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 13 of 65 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 647

Thread: 2nd amendment rights.

  1. #121
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    not at all, when the anti gun nuts admit that I should be able to buy and own the same weapons municipal police departments issue to other civilians such as select fire assault rifles (M4 or M16 and other like weapons such as the AR70, Steyr AUG, HK G36, AKM, AK74, Type 56, and the FAMAS) or SMGs such as the HK MP5, the IDF UZI, the "Swedish K" (Carl Gustaf SMG), and the Colt 9mm SMG (AR15)
    then we can get to dealing with destructive devices that are normally useful in squad activities

    what is your position on say the 1986 Hughes Amendment?
    I am flexible on the issue of gun control, I certainly like them

    But as for the US and the 2nd. I would suggest if the intent of the 2nd was to ensure the people will have the ability to defend themselves vs a tyranical government (militia aspects which I believe it does) then they people should have fully automatic weapons of any sort. I would also suggest they should be able to own man portable RPGs and the like.

    If it is just to protect people from criminals ( break and enter, car jacking etc) then stronger governmental control is in order.


    I would tend to be on the side of the militia aspect of the 2nd
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  2. #122
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    I am flexible on the issue of gun control, I certainly like them

    But as for the US and the 2nd. I would suggest if the intent of the 2nd was to ensure the people will have the ability to defend themselves vs a tyranical government (militia aspects which I believe it does) then they people should have fully automatic weapons of any sort. I would also suggest they should be able to own man portable RPGs and the like.

    If it is just to protect people from criminals ( break and enter, car jacking etc) then stronger governmental control is in order.


    I would tend to be on the side of the militia aspect of the 2nd
    I'd be on the correct side of the second amendment. the standard model for those of us who have delved in the academic field known as second amendment scholarship. IE that the second amendment guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right-a right that was presumed to exist before the existence of the USC



  3. #123
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I'd be on the correct side of the second amendment. the standard model for those of us who have delved in the academic field known as second amendment scholarship. IE that the second amendment guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right-a right that was presumed to exist before the existence of the USC
    Including psychos and/or people with prior convictions of a felony?
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  4. #124
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Including psychos and/or people with prior convictions of a felony?
    states all ban such people from owning guns
    and someone convicted of a federal felony can be federally stripped of a right
    not really an issue in this discussion

    can you supply a valid argument why a civilian such as me (who btw is better trained with firearms than 99.5% of police officers in both the use and the law) cannot legally buy a Colt SMG that was made last week while civilian police agencies routinely issue them to civilians police agents?



  5. #125
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    not only are you ignorant, you are rather a vulgar hoplophobe, eh?
    Not worthy of comment.

  6. #126
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,571

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Not worthy of comment.


    no you are not worth a response. we are talking about the 2nd amendment, you are talking about balls on the chin. kinda creepy d00d....
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #127
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Including psychos and/or people with prior convictions of a felony?
    Im one of the few that believe that once you served your time your slate is "clean" you still should have the right to defend yourself.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  8. #128
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    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...
    Did you read about the ragtag militia that Gen George Washington had to work with? He finally had them trained up by a competent leader, and they won the war. Your last statement is one of the most silly things I've ever heard.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #129
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    You know, I've heard a lot of nonsense about the Standard Model. I think people like to toss that term around like it makes them seem like they know what they're talking about. Trouble with the standard model is it's only been "standard" for the past twenty years or so, and even then only in a small circle of gun rights advocates.

    The Standard Model is bad history. It was a theory crafted to justify a pro-gun interpretation of the second amendment, and to dispense with that pesky militia clause that stands in the way of what gun rights advocates think the second amendment should say.

    Sure, it sounds great, but the fact is the original intent of the second amendment was only to protect a right tied to militia service. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was an eighteenth century legal term of art that applies only to militia service. The founders never imagined an individual right to keep and bear arms the way we think of it today. As the eminent Judge Richard Posner points out, what if the state wanted to enact a law requiring all arms to be stored in a central facility to make the militia more efficient?

    Funny how the standard model is only supported by some legal scholars and not any historians, huh? The fact is that the militia clause cannot be accounted for by the Standard Model, and it is still an embarrassment to proponents of the standard model who are aware of history. The Founders didn't just put it there as window dressing, it was meant to inform the Second Amendment. Thankfully, I'm not an originalist, so I don't particularly care what the founders thought. I thank God that activist justices like Scalia came along and rewrote the Constitution to give us a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. But if you take an honest look at history without trying to promote a pro-gun agenda, then it is obvious that the individual right to keep and bear arms (separate from militia service) simply wasn't there to begin with.

    That's why it saddens me to see Scalia and other "standard model" advocates stoop to such blatant hypocrisy, fashioning a shoddy false history just to claim their views line up with "original intent." A much simpler solution is to abandon the quixotic hope of ascertaining original intent (while in reality creating a parody of original intent to justify preconceived notions). Just let the preconceived notions come first and interpret the constitution in light of modern sensibilities. Any thinking originalist cannot support a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. But that doesn't mean a fundamental right to keep and bear doesn't exist! Scalia just created one! So why not treat the constitution like the living document it is?
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 11-15-10 at 10:13 AM.

  10. #130
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    You know, I've heard a lot of nonsense about the Standard Model. I think people like to toss that term around like it makes them seem like they know what they're talking about. Trouble with the standard model is it's only been "standard" for the past twenty years or so, and even then only in a small circle of gun rights advocates.

    The Standard Model is bad history. It was a theory crafted to justify a pro-gun interpretation of the second amendment, and to dispense with that pesky militia clause that stands in the way of what gun rights advocates think the second amendment should say.

    Sure, it sounds great, but the fact is the original intent of the second amendment was only to protect a right tied to militia service. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was an eighteenth century legal term of art that applies only to militia service. The founders never imagined an individual right to keep and bear arms the way we think of it today. As the eminent Judge Richard Posner points out, what if the state wanted to enact a law requiring all arms to be stored in a central facility to make the militia more efficient?

    Funny how the standard model is only supported by some legal scholars and not any historians, huh? The fact is that the militia clause cannot be accounted for by the Standard Model, and it is still an embarrassment to proponents of the standard model who are aware of history. The Founders didn't just put it there as window dressing, it was meant to inform the Second Amendment. Thankfully, I'm not an originalist, so I don't particularly care what the founders thought. I thank God that activist justices like Scalia came along and rewrote the Constitution to give us a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. But if you take an honest look at history without trying to promote a pro-gun agenda, then it is obvious that the individual right to keep and bear arms (separate from militia service) simply wasn't there to begin with.

    That's why it saddens me to see Scalia and other "standard model" advocates stoop to such blatant hypocrisy, fashioning a shoddy false history just to claim their views line up with "original intent." A much simpler solution is to abandon the quixotic hope of ascertaining original intent (while in reality creating a parody of original intent to justify preconceived notions). Just let the preconceived notions come first and interpret the constitution in light of modern sensibilities. Any thinking originalist cannot support a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. But that doesn't mean a fundamental right to keep and bear doesn't exist! Scalia just created one! So why not treat the constitution like the living document it is?
    You discuss what the founders might have or have not envisioned, yet you don't mention what they said once. Bloviating about the "standard model" instead of relying on plain English. You place all your faith on the writings of Posner (yeah I read about him) who wasn't there, nor alive at the time. Introducing "what if" propositions means nothing, since they haven't been introduced; likely for good reason. Read what the founders themselves wrote and learn:

    What our founding fathers and others, had to say about gun control and freedom

    http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

    Fortunately, they don't agree with your premise, and they plainly state so. Read my signature, and you'll understand why models don't matter.
    Last edited by American; 11-15-10 at 10:31 AM.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 13 of 65 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... 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
  •