View Poll Results: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

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

    20 57.14%
  • No

    15 42.86%
Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 220

Thread: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

  1. #31
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,200

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    OK....
    Explain to me the argument behind banning incendiary speech, and then tell me how it then applies to the banning os simple posession of assault weapons.

    That is, tell me WHY incenduiary speech is banned, and then tell me how that argument supports the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.
    Incendiary speech is banned because of the potential for violence that such speech has the potential to incite.

    Assault weapons similarly are a reasonable restriction. Assault weapons place law enforcement at risk and thus place our society at risk.

    The Court engages in a weighing process...what are the benefits of such v. the potential for danger.

    If you read the Supreme Court decision affiriming the right to bear arms (can't remember the name right off), it is clear that the justices would uphold such a ban.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  2. #32
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I;d argue:
    -The SCouTS has made it clear that the right of the individual, regardless of his connection to the militia, is protected by the 2nd.
    -The 2nd amendment, applied to the states thru the 14th amendment, would prohibit states from violating TRKBA in the same manner as it prohibits the federal government from doing so.
    I agree, regardless of his connection to a militia, but I would say that eliigibility for militia duty, not direct connection with said militia, should be a factor in the individual right.

    I would then ALSO say only the mentally incompetant and felons could be disqualified for militia duty. (All physical impaired people would still be considered qualified for non-combat duty and such so would enjoy that personal right to bear arms)

    I'm not saying that connection is neccesary for the right to be allowed, only the potential for connection.

    I would then add that ONLY those who are deemed dangerous to the general populous by reason of prior history or mental impairment could be denied that right.


    Then again, some states may individually choose to exclude nobody, and allow both felons and the mentlaly impaired to own firearms.

    I feel that this would also be the state's right to decide, not the federal governemnts, since the second explicitly bans them form making such decisions for the states.


    In total, I firmly believe that the right is an individual one, and I don't believe it can ever fall within th epurview of the federal governemnt.

    But I do think that the individual State's have the right to exclude certain people under very strict conditions related to their danger to society form being elligible for militia duty. They may not make such exclusions for reasons beyond mental impairment or felonious activities.

    All others should be assumed as eligible, and therefore enjoy the individual right.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #33
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Incendiary speech is banned because of the potential for violence that such speech has the potential to incite.
    No.
    It is banned because it creates a clear and present danger to others -- an immediate threat to pubic safety.

    Simple posession of an 'assault weapon' creates no such danger -- and so, the argument you present, above, falls to support the constitutionality of banning them.

    If you read the Supreme Court decision affiriming the right to bear arms (can't remember the name right off), it is clear that the justices would uphold such a ban.
    Given the above, this is unsupprtable.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-21-09 at 02:20 PM.

  4. #34
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I agree, regardless of his connection to a militia, but I would say that eliigibility for militia duty, not direct connection with said militia, should be a factor in the individual right.
    Not sure how you can do that, given that the individual hlds the right 'regardless of any connection to the militia'.

    I would then ALSO say only the mentally incompetant and felons could be disqualified for militia duty. (All physical impaired people would still be considered qualified for non-combat duty and such so would enjoy that personal right to bear arms)
    Well, that's fine - but unnecessary.

    I would then add that ONLY those who are deemed dangerous to the general populous by reason of prior history or mental impairment could be denied that right.
    We have that now. No issues.

    Then again, some states may individually choose to exclude nobody, and allow both felons and the mentlaly impaired to own firearms.
    They could, but then the federal prohibition would still apply.

    In total, I firmly believe that the right is an individual one, and I don't believe it can ever fall within th epurview of the federal governemnt.
    Many have made the 10th amendment argument. It is sound in terms of there being no power for the Feds to ban posession and use of firearms.

    All others should be assumed as eligible, and therefore enjoy the individual right.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-21-09 at 02:12 PM.

  5. #35
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,235

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Incendiary speech is banned because of the potential for violence that such speech has the potential to incite.
    Such is the consequence of free speech. I disagree with the vast majority of the laws enacted by the government against speech, association, and assembly.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Assault weapons similarly are a reasonable restriction. Assault weapons place law enforcement at risk and thus place our society at risk.
    1) Define Assault Weapon
    2) The authority is not supposed to be free from risk from the People.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The Court engages in a weighing process...what are the benefits of such v. the potential for danger.
    Freedom is inherently dangerous. The benefits are ultimate check upon the government. The danger is that removing them puts the People at risk of horrible abuse of power and oligopoly. Either the government is restricted or the People are. Choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    If you read the Supreme Court decision affiriming the right to bear arms (can't remember the name right off), it is clear that the justices would uphold such a ban.
    More reason to uphold our right to keep and bear arms.
    Last edited by Ikari; 01-21-09 at 02:33 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #36
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    They could, but then the federal prohibition would still apply.
    I actually do not agree with the federal prohibition for those deemed dangerous. I believe the states, and the states alone, should deem this or not.

    Maybe failing to explain this fully is where I went wrong in my post.

    I think that the state's alone should be able to prohibit arms to those deemed dangerous. A federal prohibition on these people is a violation of the second, unless the person was a felon regarding a federal crime.

    I don't think the Federal government has the right to prohibit anyone form bearing arms for felonious actions that have been charged by the state. Each state should be allowed to use out of state felonies as a reason for disqualification, but the federal govenrment should only be allowed to create such a prohibition for federal crimes, not local one's that extend beyond their jurisdiction.

    Should a state allow felons and the mentally deranged to have the right to bear arms, that should not be something that the Federal government can "trump".
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #37
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I actually do not agree with the federal prohibition for those deemed dangerous. I believe the states, and the states alone, should deem this or not.

    Maybe failing to explain this fully is where I went wrong in my post.
    No, I got you. You were clear.

    I believe this is one of those cases where both the states and the Federal government share competency.

    I don't think the Federal government has the right to prohibit anyone form bearing arms for felonious actions that have been charged by the state.
    Why not?

  8. #38
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,178

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    From:
    Urban Policy



    So now, it is official White House policy to reinstate the AW Ban.

    Seems to me we were told there was no rational reason to express concern for our right to keep and bear arms under the Obama Administration...
    Seeing how paranoia is described as irrational or baseless suspicion of the motives of others and there is actual evidence to show that Obama and liberals in general wish to take away and or severely restrict 2nd amendment rights, I would have to say 2nd amendment proponents are not paranoid. It is a fact that liberal politicians wish to take away/restrict/ severely infring on 2nd amendment rights. Some of them even tried using some blatant crock of **** misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment that the ACLU uses so they can try to weasel out of defending 2nd amendment rights. Those claiming that 2nd amendment proponents are paranoid are either lying or they are delusional.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #39
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No, I got you. You were clear.

    I believe this is one of those cases where both the states and the Federal government share competency.
    Got ya. I would disagree with the sharing of competancy, as I''l explain in the next part


    Why not?
    This stems primarily from the fact that I lean towards anti-federalism, the principle that I believe that teh bill of rights was created from.

    I see the bill of rights, and especially the second amendment, as limiting federal authority. While I believe that the rights explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights are rights that everyone should have, I also believe that they firmly limit the federal govenrment from having any say whatsoever on those matters.

    I believe the bill of rights limitted the scope of the federal government in order to try and prevent much of what we see today in regards to loss of freedoms.

    I also believe that it was done in order to prevent the "centralzation" of government with the federal authority.

    The wording of the second ammendment is such that I bleive it to be an individual right as well as something that can only fall within the power of the states to regulate.

    "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."

    I don't feel that the wording was used in order to make it so that only those within the militia can be eligible for that right, I believe that wording was chosen to prevent the federal governemnt from saying how the states should regulate their own militias.

    I feel that it actually includes two rights within it.

    The individual right to bear arms.

    And the States' rights to regulate their own militias.

    To me, given the anti-federalist nature of the BoR, it appears that there is not equal power to exclude certain dangerous entities from bearing arms. It falls solely within the rights of each state.

    I think the wording also excludes the rights of the States from infringing upon this right for any reason other than being deemed psychologically ineligible for militia duty, by derangement or felonious action.

    But that does not mean that they are to be forced to do so.

    It is within the state's right to not choose this option.

    I believe that it is in the best interest of each state to do so, but I do not think the federal authirty has the right to control the states in this fashion.

    Again, this is given the nature of the BoR and how they initially came to be.

    I do not think that the individual state has a right to infringe upon any of the rights inherent in the BoR, but I do think that the wording of the second is such that it grants them the ability to regulate their militia as they see fit. This can include disqualifying person's for militia elligibility on the basis of their psychological fitness for duty.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #40
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I see the bill of rights, and especially the second amendment, as limiting federal authority. While I believe that the rights explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights are rights that everyone should have, I also believe that they firmly limit the federal govenrment from having any say whatsoever on those matters.
    Ok... I don't really disagree with anything you said here.

    My question:
    If the BOR only applies to the actions of the federal government and does not restrict the states, what stops the states from, say, banning 'assault weapons'?

Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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