receive in the mail.
Not the ATF's fault, they are following the law as written, legislators on the other hand. :roll:

I can get this in the mail.

product_thumb.php


But not this.

product_thumb.php
Click to expand...

What's the difference? The design are not identical, but it's hard to tell how they differ.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The top one is older, that's it.

Functionally they are the exact same, bullet caliber is nearly identical but that makes no difference as far as the law is concerned.
Click to expand...

Seems idiotically arbitrary to me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Seems idiotically arbitrary to me.
Click to expand...

It is.
In order to get the license you have to give them your SSN, all past addresses, as well as a load of other information.
I have to give a copy of it to my Chief Law Enforcement Officer(city or county police/sheriff) as well.

They run a background check and your clear.

This regulation comes from the 1968(?) Gun Control Act, if I'm not mistaken.
I think it shows how stupid legislators can be, regardless of party affiliation.
 
I recently had to register a gun in Virginia where we are supposed to have easy gun laws. I had to go through all kinks of gestapo tactics issued by the state police in order to do so. Police record check, photos, forms, etc. The seller has to do even more.

It would have been easier just to go to a gun show or on the street to buy one.

I applaud the supreme court's decision.:applaud
 
Goobieman said:
There's two sides to this.
Interpretation to clarify terms or whatnot is a certain necessity - but interpretation that broadens the power of the federal government is not.
This is, after all, why there is an amendment process and the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

The supreme court will never accept a meaningful case about the 10th Amendment. That's just the way it is. The supremes are, after all, feds and they will never give up their own power to the states.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As far as I'm concerned, guns should be treated similarly to driving.
Click to expand...

agreed...
its much harder to get a driving liscense than to legally purchase a gun.
we should only need to sign our name, give the current address and wait a week before getting to legally drive.
 
WhyteRash said:
agreed...
its much harder to get a driving liscense than to legally purchase a gun.
we should only need to sign our name, give the current address and wait a week before getting to legally drive.
Click to expand...

How in the world is it harder exactly?

To get a liscenses one must show a proof if legal presense, identity, state residence, pass a safety course, and spend 9 months (if prior to 19) or 30 days (if older than 19) on a learning permit. The states themselves provide courses on safety, preperation, and that help fulfill requirements in public education in classes that count for school credit.

What is more difficult about obtaining a gun than that?

Not to mention only one of the two is actually a constitutional right.
 
hazlnut said:
Way to oversimplify everything that Daly has said about gun regs....
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... Should I trust my own ears which have heard Daley speak on these gun laws live and in person as well as on my TV screen every single night... or should I ignore reality and trust Hazlnut telling me that I'm oversimplifying something that I've heard Daley say in person.

Easy choice for me.

Also, unlike most people in this thread, I'm not just making comments from a philosophical standpoint here. My comments stem from the personal knowledge that if I really wanted to get a handgun, it's actually easier for me to do so inside city limits than it is outside of city limits. It'd be purchased illegally, but it's still easier. Even when he passes his new "make it as hard as possible for law-abiding citizens to get guns" laws, it'll still be easier for me to get one in the city.

Hell, all you really have to do is google the halfway houses in the area. From there, you'll be able to find a drug dealer (there's always a dealer hanging out around a halfway house) and then you'll have a way to get a gun. Bring a junkie along so it'll go quicker. You can find one of those near a methadone clinic if you knwo what to look for. Look for the one who's obviously jonesing for a fix and using the methadone to take the edge off until he can get enough money to buy some heroin. He'll be the one with the fresher track marks. Tell him you'll cover his fix if he helps you. Odds are, he'll do it.

Of course, it's all much easier if you actually know a junkie personally.
 
And this is where I disagree with liberals. At least in my opinion, the second amendment is pretty clear.
 
Tucker Case said:
Hmmmm.... Should I trust my own ears which have heard Daley speak on these gun laws live and in person as well as on my TV screen every single night... or should I ignore reality and trust Hazlnut telling me that I'm oversimplifying something that I've heard Daley say in person.

Easy choice for me.

Also, unlike most people in this thread, I'm not just making comments from a philosophical standpoint here. My comments stem from the personal knowledge that if I really wanted to get a handgun, it's actually easier for me to do so inside city limits than it is outside of city limits. It'd be purchased illegally, but it's still easier. Even when he passes his new "make it as hard as possible for law-abiding citizens to get guns" laws, it'll still be easier for me to get one in the city.

Hell, all you really have to do is google the halfway houses in the area. From there, you'll be able to find a drug dealer (there's always a dealer hanging out around a halfway house) and then you'll have a way to get a gun. Bring a junkie along so it'll go quicker. You can find one of those near a methadone clinic if you knwo what to look for. Look for the one who's obviously jonesing for a fix and using the methadone to take the edge off until he can get enough money to buy some heroin. He'll be the one with the fresher track marks. Tell him you'll cover his fix if he helps you. Odds are, he'll do it.

Of course, it's all much easier if you actually know a junkie personally.
Click to expand...

Yep, it would be prohibition all over again without Al Capone.:shoot:shoot
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yet the Founders understood that interpretation would be necessary, as not all future things could possibly be included. This is where YOU miss the boat.
Click to expand...



How does one "interpret" "shall not be infringed" to me "a little infringement is ok"? ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
How in the world is it harder exactly?

To get a liscenses one must show a proof if legal presense, identity, state residence, pass a safety course, and spend 9 months (if prior to 19) or 30 days (if older than 19) on a learning permit. The states themselves provide courses on safety, preperation, and that help fulfill requirements in public education in classes that count for school credit.

What is more difficult about obtaining a gun than that?

Not to mention only one of the two is actually a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

To get a driver's license you have to go to the DMV :D
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As far as I'm concerned, guns should be treated similarly to driving.
Click to expand...
I agree. In Ohio, for example:
-You dont need a license to own a car.
-You dont need to register a car to own it.
-You do not need a license to drive a car on private property
-You do not need to register a car to drive it on private property
-You do not need a license to transport a car on public property
-You do not need to register a car to trasnport it on public property
-You only need a license to drive on public property
-You only need to register a car if you will drve it on public property.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
And this is where I disagree with liberals. At least in my opinion, the second amendment is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that is isn't clear. It's actually very vague. There is a reason it took over two hundred years for the individual right to bear arms to come into existence. It's because reasonable people can disagree. A much better historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the collective right to bear arms. In order to provide for an effective militia, it is entirely reasonable to have laws that restrict personal gun ownership, for instance what if the state militia required all guns be kept in a militia storage facility for better access in time of war?

I have no problem with an individual right to keep and bear arms. But I do have a problem with hypocritical Justices who claim to want to follow the "original meaning" if the Constitution, but make decision like this that are flagrantly activist. If you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a living and growing thing, that's great. But Scalia, Thomas, Alito, they're all violating their expressed judicial philosophy in this and the DC v. Heller decision. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom