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 22 of 171 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272122 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 1703

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #211
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    yes and many people believe it was based on improper grounds. sort of like claiming that some guy in my home state not Growing wheat impacted "interstate commerce"

    FDR used the turmoil of the times to basically crap all over the bill of rights
    Whether it was or wasn't does change where we are. There is virtually no chance of that changing.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #212
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Gun Control

    Current case law allows for regulation of firearms to certain degrees. However, case law also leaves a lot of grey area in regards to this. As to whether or not current case law is "constitutional" or not is something debated by both sides of constitutional scholars.

    While personally I feel a lot of the regulation efforts are anti-constitutional in spirit (and some I do believe are outright unconstitutional...such as in the past when I saw people talk about possibly going about HEAVILY regulating ammo to the point where firearms would be near useless)...my main objection with efforts is rarely based singularly on the notion of being unconstitutional. I do this because, while I may disagree with it, the reality is the current legal situation in this country seems to disagree with me since we have numerous regulatory laws on the books without being struck down by the SCOTUS or successfully challenged by scholars far more intelligent on this matter than those on this forum.

    Yes, a certain amount of regulation is technically at this time constitutional. That doesn't mean I must believe it falls within the spirit of the constitution, that the benefit of the legislation is worth the damage it does to generalized constitutional principles across all amendments, or that the legislation is reasonable in nature in relation to the further mitigation of our rights.

  3. #213
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    yes and many people believe it was based on improper grounds. sort of like claiming that some guy in my home state not Growing wheat impacted "interstate commerce"

    FDR used the turmoil of the times to basically crap all over the bill of rights
    Well you know what they say in Chicago about never letting a tragedy go to waste...
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  4. #214
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Current case law allows for regulation of firearms to certain degrees. However, case law also leaves a lot of grey area in regards to this. As to whether or not current case law is "constitutional" or not is something debated by both sides of constitutional scholars.

    While personally I feel a lot of the regulation efforts are anti-constitutional in spirit (and some I do believe are outright unconstitutional...such as in the past when I saw people talk about possibly going about HEAVILY regulating ammo to the point where firearms would be near useless)...my main objection with efforts is rarely based singularly on the notion of being unconstitutional. I do this because, while I may disagree with it, the reality is the current legal situation in this country seems to disagree with me since we have numerous regulatory laws on the books without being struck down by the SCOTUS or successfully challenged by scholars far more intelligent on this matter than those on this forum.

    Yes, a certain amount of regulation is technically at this time constitutional. That doesn't mean I must believe it falls within the spirit of the constitution, that the benefit of the legislation is worth the damage it does to generalized constitutional principles across all amendments, or that the legislation is reasonable in nature in relation to the further mitigation of our rights.
    I don't disagree. And where the line is does seem moveable. But the concept is accepted.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #215
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Current case law allows for regulation of firearms to certain degrees. However, case law also leaves a lot of grey area in regards to this. As to whether or not current case law is "constitutional" or not is something debated by both sides of constitutional scholars.

    While personally I feel a lot of the regulation efforts are anti-constitutional in spirit (and some I do believe are outright unconstitutional...such as in the past when I saw people talk about possibly going about HEAVILY regulating ammo to the point where firearms would be near useless)...my main objection with efforts is rarely based singularly on the notion of being unconstitutional. I do this because, while I may disagree with it, the reality is the current legal situation in this country seems to disagree with me since we have numerous regulatory laws on the books without being struck down by the SCOTUS or successfully challenged by scholars far more intelligent on this matter than those on this forum.

    Yes, a certain amount of regulation is technically at this time constitutional. That doesn't mean I must believe it falls within the spirit of the constitution, that the benefit of the legislation is worth the damage it does to generalized constitutional principles across all amendments, or that the legislation is reasonable in nature in relation to the further mitigation of our rights.
    many of what Scalia and his former law clerk Professor STeven Calabresi term "faint hearted originalists" will not fight the regulations because while they were clearly unconstitutional when passed, these FHO don't want to cause upheaval by overturning crap that has been around for decades.

    however, the scholarship is more and more on our side

    the utter idiocy of many gun control measures and the arguments supporting them has started to become obvious to people other than us hard core gun rights advocates

  6. #216
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    many of what Scalia and his former law clerk Professor STeven Calabresi term "faint hearted originalists" will not fight the regulations because while they were clearly unconstitutional when passed, these FHO don't want to cause upheaval by overturning crap that has been around for decades.

    however, the scholarship is more and more on our side

    the utter idiocy of many gun control measures and the arguments supporting them has started to become obvious to people other than us hard core gun rights advocates
    I would be interested to see evidence of this scholorship shift you speak of. I'm not sure it's real.

    I did search but didn't find anything on it. I did however find this, which I thought was interesting:

    Simplicity vs. Complexity

    One of the biggest problems with the Second Amendment debate is that a genuinely historical understanding of this issue requires one to accept that historical truth is seldom simple: so many overlapping shades of grey rather than stark blacks and whites. The effectiveness of the gun rights argument rests on its utter simplicity and refusal to engage with historical complexity. If one reads the comments sections on any of a dozen gun rights blogs one sees the same quotes and arguments recycled time and again. (There is a remarkably strong gun rights presence in cyberspace. Gun control supporters seem to have other hobbies.) For gun rights advocates, there is one interpretation and all the evidence points in that one direction. If this were actually true, then the Second Amendment would be unique in American constitutional history since it would be the only part of the constitution whose meaning was never contested and never changed in the time between the Founding era and the modern period.

    Given that the language of individual rights is now everywhere in modern America, it is hard to explain the historical meaning of the Second Amendment, which is the product of a different era when the language of rights was not nearly as individualistic as it has become. This difference in the meaning of “rights” from the 18th to the 21st centuries is crucial to making sense of the 2nd Amendment today. Consider the language of the original draft of the first five amendments to the Constitution that Congress proposed in 1791. (The term “Bill of Rights” is itself a later name that was only applied to the first ten amendments in the nineteenth century.)


    Article the First.
    After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

    Article the Second.
    No law varying the compensation to the members of Congress, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

    Article the Third.
    Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
    Article the Fourth.
    The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
    Article the Fifth.
    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    Rights: House of Representatives, Amendments

    The most obvious fact about this list is that what we know as the Second Amendment was originally the Fifth. Also, the first two Amendments do not have anything to do with individual rights.

    The language of the original assembly clause, which shares with our Second Amendment the phrase “right of the people” bears close scrutiny. Rather than frame the right to assemble in individualistic terms, the right is framed in civic terms. It is a right of the people to assemble for a particular public purpose, “to consult for the common good, and apply to the government for a redress of grievances.” The phrasing of this right captures the importance of civic republican ideas to the founding generation.

    ORIGINS | The Second Amendment Goes to Court

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #217
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Assault rifles been banned since 1986.

    There's a way to get one if you're a licensed collector and have a lot of money, but you can't go down to Wall-Mart and buy an assault rifle.

    Anyway, no assault rifle was used in either of these shootings.
    I know theyre banned and I know you can get them illegally..I used that as an example.

  8. #218
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Gun Control

    Obama is going to make the same mistake he did his first term...he got embroiled in health care right off instead of dealing with the economy and it looks like hes going to do the same thing. Get embroiled in a gun ban battle.

    To secure schools it would take far harsher security measurse than society would tolerate. All school doors locked and chained and only one door entrance and exit with metal detector and trained armed security or a Trained Police Officer permanent position. The cost would be high. Even then theres no guarantees.

    Heres something I found interesting and I honestly didnt expect...seems weve had alot of school shootings every decade going back to the 1800s and the first school shooting recorded was in the 1700s.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...d_States#1950s

    Scroll to the top of page

    Seems in 1927 in Michigan was the worst school shooting ever...45 victims

  9. #219
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Google "Connecticut's Assault Weapon Ban", read the text of the law, and that's your answer.
    This is a state Governor suggesting. Hardly proposed federal legislation. And, to top it off, there was no mention made of an attack on gun owners!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    I know theyre banned and I know you can get them illegally..I used that as an example.
    Non-LEO civilians need assault rifles for the same reason LEO civilians do (and police do have assault rifles).

    But the point is moot since no assault rifles were used in this murder. According to Connecticut law, no "assault weapons" were used in this murder, either.
    Last edited by Jerry; 12-18-12 at 02:58 AM.

Posting Permissions

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