View Poll Results: Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?

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

    31 37.80%
  • No

    43 52.44%
  • Other

    8 9.76%
Page 10 of 65 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 647

Thread: 2nd amendment rights.

  1. #91
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    If only we had the quality of people for this to be possible..
    We did not back then, and we do not, today...
    IMO, the Constitution was written back then, in the 1700s by the tea baggers of that era to appease the gun lovers of that day...
    This one has to be saved in my collection of truly stupid posts



  2. #92
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    One gets a judgment against them, the other are freemen like myself and Goshin, there is no comparison.
    Please point out where, specifically, in the Constitution it draws that distinction.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #93
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    No, we handle it the same way we handle other fundamental rights, like speech and religion.

    You can have all the free speech you want, but you cannot slander or fraud. These are abuses of free speech.

    You can have freedom of religion all you wish, but you can't engage in human sacrifice even if Beelzebubbah demands it.

    It is commonly held that the fundamental rights of the BoR may not be infringed, unless a compelling gov't/societal intrest can be proven, and the infringement is minimally restrictive and focused to prevent a specific wrong or problem, and so on.

    Restricting loonies, drug addicts and violent felons is reasonable under that approach. Restricting sane and law-abiding citizens is not.
    No, they are limitations of free speech which are nowhere spelled out in the Constitution. I find it funny that people who keep waving the Constitution around like it's the end-all-be-all of U.S. law have no problem limiting or altering it when it's convenient, even when speaking out of the other side of their mouth when it comes to limitations they don't like. So you're reinterpreting the Constitution as you like while arguing against other people doing the same thing.

    Pot, meet kettle.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #94
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, they are limitations of free speech which are nowhere spelled out in the Constitution. I find it funny that people who keep waving the Constitution around like it's the end-all-be-all of U.S. law have no problem limiting or altering it when it's convenient, even when speaking out of the other side of their mouth when it comes to limitations they don't like. So you're reinterpreting the Constitution as you like while arguing against other people doing the same thing.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    You are mischaracterizing my position.

    The 2A has been, since the 1930's at least, the fundamental Constitutional right that has most been wrongfully restricted beyond anything we would tolerate in other fundamental rights, like speech and religion.

    Yes, I react to calls for gun control sometimes by shouting "shall not be infringed!" It gets my goat, because of the history of excessive infringement.

    But just as my defense of religion does not mean I support theocracy or human sacrifice, my defense of the 2A does not mean I support the right to arms of dangerous loonies or dangerous felons. Actually my view on felons possessing firearms is a bit more nuanced than just "no", but I've gone into that elsewhere and probably shouldn't derail this thread with it.

    All rights have certain limits. My right to swing my fists ends well short of the next man's nose. My right to own an AK47 does not include the right to fire it into my neighbor's house.

    The point is that any restrictions on the 2A, like restrictions on the 1A, must be compelling intrest, narrowly construed and focused, specific rather than general, and not one whit more onerous than truly necessary. In my opinion very few gun control laws qualify against that standard, but restrictions on people who have proven themselves to be dangerous (loonies/druggies/felons) are among the few that do pass the smell test.
    Last edited by Goshin; 11-14-10 at 06:21 PM.

    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.'.."

  5. #95
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    By those standards hardly any gun control laws in the US would qualify as meeting constitutional muster, as they are almost entirely ineffective in their stated goals of reducing violent crime.
    What if gun control legislation was suggested which had a goal of reducing accidental firearms related deaths and injuries by insuring that all gun owners were properly trained before they could purchase a gun? Do you feel that would meet constitutional muster?
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #96
    
    TheGirlNextDoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    09-24-14 @ 02:31 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,033
    Blog Entries
    21

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Moderator's Warning:
    2nd amendment rights.Okay folks, let's stay on track with the topic and stop baiting. Debate the topic only. Thank you.

  7. #97
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    What if gun control legislation was suggested which had a goal of reducing accidental firearms related deaths and injuries by insuring that all gun owners were properly trained before they could purchase a gun? Do you feel that would meet constitutional muster?
    Of course not-that is an infringement akin to saying you cannot vote until you can prove you know the positions of those who are running for office



  8. #98
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I'll sum up at the end of the post, but I prefer to let my "crew" sing the opening verse....




    I have pages and pages of Founder comments on the 2A.

    To sum up:
    All American citizens are members of the "unorganized militia".
    The Founders, those who wrote the Constitution, clearly intended the militia, that is the people, to be as well armed as the "Standing army".
    Therefore it is not Constitutional to restrict the citizenry from owning/possessing/carrying anything that a US military Infantryman might carry as a personal weapon.
    Why limit it to personalo weapons

    The founding fathers would not have imagined something like a tank or APC, so why not allow people to own RPG's, anti tank missiles or anti aircraft missles (man portable ones of course)

    Without a way to deal with tanks, APC's and aircraft a peoples militia would be slaughter vs a modern well equiped military. Personal weapons would not cut it
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  9. #99
    Educator ender1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    08-01-11 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    646

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Of course not-that is an infringement akin to saying you cannot vote until you can prove you know the positions of those who are running for office
    Wouldnt that be interesting. Would it be fill in the blank or multiple choice test?

  10. #100
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Why limit it to personalo weapons

    The founding fathers would not have imagined something like a tank or APC, so why not allow people to own RPG's, anti tank missiles or anti aircraft missles (man portable ones of course)

    Without a way to deal with tanks, APC's and aircraft a peoples militia would be slaughter vs a modern well equiped military. Personal weapons would not cut it
    in the founders time there were three classes of weapons

    arms , artillery and ordnance. arms were just that-individual weapons that a regular infantryman or militia man would carry. swords, dirks, daggers, sabers, muskets, pistols and rifles. Artillery were mortars and cannon, and ordnance were bombs and rockets (remember "the rockets' red glare"?). the second dealt with the arms.

    now modern weaponry often blurs the lines. a submachine gun is an arm while a crew served heavy mg is more akin to artillery. a mortar is artillery but a grenade launcher attached to a marine's M4 carbine has elements of both. same with an RPG or a SA-7 surface to air missile though I note that normally grenade launchers and missiles are issued to squads or platoons to be carried by a selected soldier while the M16 or M4 rifles are issued to just about every combatant.

    so when we come to weapons capable of being deployed by one soldier even if issued at squad or platoon level (as opposed to every infantryman) there is a gray area when it comes to the second amendment. and I will concede that when it comes to RPGs, Strelas, or LAWS, MAWS or HAWS there is no quick answer.

    but right now, there are clear and obvious infringements on the second amendement by the federal government that do not require an examination of the RPG issue. for example, many weapons that civilian police departments use--ie weapons that the federal and state government have conceded are useful for self defense in urban environments and clearly protected by the second-that other civilians cannot buy without all sorts of red tape and in fact are often banned

    in 1986- in an attempt to derail the McClure-Volker firearms owner protection act (that would prevent Boston POlice from say arresting the Yale Skeet team as it travels through that city to the Eastern Collegiate clay target championships in Nashua NH), Dem Rep Hughes of NJ tried to poison the bill by attaching an amendment that many though was never properly ratified that banned the sale to civilians of all machine guns registered by their makers after May 19, 1986. this of course meant that the number of machine guns for non LEO ownership was cut off and the prices skyrocketed to the point that a gun police can buy for 900 dollars would cost me over 22,000 dollars

    BTW to say we would need heavy weapons to deal with a tyrannical government is specious. in such a scenario, the proper response is not to go head to head with the us military (assuming that the army would attack large numbers of civilians and say carpet bomb Columbus or Dallas). rather the response would be to target those who had caused the oppression and take them out. If someone can get within a half mile of someone they can kill them and if you are a dictator and 20 million pissed off american patriots want you dead, you are pretty much toast



Page 10 of 65 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... 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
  •