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 19 of 65 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 647

Thread: 2nd amendment rights.

  1. #181
    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 digsbe View Post
    That's not a logical comparison.
    Its an exact parallel.
    Banning A and B doest infringe your right to the alphabet because you still have C-Z.
    That's yoru argument, and it can be applied to everything.

  2. #182
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,951

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Its an exact parallel.
    Banning A and B doest infringe your right to the alphabet because you still have C-Z.
    That's yoru argument, and it can be applied to everything.
    No it's not. My argument lies in the rest of my post that you can ignored and not offered a refutation too. You have the right to bear arms, your have the right to freely practice and believe in any religion. However, you don't have the right to own weapons that are reasonably restricted just like you aren't allowed to freely practice a religion that calls for the active slaughter of others.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #183
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes, yes there is. You could, as I have not asked three times, post quotes from the people involved with the 2nd that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, ones actions must be in direct relation to service in the militia.

    Until you do, that, your argument regarding that particular intent doesnt have a leg to stand on.
    Goobie, just read the article by Posner, all the information you request is in there. You ask for some "quotes" from people involved in writing the second amendment, and Posner has found plenty of them. He is one of the most respected judges in the United States. Please read the article.

    Here is a sample:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Posner
    The Court evaded the issue in Heller by cutting loose the Second Amendment from any concern with state militias (the "National Guard," as they are now called). The majority opinion acknowledges that allowing people to keep guns in their homes cannot help the militias, because modern military weapons are not appropriate for home defense (most of them are too dangerous), and anyway the opinion says that the only weapons the Second Amendment entitles people to possess are ones that are not "highly unusual in society at large." Modern military weapons are highly unusual in society at large. By creating a privilege to own guns of no interest to a militia, the Court decoupled the amendment's two clauses. It justified this decoupling by arguing that the word "people" in the expression "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" (the amendment's second clause) must encompass more than just militiamen, because eighteenth-century militias enrolled only able-bodied free men--a mere subset of the people of the United States. But obviously the Framers did not mean to confer even a prima facie constitutional right to possess guns on slaves, criminals, lunatics, and children. The purpose of the first clause of the amendment, the militia clause, is to narrow the right that the second clause confers on the "people."
    Like I said, you can make an easy target of me, I'm a cartoonist, not a scholar. But the fact that you insist on arguing against me when I have already twice provided a very thorough paper with all the information you're asking for, you are verging on being disingenuous.

    The fact remains, the original intent was not to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. I've provided ample citations to back this claim up. If you can't provided a reasonable argument against the papers I have shown you, then you have lost the argument.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 11-15-10 at 11:30 PM.

  4. #184
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,548

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    That's not a logical comparison. What would be more logical is allowing people to practice religion freely. However, if your religion says to kill and steal from non-believers you violate laws and will be prosecuted. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can break any law for religious reasons. Likewise, you can bear arms but certain weapons should remain illegal for reasonable reasons.
    you know your claim would ban all centerfire hunting rifles with scope



  5. #185
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    First the term "well regulated" is very subjective and open to widely varied interpretation.

    "Being necessary to the security of a free State," is clear and refers to being armed well enough to repel an outside enemy and that would include and invasion from a Tyrannical Federal Government. It also is covered by the 10th Amendment because it is not spelled out. So the Feds cannot come along and ban gus that are allowed to protect us from them. That would be stupid.

    "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is clear it means shall not. it doesn't say maybe.

    Restricting the purchase is as much an infringement as is possible. Not to infringed means don't mess with it.

    All the restrictions needed and then some are in place.

    The facts are the more people who have guns the safer we all are.

    All you have to do is look at the facts and not listen to the Anti-American, Anti-Gun folks.

    Actual Statistics show crime goes down when concealed carry laws are relaxed and the bad guys don't know who is packing, and crime goes way up when guns are restricted or taken away.

    Crime up Down Under

    Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.

  6. #186
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,951

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you know your claim would ban all centerfire hunting rifles with scope
    This is a straw man and a judgement on my position because I feel it isn't unconstitutional to regulate gun sales. My brother is a hunter, I have no problem with hunting weapons.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #187
    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.

    Here's some more from that article:
    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Richard Posner
    [I]n Heller, and Scalia and his staff labored mightily to produce a long opinion (the majority opinion is almost 25,000 words long) that would convince, or perhaps just overwhelm, the doubters. The range of historical references in the majority opinion is breathtaking, but it is not evidence of disinterested historical inquiry. It is evidence of the ability of well-staffed courts to produce snow jobs. This is strikingly shown by the lengthy discussion of the history of interpretation of the Second Amendment. Scalia quotes a number of statements to the effect that the amendment guarantees a personal right to possess guns--but they are statements by lawyers or other advocates, including legislators and judges and law professors all tendentiously dabbling in history, rather than by disinterested historians: more law-office history, in other words. Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional law professor, has candidly acknowledged that the most important reason for his support of a constitutional right of private possession of guns is that opposition to this right is harmful to the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party. The statements that the majority opinion cited had little traction before Heller. For more than two centuries, the "right" to private possession of guns, supposedly created by the Second Amendment, had lain dormant. Constitutional rights often lie dormant, spectral subjects of theoretical speculation, until some change in the social environment creates a demand for their vivification and enforcement. But nothing has changed in the social environment to justify giving the Second Amendment a new life discontinuous with its old one: a new wine in a decidedly old wineskin. There is no greater urgency about allowing people to possess guns for self-defense or defense of property today than there was thirty years ago, when the prevalence of violent crime was greater, or for that matter one hundred years ago. Only the membership of the Supreme Court has changed.

  8. #188
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,548

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    This is a straw man and a judgement on my position because I feel it isn't unconstitutional to regulate gun sales. My brother is a hunter, I have no problem with hunting weapons.
    so tell me what is the difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle and a 1000M target rifle



  9. #189
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,548

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Here's some more from that article:
    was that Pre Heller based on erroneous readings of Cruikshank and the idiotic Miller decision



  10. #190
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,548

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    This is a straw man and a judgement on my position because I feel it isn't unconstitutional to regulate gun sales. My brother is a hunter, I have no problem with hunting weapons.
    Feel is a good word for your motivations. BTW have you figured out what clause in the constitution actually delegates such power to the congress?



Page 19 of 65 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... 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
  •