• 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!

Which right holds sway?

Which right holds sway?

  • 2nd Amendment

    Votes: 15 21.7%

  • Property Rights

    Votes: 54 78.3%
  • Total voters
    69
FreedomFromAll said:
My point is that the law is regulating the use of a firearm not actually giving the gun owner any real liberty.
Click to expand...

Depends on the regulation.

FreedomFromAll said:
If you are in a court room and you take your gun out you will have to surrender your gun to an officer.
Click to expand...

That's the presiding judge's call, not yours. Even in court houses where firearms are allowed, judges still retain control over their court room. I have never argued to change that. A lot of business occurs in a court house which has nothing to do with criminal charges or hearings, such as vehicle registration, business/marriage license applications, construction permits, paying tickets and fines, any request for public records, and of course: obtaining a concealed weapon's permit. One can do a lot of business in a court house and never see the inside of a court room.

FreedomFromAll said:
Clearly the law does not follow the 2nd Amendment bet sets its regulatory restrictions that go beyond the 2nd Amendment. Such laws do harm to the 2nd Amendment since they create precedence that allow statutory laws to exceed the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If you say so. Please be ready with your source material when folks challenge your claim.

FreedomFromAll said:
Link what my concerns? I couldnt possibly think for myself I must parrot someone else?
Click to expand...

Link to what substantiated your concerns. For example, when I claim a concern that gun control will increase crime rates, I have working links at the ready to demonstrate that concern. You should do the same.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Well duh its in their name, but perhaps you should start here: NRA NO! - Gun Owners Against NRA Lies and Deceit The only communication with the subcommittee by GO-NH/Hohenwarter was via an e-mail which suggested the so-called “NRA amendment.” This amendment was considered and rejected by the committee, in part because it was too extensive, proposed new gun control measures, instituted new criminal penalties, and added NICS checks on licenses. For those reasons and others it was felt the amendment should be offered as a bill of its own so it would go through the proper process of a public hearing and vetting. HB330 was again heard in Executive Session, where the committee discusses the pros and cons of the bill, and finally it went before the whole House of Representatives for a vote of “ought to pass” or “inexpedient to legislate.” The bill passed out of the House with a large margin of victory and was sent to the Senate.

Just prior to the full vote of the House, the “NRA amendment” was
I noticed that you asserted the Castle Doctrine Tonight at a Tea Party meeting in Reynoldsville, PA in front of a group of about 30 people Senator Scarnati stated that he is aware that the NRA liaison has been working with Senator Leech on a compromise for the Florida Loophole and HB40.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. The NRA is playing games with your rights.


the Castle Doctrine is actually a non gun issue. It just states that deadly force not just guns.


About NRA No

For far too long the NRA has convinced gun owners across America that they were working to stop anti gun legislation, all while they were really working to line their pockets with millions of dollars.
To make matters worse the NRA has actually been helping anti gun groups stop laws from being passed that would enhance the rights of gun owners.
Click to expand...


I can't find the actual text of any version of the "NRA Amendment". Could you help me with that?

*****
While looking into your source I found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

While yes the civilian was disrespectful and uncooperative, this is still a perfect example of the government infringements we're fighting against. By fighting us, you are supporting the actions of that police officer.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
The Oregon laws are just gun control laws with a carrot out front to fool the uneducated gun owner.

NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...
From your link:
1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5. Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone object to any of that?
 
Jerry said:
Depends on the regulation.



That's the presiding judge's call, not yours. Even in court houses where firearms are allowed, judges still retain control over their court room. I have never argued to change that. A lot of business occurs in a court house which has nothing to do with criminal charges or hearings, such as vehicle registration, business/marriage license applications, construction permits, paying tickets and fines, any request for public records, and of course: obtaining a concealed weapon's permit. One can do a lot of business in a court house and never see the inside of a court room.



If you say so. Please be ready with your source material when folks challenge your claim.



Link to what substantiated your concerns. For example, when I claim a concern that gun control will increase crime rates, I have working links at the ready to demonstrate that concern. You should do the same.
Click to expand...
What weird ****ing world that you live in. I asked a rhetorical question and you want a source....

Jerry said:
[/I]
I can't find the actual text of any version of the "NRA Amendment". Could you help me with that?

*****
While looking into your source I found this:
SHOCKING AUDIO: Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint - YouTube

While yes the civilian was disrespectful and uncooperative, this is still a perfect example of the government infringements we're fighting against. By fighting us, you are supporting the actions of that police officer.
Click to expand...
Google is your friend

And whats with this crap if you are fighting us you are supporting that cop bs? The NRA like any other NGO must be accountable, but even more so since they claim to be standing up for everyones rights. Im not one to just believe that a powerful organization is ok. Especially since their track record is than to be desired.
You posting this video then trying to say that if I do not support the NRA I will be supporting cops that do not know the law that they promised to keep is just ridiculous and an amateurish attempt. But then it is typical of NRA members to parrot the tactics of the NRA. Whats next you are going to accuse me of being unAmerican because I do not trust the NRA with our Constitutional rights? Seriously did you expect me to say that your right I must become a member of the NRA now to save my right to bear arms?


Jerry said:
From your link:


Why would anyone object to any of that?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Jerry said:
For example:


When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.

I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' to these classes because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.

I don't carry for preference, I've actually had to use my gun. No bushiness can demonstrate a streak of lawful CCW carriers committing crimes, that the business would need to ban otherwise lawfull carry.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

"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.
 
fredmertzz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion but don't pretend there is some sort of constitutional basis for it.
 
Jerry said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not a point, that's an opinion.
 
comedy4all said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jerry said:
That's not a point, that's an opinion.
Click to expand...

No it is your opinion that more laws regulating guns is good for the 2nd Amendment. My point is that we should avoid laws that require tests and qualifications since those are the methods of choice in every country that have essentially banned firearms. All that you will achieve is holding the door open for gun control nuts.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I want to take away laws that regulate both.
Click to expand...
My point was to correct your claim that I was trying to regulate firearms.

If you want to categorically remove laws which regulate firearms, then I trust you oppose giving 'no-firearms' signs legal backing? I'm talking about states which make it a separate crime of criminal trespass, not someone who is asked to leave and refuses.

FreedomFromAll said:
No it is your opinion that more laws regulating guns is good for the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

I gave justification should the state choose to require a class. I don't have a strong opinion on this one. I can go either way. If the state wants me to take a class, fine, not the end of the world. If they don't, that's one less thing I have to worry about. One of the reasons I chose to live in SD is because we're moving away from requiring a permit at all. The existing permit doesn't require any kind of class. $10 and your permit arrives in the mail within 2 weeks. IMO we should make basic gun safety a mandatory part of the HS curriculum, that way everyone has the class by default even if they never own a gun.

FreedomFromAll said:
My point is that we should avoid laws that require tests and qualifications since those are the methods of choice in every country that have essentially banned firearms. All that you will achieve is holding the door open for gun control nuts.
Click to expand...

IMO every citizen should have to do a 2-year term of military service. Couple that with the total elimination of CCWs and everyone is happy.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that the 18 yr old public high school senior can keep a firearm in their vehicle while parked in the school parking lot?
 
radcen said:
Does this mean that the 18 yr old public high school senior can keep a firearm in their vehicle while parked in the school parking lot?
Click to expand...

No. Like all rights in the bill of rights, courts have to balance it against all kinds of other things like public safety.
 
teamosil said:
radcen said:
Does this mean that the 18 yr old public high school senior can keep a firearm in their vehicle while parked in the school parking lot?
Click to expand...
No. Like all rights in the bill of rights, courts have to balance it against all kinds of other things like public safety.
Click to expand...
Then they're not really "rights". Their privileges subject to popular whim.
 
radcen said:
Then they're not really "rights". Their privileges subject to popular whim.
Click to expand...

They just aren't absolute rights. You can't really have an absolute right. Or, theoretically, you could have one... But you can't have more than one because they can conflict with one another. So they always need to be weighed against one another. That's just the nature of reality.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you came to my house and you wanted to carry your gun and I did not want you to bring it on to my property would you insist on bringing it on to my property or would you respect my wishes and leave it in the car?

I agree with being allowed to carry a gun on you anywhere you want to (except for government buildings, court houses, banks, and ext.). But you must respect the wishes of those that do not want you to bring your gun onto their property. If you can’t do that than just don’t go onto those properties.
 
comedy4all said:
If you came to my house and you wanted to carry your gun and I did not want you to bring it on to my property would you insist on bringing it on to my property or would you respect my wishes and leave it in the car?
Click to expand...

If I'm there as a social guest I would leave entirely. I have real credible threats against my self and family and there's nothing going on at your place which would justify my letting down my guard to those threats.

Please understand that this is not meant to be personal to you in any way, nor is it unique to firearms. I would no sooner leave my cell phone in the car, either, because my child or elderly parents might have an emergency.

My need to have the item is so great that I would be willing to cause tension in our friendship to keep it. I don't make the decision lightly, and I'd rather not have to make it at all, but if I'm forced into the corner have have to make it, I choose the item. Your gun-free house can't protect me from the very real gang members my ex-wife riled up. Your gun-free house can't protect me from the rabid wild dogs I've had to shoot in the past (which are the reason I started carrying in the first place).

If I'm there as a contractor, I would put it in my car and look for an opportunity to retrieve it while you weren't paying attention. I need the job, so I'll make nice with the client, but I also need to be ready.

comedy4all said:
I agree with being allowed to carry a gun on you anywhere you want to (except for government buildings, court houses, banks, and ext.). But you must respect the wishes of those that do not want you to bring your gun onto their property. If you can’t do that than just don’t go onto those properties.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time conveying to people how nieve that statement is. I didn't ask for my ex to turn bat-**** crazy and stir up some gang members. Chances are I didn't specifically request to be sent to you house, either. I just take whatever jobs I'm handed, employers tend to like that quality.

From where I'm coming from, I have bills to pay just like everyone else. I have to have a job, and carpentry is what I'm trained in. It takes to much time and money to completely re-train to another profession just to roll the dice and see if that employer/client allows firearms. If they don't, then folks like yourself would expect me to take a few more years and another $10,000 to re-train yet again. I end up in an endless cycle of training, never actually having a career, all because I want nothing more than to exorsize a specifically enumerated constitutionally protected right. Also, there are credible threats I need to be ready for. I feel, and this is just how I view my situation, that I'm in a survival scenario. I have to avoid detection by the employer and client while remaining ready for the ex-wife's angry gang boyfriend.

The way I see it, non of this has anything to do with respect in any way. It has nothing to do with respecting you or my employer. Braking the rules has nothing to do with disrespect, either. To me, the entire topic of respect is completely besides the point.

To me, it's about survival.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If I'm there as a social guest I would leave entirely. I have real credible threats against my self and family and there's nothing going on at your place which would justify my letting down my guard to those threats.

Please understand that this is not meant to be personal to you in any way, nor is it unique to firearms. I would no sooner leave my cell phone in the car, either, because my child or elderly parents might have an emergency.

My need to have the item is so great that I would be willing to cause tension in our friendship to keep it. I don't make the decision lightly, and I'd rather not have to make it at all, but if I'm forced into the corner have have to make it, I choose the item. Your gun-free house can't protect me from the very real gang members my ex-wife riled up. Your gun-free house can't protect me from the rabid wild dogs I've had to shoot in the past (which are the reason I started carrying in the first place).

If I'm there as a contractor, I would put it in my car and look for an opportunity to retrieve it while you weren't paying attention. I need the job, so I'll make nice with the client, but I also need to be ready.



I have a hard time conveying to people how nieve that statement is. I didn't ask for my ex to turn bat-**** crazy and stir up some gang members. Chances are I didn't specifically request to be sent to you house, either. I just take whatever jobs I'm handed, employers tend to like that quality.

From where I'm coming from, I have bills to pay just like everyone else. I have to have a job, and carpentry is what I'm trained in. It takes to much time and money to completely re-train to another profession just to roll the dice and see if that employer/client allows firearms. If they don't, then folks like yourself would expect me to take a few more years and another $10,000 to re-train yet again. I end up in an endless cycle of training, never actually having a career, all because I want nothing more than to exorsize a specifically enumerated constitutionally protected right. Also, there are credible threats I need to be ready for. I feel, and this is just how I view my situation, that I'm in a survival scenario. I have to avoid detection by the employer and client while remaining ready for the ex-wife's angry gang boyfriend.

The way I see it, non of this has anything to do with respect in any way. It has nothing to do with respecting you or my employer. Braking the rules has nothing to do with disrespect, either. To me, the entire topic of respect is completely besides the point.

To me, it's about survival.
Click to expand...

Jerry heres the thing...we dont smoke in someones home that asks us not too...If someone tells me no guns allowed in their house...at that point my choice is...dont bring a gun in their house or dont go into their house. A persons home is their castle as I see it..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom