View Poll Results: Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

Voters
204. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    87 42.65%
  • No

    102 50.00%
  • Others

    15 7.35%
Page 122 of 171 FirstFirst ... 2272112120121122123124132 ... LastLast
Results 1,211 to 1,220 of 1703

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #1211
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Words have meanings, as I believe I recall you saying several times on this very forum. The word infringe did not mean merely "destroy" at the time of the founding of the country. As for the rape comparison, it is perfectly legitimate as a comparison. When something is damaged or violated, it does not imply destruction, whether we are talking about guns or people.
    those who support gun banning want to grease the way to a ban with incremental erosion of our rights and they will defend those erosions as constitutional. when bans come they will claim that a ban also is constitutional because the incremental steps had been upheld and accomplished almost a complete ban anyway

  2. #1212
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

    Re: Gun Control

    I understand why some cling to false notions of how an Amendment should or shouldn't be modified.

    But that horse bolted from the barn long ago. No where in the Second Amendment does it mention a prohibition on ownership due to mental defect or major crime conviction. Yet the mentally ill and felons are barred from ownership.

    In the oft quoted Heller decision what the ardent 2nd A leave off once past the right to bear is an individual one is, and I quote Justice Scalia- "Like most rights, the 2nd 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..." he goes on to say the opinion of an individual right doesn't nullify the bar to ownership for the mentally ill and convicted felons. Nor the 1939 Miller case on restrictions on commercial sale of firearms.

    So the Second Amendment has been restricted without going through the process of amendment, one of the Supreme Courts rather more strict Constitutionalists says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited and restrictions can be put on it.

    Argue what infringement means til the cows come home, the Supreme Court has already decided and in our Nation of Laws that is the trump card.

  3. #1213
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Gun Control

    restrictions on felons etc is generally seen as "due process of law" based on the status of the individual rather than the right in general

  4. #1214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The great lakes
    Last Seen
    06-12-13 @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    I understand why some cling to false notions of how an Amendment should or shouldn't be modified.

    But that horse bolted from the barn long ago. No where in the Second Amendment does it mention a prohibition on ownership due to mental defect or major crime conviction. Yet the mentally ill and felons are barred from ownership.
    5th amendment. Due Process.

    In the oft quoted Heller decision what the ardent 2nd A leave off once past the right to bear is an individual one is, and I quote Justice Scalia- "Like most rights, the 2nd 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..." he goes on to say the opinion of an individual right doesn't nullify the bar to ownership for the mentally ill and convicted felons.
    No one questions this.

    Nor the 1939 Miller case on restrictions on commercial sale of firearms.
    You'll have to quote the text and tell us what exactly you think he's saying.

    So the Second Amendment has been restricted without going through the process of amendment...
    Like all others. No one questions this.

    The REAL quetsions:
    Do you know on what basis other rights are limited?
    Do you know the circumstances necessary for a restriction on a constitutionally-protected fundamenta right to not violate the constitution?

  5. #1215
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,006

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Words have meanings, as I believe I recall you saying several times on this very forum. The word infringe did not mean merely "destroy" at the time of the founding of the country. As for the rape comparison, it is perfectly legitimate as a comparison. When something is damaged or violated, it does not imply destruction, whether we are talking about guns or people.
    The Second Amendment can only mean one of two opposite things because of the word INFRINGED.

    A - If the gun lobby advocates are correct, any incremental encroachment is indeed something which violates it and rises to the level of INFRINGEMENT. Any incremental encroachment - no matter how major or minor - how large or how small - how significant or how insignificant it may appear to others would indeed by a violation that rises to the level of INFRINGEMENT because it takes away the total complete control of that right from the individual. It must be that way - it has to be that way - it can only be that way because what is minor to one individual will be major to others so no incremental encroachment can be tolerated without violating the right and making it INFRINGED. And an act resulting in someones right - even one lone American - will still have the right to be INFRINGED. So it cannot be tolerated if the Second Amendment is to be honored in full.

    The other alternative is

    B - In 225 years of American history, the right to keep and bear arms has never been considered as an absolute which cannot be regulated or partially controlled by the government. We have had all manner of laws from outright ban and confiscation to registration to waiting periods to background checks to being legally denied to some individuals outright,. And all of that left untouched by the courts. So the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the true and actual meaning of the word INFRINGED. This means that the right cannot be regulated or controlled or impacted in such a way by government that the right is destroyed, is contravened, is neutralized or is negated. It will be up to the peoples government to decide where that falls in practical terms.

    There is no other way around this. It can only be one of those two visions.

    Either government can pass regulations on the right or government cannot pass regulations on the right because to do so would cause someones rights to be INFRINGED and that is forbidden by the Second Amendment.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #1216
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Gun Control

    there was no federal infringement on the RKBA until 1934. BTW Haymarket, I don't believe the second amendment was properly applied to states until the 14th amendments incorporation

    so for almost 100 years any state regulation would not have been prohibited by the second amendment

    so your 225 year bit is a bit specious

  7. #1217
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,006

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    there was no federal infringement on the RKBA until 1934. BTW Haymarket, I don't believe the second amendment was properly applied to states until the 14th amendments incorporation

    so for almost 100 years any state regulation would not have been prohibited by the second amendment

    so your 225 year bit is a bit specious
    You can believe anything you want to believe about federalization. It matter not to me because it does not negate the fact of my argument. Regardless if count from day one of the nation or from the adoption of the 14th amendment, there have been innumerable incremental encroachments on the right that have never been thrown out by the court as violations. that is simply reality and fact. So my analysis still stands no matter how you want to look it or what you personally believe about federalization.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #1218
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You can believe anything you want to believe about federalization. It matter not to me because it does not negate the fact of my argument. Regardless if count from day one of the nation or from the adoption of the 14th amendment, there have been innumerable incremental encroachments on the right that have never been thrown out by the court as violations. that is simply reality and fact. So my analysis still stands no matter how you want to look it or what you personally believe about federalization.
    when was the first FEDERAL ENCROACHMENT

  9. #1219
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,006

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    when was the first FEDERAL ENCROACHMENT
    I have no idea.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #1220
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I have no idea.
    well you talked about 225 years of infringements and I noted until the 14th amendment the second amendment was not at issue due to state infringements

    1934 was the first federal crapping upon the second amendment

    and guess who did it? the arch crapper himself, the odious FDR

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •