View Poll Results: Do you agree with the premise stated in the OP?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I agree. because...

    5 50.00%
  • No, I disagree, because...

    3 30.00%
  • Other (explain)

    2 20.00%
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 83

Thread: Constitutional restrictions on gunsd?

  1. #61
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on gunsd?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    So when people try to justify gun laws with speech laws, their whole attempt at parallel is rendered impotent by the fact that no one cuts out the tongue of a slanderer.
    Well, I think the point is more that the 2nd doesnt protect someone when the assault/attempt to murder/murder someone with a gun (cause direct harm, like libel/slander), if they use a gun to threaten/intimidate someone (creating an immediate condition of clear and present danger) or fire a gun up into the air while inside town (yelling 'fire!' in a theater). These prohibitions are based on exactly the same reasoning as their 1st amendment parallels included in () and should be no-brainers. No one disagrees that these restrictions are constitutional.

    Simple posession of a firearm, however, does not cause harm to anyone, nor does it create an immediate condition of clear and present danger, and as such, there is no argument that supports the cnstitutional regulation or restriction of that action -- the exercise of rights are only restrcited when they interfere with the rights of others, and so if the action on question does NOT interfere with anyone elses' right, it cannot be restrcited w/o violating the Constitution.

    The USE of the firearm MAY be constitutionally resticted, but only in terms of when it causes harm to others and/or creates that condition of danger.

  2. #62
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Nuclear weapons ar enot 'arms' as the term is used in the amendment and therefore any discussion of them is meaningless.
    How are you defining "arms"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    Are you discussing the use of these weapons, or their simple posession?
    Well, obviously the use of ANY kind of weapon is a "clear and present danger." I think possession might or might not be...depending on the type of weapon. Surely the really heavy stuff like bombs, grenade launchers, etc. would be a clear and present danger, since they have no legitimate purpose and can cause mass destruction at any moment. The same is somewhat true (to a lesser extent) for certain types of guns...it's just a question of where you draw the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman
    What about the 2nd amendment negates the validity of the tests regarding restrictions on the exercise of the rights found under the 1st amedment that do not violate the 1st amendment?
    I'm just saying that each right is different. Traditionally the courts have been more lenient with certain rights than others, so I don't think just substituting the restrictions on free speech for the restrictions on arms would fly in a court of law.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #63
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,545

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on gunsd?

    Strict scrutiny is applied to restrictions on any fundamental right.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #64
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How are you defining "arms"?



    Well, obviously the use of ANY kind of weapon is a "clear and present danger." I think possession might or might not be...depending on the type of weapon. Surely the really heavy stuff like bombs, grenade launchers, etc. would be a clear and present danger, since they have no legitimate purpose and can cause mass destruction at any moment. The same is somewhat true (to a lesser extent) for certain types of guns...it's just a question of where you draw the line.



    I'm just saying that each right is different. Traditionally the courts have been more lenient with certain rights than others, so I don't think just substituting the restrictions on free speech for the restrictions on arms would fly in a court of law.
    The definition of arms is pretty clearly what the "soldier" back then could carry... translated into what the soldier today could carry.

    Considering their army consisted of Citizen based Militias... and Well.. Citizens.

    Again, we're at the negative right issue.. My possession of an inanimate object poses no safety risks to society at large.

    My actions with said inanimate object, could.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  5. #65
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How are you defining "arms"?
    "As the term is used in the context of the 2nd amdment".
    The SCotUS did this in US v Miller. To paraphrase, in order for a weapon to be protected by the 2nd it must be of a kind 'in common use at the time' by the regular armed forces, 'part of the ordinary military equpiment' of those forces, and have some legitimate application for use in the service of the militia.

    And so, while this might include grenade launchers and light mortars, it -certialy- inclused all firearms, and just as certainly exclused nuclear weapons and laser giuded 2000lb bombs.

    Obviously, the real concern here is firearms, and so there really be need no discussion of the other weapons.

    Well, obviously the use of ANY kind of weapon is a "clear and present danger."
    That's not at all necessarily the case. Some uses of some do, some uses of some do not. Presumung that you aren't being negligent, you can use any firearm without endangering anyone. Remember that the danger must be "immediate", "clear" and "present", as opposed to "potential", "possible" and "situational".

    I think possession might or might not be
    Simple posession -- that is, simple ownership - of a -firearm- cannot harm anyone or put anyone in danger. Only USE can do that.

    depending on the type of weapon. Surely the really heavy stuff like bombs, grenade launchers, etc. would be a clear and present danger, since they have no legitimate purpose...
    "No legitimate purpose" isnt the qualifier here -- the nature of the use of the weapon is, and is what determines the degree of clear and present danger to others.

    I'm just saying that each right is different. Traditionally the courts have been more lenient with certain rights than others, so I don't think just substituting the restrictions on free speech for the restrictions on arms would fly in a court of law.
    Rights are rights, and the test for the 1st amendment is a perfectly legitimate test for the rest as the basis for that test is the obvious notion that 'your right to swing your fist ends at my nose'.
    You may try to show otherwise, if you like
    Last edited by Goobieman; 09-03-09 at 02:14 PM.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 02:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Surely the really heavy stuff like bombs, grenade launchers, etc. would be a clear and present danger, since they have no legitimate purpose and can cause mass destruction at any moment.
    This reasoning does not hold water.

    Having a legitimate (acc'd to who ?) purpose or not, or having potential to cause mass destruction or not, does not constitute a clear and present danger. A farmer with dynamite to clear a stump is not a clear and present danger, yet meets both the above criterion if the stump is small and he also has a chainsaw

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 02:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Question Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    The definition of arms is pretty clearly what the "soldier" back then could carry... translated into what the soldier today could carry.
    I strenuously disagree. The most powerful military vehicles on this continent when the document was written were privately owned and cannon armed merchantmen. With that a known fact, can you produce any facts that support your "what a soldier could carry" position ? I do not mean to be too jerkish, but what exactly is that assumption based on ? How is the Cannon on a merchantman not "arms" ?

  8. #68
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    I strenuously disagree. The most powerful military vehicles on this continent when the document was written were privately owned and cannon armed merchantmen. With that a known fact, can you produce any facts that support your "what a soldier could carry" position ? I do not mean to be too jerkish, but what exactly is that assumption based on ? How is the Cannon on a merchantman not "arms" ?
    Given the topic (Constitutional restrictions on guns), there's no need to consider cannon-armed merchentmen.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 02:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Arrow Re: Constitutional restrictions on gunsd?

    This is my Rifle and This is my Gun.

  10. #70
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    This reasoning does not hold water.
    Having a legitimate (acc'd to who ?) purpose or not...
    Ths is, of course, only part of the error.

    He might argue that 'assault weapons' have no 'legitimate' purpose, but (aside from being demonstrably wrong) that's no more compelling than arguing that burning the flag has no 'legitmate' purpose, and is therefore open to regulation beyond those that prohibit causing direct harm and/or create an immediate condition of clear and present danger.

    The other part of the error has been touched on by myself and others.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 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
  •