View Poll Results: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

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

    15 20.00%
  • No

    59 78.67%
  • Not sure

    1 1.33%
Page 131 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3181121129130131132133 ... LastLast
Results 1,301 to 1,310 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1301
    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: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    The south was a different country in thise days; remember? Papist immigrants disarmed? You mean Irish Catholics: you're going to have to prove that one.

    And Clinton tried to disarm citizens: right.

    Oh, and BTW I reported you for saying that I'm not being truthful. That's BS dude; I wish you'd stop that.
    So its ignorance of history?

    The strange birth of NY

    The Criminal Steering of Gun Control | Buckeye Firearms Association


    n 1911, Sullivan's constituents, (Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office), shared a growing problem with him. Immigrant Italian mafia members were horning in on what had once been their exclusive area of criminal operations. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. Naturally, in order to protect themselves and their property, honest travelers began to arm themselves. Gunfights in what was to become Little Italy became more frequent. This both raised the criminal's risk while conducting armed robbery, and reduced the gang's profit. Sullivan's criminal constituents then "lobbied" Sullivan to introduce a law prohibiting concealed carry of pistols in order to reduce the risk to his criminal constituents while robbing honest people. That Sullivan was successful in passing a law disarming honest citizens so as to aid and abet other criminals is well documented. -


    Niagara Falls Reporter OPINION



    n 1911, the Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office faced a growing problem -- the Italians. Immigrant mafiosi newly arrived from Sicily and Naples were horning in on what had once been their exclusive domain. Gunfights on the Lower East Side and the neighborhood around Mulberry Street that was to become Little Italy grew more and more frequent, and it was getting so that you couldn't even shake down a barber shop or a greengrocer without some guy fresh off the boat taking a shot at you.

    Not to worry, Big Tim told the boys. And in 1911, he took care of the problem.

    The Sullivan Act was passed into law in New York state in 1911 and remains Big Tim's primary legacy. It effectively banned most people from owning and, especially, carrying handguns. Under the onerous conditions of the corrupted law, a peaceable citizen of sound mind could apply for a pistol permit, but if any of a number of elected or appointed officials objected to its issuance, he or she could be denied the license. The law remains in effect to this day and has been used as the basis for gun laws in many other states and municipalities.



  2. #1302
    Sage

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

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    That may be.

    Doesn't make them or you correct, however.
    What does CORRECT even mean?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  3. #1303
    Sage

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

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    That is false. Barron v. Baltimore stands for the proposition that the Bill of Rights, as written, applied only to the United States government. It is black-letter law today. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in no way made the decision irrelevant, as you assert. Three decades later, in fact, the Fourteenth Amendment made Barron v. Baltimore very relevant.

    It was exactly the fact that nothing in the Bill of Rights applied to the states that prompted a long series of Supreme Court decisions that started about 1900--the most recent one being McDonald v. Chicago several years ago. In these decisions, which developed the Court's "incorporation doctrine," it held that first one part of the Bill of Rights and then another was incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and through it applied to the states.
    So even by your own telling of the tale the issue has long been decided and the pronouncement in Barron is now irrelevant. And for most it always was as it was routinely ignored.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  4. #1304
    Sage

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

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Repeating plainly false statements over and over on these threads doesn't make them any less false. It just teaches more and more people about your credibility.

    No one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a public trial in a state court until 1948, when the Supreme Court extended that part of the Sixth Amendment to the states in In Re Oliver. And no one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a speedy trial in a state court until 1967, when the Court extended that part of the same amendment to the states in Klopfer v. North Carolina.
    Please present the verifiable evidence that nobody got their 6th Amendment rights until the two cases you just listed.

    Your false claim also ignores the fact, which the Court stated in Heller, that the Court considers the rights guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments in particular to predate the Constitution.
    And when the Court made this heartfelt statement of belief - where did it say we could find them before written constitutions?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  5. #1305
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So even by your own telling of the tale the issue has long been decided and the pronouncement in Barron is now irrelevant. And for most it always was as it was routinely ignored.
    You have no idea what you're talking about. The principle that the Bill of Rights as written applied only to the U.S. has never been ignored. It's still the reason, just to cite one common example, that people charged with serious crimes like murder have a Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury in a federal court, but not in state courts.

  6. #1306
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    What does CORRECT even mean?
    I've explained that.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #1307
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Please present the verifiable evidence that nobody got their 6th Amendment rights until the two cases you just listed.
    I didn't say "nobody got" those rights. People charged with federal crimes had them all along. I said that before those decisions, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the rights you mentioned did not apply to people charged with crimes in state courts. Because state constitutions often have a lot of similarities to the Constitution of the U.S., it's possible some states chose to guarantee those rights. But obviously the states involved in the two decisions I cited had not been guaranteeing them, and I'm sure quite a few others hadn't, either. You have the titles of those cases. Read them, if you want to know more.

    And when the Court made this heartfelt statement of belief - where did it say we could find them before written constitutions?
    The Court has recognized for a long time that certain rights predated the Constitution. What was relevant was that by that time, those rights were already widely recognized in the common law, both here and in England. A great many documents and statements from the time of the Constitution also make that clear. As regards the Second Amendment right, for example, the Heller decision, is loaded with them. I'm sure a number of Supreme Court decisions also document the ancient lineage of the First and Fourth Amendment rights. And Boumediene v. Bush does this for the right to habeas. I'll leave the question of how, even earlier, these rights first came to be recognized in English common law to legal historians and political philosophers--I don't have time to research it.

  8. #1308
    Sage

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

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    You have no idea what you're talking about. The principle that the Bill of Rights as written applied only to the U.S. has never been ignored. It's still the reason, just to cite one common example, that people charged with serious crimes like murder have a Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury in a federal court, but not in state courts.
    And other than the Fifth Amendment? What about the other rights we have from the Bill of Rights? Are you really trying to state that citizens in the states did not get those either because of the Barron/Baltimore ruling? Because unless you can - it does NOT say what some here are trying to make it say.

    You miss the point. So we have a court decision in the 1830's that helped a state save money. And then it was supplanted by the 14th Amendment. And from that a poster wants to make the case that this blip proves that our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights written decades and generations before this one case even though people still got their rights during those years?

    Yeah - go with that as it makes perfect sense.... not in this world but there might be one out there where it does.

    Here is evidence that the decision did NOT have the effect some want us to think it did

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...rk_barron.html

    Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. However, in spite of the Court's ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments, viewing them as reflections of the general laws in Anglo-American culture
    Just as I stated earlier and there is the verifiable evidence of it.

    and this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

    The decision was initially ignored by the growing abolitionist movement, some of whom maintained that Congress could constitutionally abolish slavery as a method of protecting slaves' rights under the Bill of Rights. It was largely unknown in the 1860's; during a debate in Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator John Bingham had to read part of Marshall's opinion out loud to the Senate.[2]
    While the case is not in Shakespeares words "much ado about nothing" - it certainly is NOT what some here are trying to make it into nor is it any proof that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights - which was the point of the poster who brought it up in the first place.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-25-14 at 07:48 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  9. #1309
    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: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    And other than the Fifth Amendment? What about the other rights we have from the Bill of Rights? Are you really trying to state that citizens in the states did not get those either because of the Barron/Baltimore ruling? Because unless you can - it does NOT say what some here are trying to make it say.

    You miss the point. So we have a court decision in the 1830's that helped a state save money. And then it was supplanted by the 14th Amendment. And from that a poster wants to make the case that this blip proves that our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights written decades and generations before this one case even though people still got their rights during those years?

    Yeah - go with that as it makes perfect sense.... not in this world but there might be one out there where it does.

    Here is evidence that the decision did NOT have the effect some want us to think it did

    The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Barron v. Baltimore (1833) | PBS



    Just as I stated earlier and there is the verifiable evidence of it.

    and this

    Barron v. Baltimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    While the case is not in Shakespeares words "much ado about nothing" - it certainly is NOT what some here are trying to make it into nor is it any proof that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights - which was the point of the poster who brought it up in the first place.

    the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right and therefore, your claim that it was only about joining a militia is patently wrong



  10. #1310
    Sage

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

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right and therefore, your claim that it was only about joining a militia is patently wrong
    That would be the mythical right that even you cannot locate and admit that it is nowhere to be found.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

Posting Permissions

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