View Poll Results: Which right holds sway?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2nd Amendment

    17 21.52%
  • Property Rights

    62 78.48%
Page 24 of 54 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #231
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    We need to take a test to enjoy the Constitutional rights of the 2nd Amendment? I didnt see that part in the Constitution could you link that please?
    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.
    "Well regulated" means you can control and direct your weapon proficiently. You aren't a mob who will be slaughtered, but actually posses some level of basic competency to be an effective marksman.

  2. #232
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertzz View Post
    For what it's worth, I believe you have made me question my convictions a bit - the thought that a "Public" store front perhaps ought to comply with the laws of the public does not seem to be an unreasonable consideration. As a customer, I would want the right to carry my concealed weapon legally into any public place (I'm actually in the process of applying for my license to conceal at the moment!). At the same time, if I were a business owner I would want the right to freely do business with whoever I please. It is very conflicting, so I must ask myself - which of the two rights being 'infringed' upon is most improper? I still conclude that the right of the private business because they would be forced to act in a certain way to continue to exist vs than the gun owner who is simply given a choice to either do business within the terms of the private business or do not do business with the private business. In the free society, if there is adequate demand, the gun-carrying citizens will be provided for with gun-allowable store fronts regardless.
    The big fight with private businesses at the moment is less about a business reserving the right to refuse, and more about 'no-firearms' signs carrying a criminal charge.

    This is not a customer who refused to leave, but the state charging the customer with a crime even if the customer made an honest mistake, sincerely apologized, immediately left and the business owner did not want to file trespassing charges.

    **********
    We have states passing laws protecting an employee's right to store an otherwise lawfully possessed firearm in their car while that car is on the employer's private property. Were there a similar law protecting the employee's or customer's right to carry concealed on their person while in your privat buisness, what 'certin way' would you have to act that you don't act now?

    For that matter, have employers changed anything at all about their business since employees started storing guns in their cars?
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-15-12 at 04:12 PM.

  3. #233
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post

    The problem with your argument is that on one hand you tell us that Americans have the right to carry guns on their person anywhere, then on the other hand you tell us well except these places.

    If certain places can be gun free zones than other places can be gun free zones. Which shows that it is not always up to the gun owner to decide where he can or cannot carry his gun.
    That's not a problem at all.

    The places I gave have a demonstratable 'need'. Any place which cannot demonstrate a 'need' shouldn't be allowed to ban firearms.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-15-12 at 04:19 PM.

  4. #234
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's not a problem at all.

    The places I gave have a demonstratable 'need'. Any place which cannot demonstrate a 'need' shouldn't be allowed to ban firearms.
    You're entitled to your opinion but don't pretend there is some sort of constitutional basis for it.

  5. #235
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    "Well regulated" means you can control and direct your weapon proficiently. You aren't a mob who will be slaughtered, but actually posses some level of basic competency to be an effective marksman.
    Actually I subscribe to the idea that by "a well regulated militia" meaning that we the people have the right to train ourselves for our own defense. In effect "a well regulated militia" equates to the people being self-regulated.


    But what you are implying has nothing to do with the point that I made. Which is that no one should be required to take a test in order to own a firearm. Such Government enforced regulations run directly against the 2nd Amendment. Those in support of requiring tests for gun ownership are thus supporting Congressional regulations or what is commonly called unconstitutional gun control of the citizens of the United States of America.


    The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions


    It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

    This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

    This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

    This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

    This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

    It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

  6. #236
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's not a problem at all.

    The places I gave have a demonstratable 'need'. Any place which cannot demonstrate a 'need' shouldn't be allowed to ban firearms.
    Again you are trying to get firearms regulated when it is entirely not needed.


    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER


    Held:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.


    [...........]

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


    That ruling above is one of the reasons that you need a special law to force property owners to allow someone on their property. Notice the mention of the legality of banning guns "in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings"?
    Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 08-15-12 at 07:45 PM.

  7. #237
    Student comedy4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    georgia
    Last Seen
    12-28-12 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    I don’t know the laws on this one.
    The way I see it property rights trump here. The business has the right to ban weapons anywhere on its property. That being said; a car is considered privet property. They cannot ban people from carrying or storing anything (that is not illegal) in their car.
    COMEDY 4 ALL! it's a life Philosophy.

    Chuck Norris once got bit by a king cobra. after five days of agonizing pain, the cobra died!

  8. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Again you are trying to get firearms regulated when it is entirely not needed.
    The law I want regulates private property, not firearms.

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    But what you are implying has nothing to do with the point that I made. Which is that no one should be required to take a test in order to own a firearm.
    That's not a point, that's an opinion.

  10. #240
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by comedy4all View Post
    I don’t know the laws on this one.
    The way I see it property rights trump here. The business has the right to ban weapons anywhere on its property. That being said; a car is considered privet property. They cannot ban people from carrying or storing anything (that is not illegal) in their car.
    Your body and person is your privet property. They should not be able to ban people from carrying or storing anything (that is not illegal) on their person.

Page 24 of 54 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •