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 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 83 of 83

Thread: Constitutional restrictions on gunsd?

  1. #81
    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 Harshaw View Post
    Yes. Any prior restraint is inherently an infringement. That, too, is settled Constitutional law -- apart from just being obvious.
    Naturally, it it not lost on the OP that prior restraint is a concept developed through the jurisprudence aurrounding 1st amendment...

  2. #82
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Constitutional restrictions on gunsd?

    Regarding the supposed complexity of interpreting the Constitution:

    Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
    back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
    and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
    [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
    (June 12 1823, Letter to
    William Johnson)

    Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

    I oppose prior restraint in all but the most extreme of circumstances, which would be things like WMDs which have no use other than the mass destruction of large populations.

    Efforts to ensure that those legally buying arms are "peaceable citizens" are not repugnant to me as long as they are reasonable and not overly burdensome. The NICS check, which usually takes 20 minutes and is done to ensure that the buyer is not a convicted felon and has not been involuntarily committed, is somewhat acceptible. A slightly more in-depth background check to purchase heavier battlefield weapons (Browning .50MG, mortars, explosives, etc) would be a compromise I could tolerate.

    Any law-abiding citizen should be able to go armed anywhere that the general public may openly go, or into any place that does not have an overwhelmingly compelling security intrest against it (ie jails, prisons, courtrooms). Any place that bans citizens from entering armed should be legally and financially liable for their safety from violence while they are there.

    I'd consider anything more than that to be an infringement.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #83
    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 Goshin View Post
    I oppose prior restraint in all but the most extreme of circumstances, which would be things like WMDs which have no use other than the mass destruction of large populations.
    Why then do you not find background checks unacceptable?
    They are a very clear form of prior restraint.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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