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 7 of 22 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 220

Thread: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

  1. #61
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Your post and analysis were wrong on many levels.
    Actually, Gobieman got it exactly right, you just don't like the outcome because it doesn't favor your side.

    The first problem.....you have to understand how Constitutional Analysis works and how the court goes about determining whether a ban meet Constitutional muster.
    Take your own advice chief. Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,

    If you actually believe that the Supreme Court would find that having possession of assault weapons is a "fundamental right" THAT is the first error in your analysis...and when you begin your analysis with an error, it is unlikely your final analysis will be correct.
    If they care about correctly interpreting the constitution they will find that assault rifles and machine guns are in fact protected, also, it is impossible for them to allow or disallow the posession of "assualt weapons" because they don't exist. If you knew anything about firearms you would realize that there is not much difference between an assault rifle and semi-auto.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #62
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,202

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The compelling interests of government were only to be preservation of each individuals rights to life, liberty, and property. and none is to be restricted in favor of another.





    That is a red herring. Fear is never a good reason to restrict rights of individuals.



    The rights that we have were meant to be inalienable, undeniable. There can be no logical argument as to why they are restrict able.
    You are taking a way too generic approach to the issue. Constitutional rights have never been completely unrestrict-"able".
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  3. #63
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Actually, Gobieman got it exactly right, you just don't like the outcome because it doesn't favor your side.

    Take your own advice chief. Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,

    If they care about correctly interpreting the constitution they will find that assault rifles and machine guns are in fact protected, also, it is impossible for them to allow or disallow the posession of "assualt weapons" because they don't exist. If you knew anything about firearms you would realize that there is not much difference between an assault rifle and semi-auto.
    Oh, you took ALL my fun away...

  4. #64
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,202

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057895105]
    Actually, Gobieman got it exactly right, you just don't like the outcome because it doesn't favor your side.

    Take your own advice chief. Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,

    If they care about correctly interpreting the constitution they will find that assault rifles and machine guns are in fact protected, also, it is impossible for them to allow or disallow the posession of "assualt weapons" because they don't exist. If you knew anything about firearms you would realize that there is not much difference between an assault rifle and semi-auto.
    Do you understand the process by which "constitutionality" is determined?
    If so, your post here does not demonstrate it.

    You DO understand, do you not that there are three levels of constitutional analysis with different standards depending on the level of the right infringed upon demands?
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  5. #65
    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
    Do you understand the process by which "constitutionality" is determined?
    If so, your post here does not demonstrate it.

    You DO understand, do you not that there are three levels of constitutional analysis with different standards depending on the level of the right infringed upon demands?
    He said:

    Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,
    Seems to me that he DOES understand, and that YOU are stonewalling.

    Again:
    I must have missed the post where you supported your position.
    What post number?
    Please link to the post that addresses the issues I raised.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-22-09 at 12:45 PM.

  6. #66
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,202

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I must have missed the post where you supported your position.
    What post number?
    Please link to the post that addresses the issues I raised.
    There were numerous posts....you can go back and flow through the argument.
    BTW....I'm STILL waiting for you to argue that possession of Assault Weapons is a "fundamental right" and even if...how it withstands Constitutional muster under the strict scrutiny standard.

    What are you waiting for?

    Its becoming clear that perhaps you don't understand the process and thus cannot make the argument.
    Last edited by disneydude; 01-22-09 at 12:46 PM.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  7. #67
    Hi
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-26-16 @ 12:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    26,258

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    You are taking a way too generic approach to the issue. Constitutional rights have never been completely unrestrict-"able".
    You're right but no one is proposing an constitutional amendment so those rights can't be touched by any lesser law.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #68
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    just because you DEEM it unsupportable doesn't make it so....I actually supported my position. Perhaps you can argue why possession of assault weapons is a "fundamental right" and if so, how it will pass Constitutional Muster.
    You are wishing this was so, but it isn't, and here is why:

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The first question that the Supreme Court addresses in analysis is whether the right infringed upon is a "fundamental" right or a lower level right.
    Anyone with a decent civics class under their belt understands that the first ten amendments of the constitution cannot be altered or changed, and that they are individual and inaliable rights, any attemps to limit the protections of these first ten rights must have compelling reasons based on a standard of what is necessary and proper. Compelling reasons for fighting words, incitement, and incendiary speech are an immediate, provable, clear, and present danger to the public in the form of ensuing chaos stemming from the utterance (action)of the words. In the scenario that you wish the supreme court to mis-interpret the second using the same standard, there is no clear and present danger inherent in simply possessing a fire arm, the action of mis-use and you would have a point, but we already have laws in place to do that, such as murder, negligent homicide, unlawful discharge, public nuisance, etc. therefore a pre-emptive ban would be an unnecessary and thus unlawful infringement of a god-given, hence inaliable right. Certain justices always get that wrong whether intentionally or unintentionally, but the effect would be the same.
    Assuming for sake of argument that the Court were to find possession of assault weapons to be a "fundamental" right...(which is unlikely)...the next step of the analysis would be whether curtailing that right serves a "compelling" governmental interest.
    If assault weapons existed then they would be protected because the first is all encompassing and shall not be infringed.

    One of the main compelling arguments would be that assault weapons place law enforcement at risk. Do you recall the North Hollywood shootout in LA?
    Law Enforcement were held off for hours because they could not match the shooting power of the men with the assault weapons.
    That is not a compelling argument in that they would have access to the same firearms as the general populace, likewise protected by the very same second amendment, secondly, what would the weapon class in question be? are we talking about assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, rifles, shotguns. Let's talk about real weapons and not the "assault weapons".

    Regardless...it is unlikely that the Court would ever find possession ofassault weapons to be a "fundamental right". It was difficult for them to find possession of handguns to be such. Likely they would find the right to possess AW to be a lower level right which would require the goverment to only have an "important" or "legitimate" reason to limit them.
    Any court that needs to invent compelling reason is wrong, the language is simple.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #69
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,202

    Re: Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    You're right but no one is proposing an constitutional amendment so those rights can't be touched by any lesser law.
    There is no need for a Constitutional "Amendment". The issue of assault weapons hasn't come in front of the court. An amendment would only be required if they place a ban on assault weapons.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  10. #70
    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
    There were numerous posts....you can go back and flow through the argument.
    What are you waiting for?
    For you to directly address the issues I brought up which defeat your argument that the ban on incendiary speech supports the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.

    And I am -still- waiting...

Page 7 of 22 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •