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 14 of 65 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 647

Thread: 2nd amendment rights.

  1. #131
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    I would say that given the importance of the militia to a free state, and that the militia is composed of the People at large, anything which negatively effects the individual's ability to keep and bear arms; including rules preventing or delaying the purchase of arms, is unconstitutional.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #132
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,802

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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.
    Yet people of the day did own artillery, private citizens owned cannons and the like which they likewise brought to the nation's defense. None of this was supplied by a national or even local military.
    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. #133
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    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?


    wow.... there is more of that "libertarian" thinking.



    let me use visual aides to make it easy for you.....


    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #134
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Going strictly by the wording of the 2nd amendment, no restrictions of any kind are Constitutional. That includes the insane, felons, terrorists, etc. There simply are no provisions from stopping any American from owning and/or bearing weapons, based solely on the text.
    Due process can remove any mumber of rights, like for felons, the insane, etc.
    Removing a right thru due process does not violate the 2nd.

  5. #135
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You have to understand that at the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as a standing army.
    There was a standing army, it was just small/

    Every able-bodied white male was expected to not only own weapons, but to use them to come to the defense of their town/state/nation when called. The people *WERE* the militia.
    So.. they were expected to NOT use them for their own personal protection as well?

    Of course, this didn't apply to non-whites, which shows that even at the time it was written, there were restrictions on the verbage of the 2nd amendment.
    "The people" means the same in the 2nd as it does everywere else.

    However, times have certainly changed and we do have a standing military, national guard, police forces, etc. We cannot blindly follow what was written 250 years ago...
    Really. Tell us what you think of wiretapping intercontinental telephone communications from terrorists w/o first getting a warrant.

  6. #136
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    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.
    Most of the limitations on free speech limit things that aren't actually free speech, or ar based on something other than a restriction based on the speech itself.

    That said, I will continue to argue that the 1st amendment is an excellent model for judging the constituionality of restrictions on the right to arms.

  7. #137
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    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?
    No. Your argument, given its severity, does not create a compelling state interest that can only be met by the restriction you propose.

  8. #138
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Why limit it to personal weapons
    As the court said in US v Miller, that's the sort of weaponry a militiaman was expected to provide for himself.

    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)
    The argument can be made that "arms", as used in the 2nd, covers "RPGs" and the like.
    But, the important part, is that it unquestionably covers any and every class of firearm.

  9. #139
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    ...so it'd be fair to say some restrictions (back-ground checks, storage requirements, licenses) would be reasonable....
    Each of these things, by their nature, is an infringement.
    Background checks are a form or prior restraint. Prior restraint is an infringement.
    Licences are a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to that right. Infringement.
    "Storage requirements", depedning on the specifics, may create an due restriction on the exercise of the right that fails outside any compelling state interest. Infringement.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-15-10 at 04:08 PM.

  10. #140
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    . The founding fathers I doubt imagined tanks or RPG's let alone apache helicopters
    They aslo probably didnt imagine the telephone, cable news networks or the internet.
    Does this mean the Constitution doesnt apply to them?

Page 14 of 65 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... 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
  •