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 54 of 136 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664104 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #531
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    No, we have arms to kill people who would take away our rights by force

    though if a war happens, I see collaborators and toadies of those in power as being seen as combatants as well
    Yes, I doubt they could escape a reckoning if, God forbid, that ever happened. I wouldn't go quite that far as to people who collaborate with the Muslim jihadists making war on this country, though. Them, we should just try for seditious conspiracy or treason, whichever applies.

  2. #532
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    I put the words in quotes to highlight them.
    That's your first mistake.

    If you don't read through Heller before posting you'll get your head handed to you again.

  3. #533
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    I thought he meant arms were only for militia.
    That's not even remotely close to what I said.

    The kinds of arms which are protected for private ownership are the kinds of arms fit for militia duty. Heymarket's example of nukes are not fit for militia duty therefore they are not protected by the second amendment.

    Additionally, the State has a demonstrable compelling interest to restrict arms which are 'dangerous and unusual', such as explosives.

    Here is the line:
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
    ....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."

    ~snip~

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
    In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership.
    So, let's go down the list:
    • Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    • Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    • Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
    • Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
    • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
    • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
    • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
    • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

    Accessories are not 'arms' but if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...
    • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
    • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    • Sound Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.


    Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, and anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

  4. #534
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's your first mistake.

    If you don't read through Heller before posting you'll get your head handed to you again.
    If you look at my last post, I think I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying the right to keep and bear arms was for militia only. Not individuals.

  5. #535
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's your first mistake.

    If you don't read through Heller before posting you'll get your head handed to you again.
    Calm down, it was a misunderstanding, and I apologized.

  6. #536
    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 Jerry View Post
    That's your first mistake.

    If you don't read through Heller before posting you'll get your head handed to you again.
    It's not an especially easy Supreme Court decision to read, compared to dopey liberal junk like, say, Griswold v. Connecticut, or Casey v. Planned Parenthood, or Lawrence v. Texas, which are long on the vague, soaringly-phrased opinions of their authors about what's bright and beautiful, but very short of hard legal reasoning underpinned by mountains of solid fact. A quick reading of decisions like those tells you about all there is to know--"Our holding is cool and right on, and trust us, you'll love the result we managed to come up with."

    Heller is the very opposite of the "rainbows and unicorns" school of decision writing. It is very densely packed with detailed textual and historical analysis of every individual phrase in the Second Amendment, all of them packed with citations to obscure documents, laws, and statements by legal commentators. And this dense analysis, neatly outlined and subdivided, extends all the way from 17th-century England up to Miller in the 1930's.

  7. #537
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Heller is the very opposite of the "rainbows and unicorns" school of decision writing. It is very densely packed with detailed textual and historical analysis of every individual phrase in the Second Amendment, all of them packed with citations to obscure documents, laws, and statements by legal commentators. And this dense analysis, neatly outlined and subdivided, extends all the way from 17th-century England up to Miller in the 1930's.
    IMO anyone who won't read Heller, shouldn't comment on the topic.

    ...or vote.

  8. #538
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Don't get mad at me just because you don't know what you're talking about.

    But yet you claim this but cannot point out one factual error I have made.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #539
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and that is different than far lefties who bashed everything he did in office?

    where did I ever praise Reagan though making Scalia a Justice was a good move

    tell us Haymarket, why does Reagan's out of office psychobabble matter at all?
    Nice dodge to try and hide from your charge that Reagan was senile. Its not working.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #540
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    But yet you claim this but cannot point out one factual error I have made.
    Of course I have. No part of this topic regards nukes. The instant you bring up a WMD, you have made a factual error.

Posting Permissions

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