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 51 of 65 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 647

Thread: 2nd amendment rights.

  1. #501
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The state can regulate the citizenry - so long as it does not infringe on the right to arms.
    The point is that the citizenry need not have any connection to the militia for it to have the right to arms or enjoy the protections affordrd to it by the amendment.
    True. But in a perfect world, the People would recognize the importance of the militia and would have connections to it.
    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. #502
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Of course you do -- defensless people are the easiest to control.
    And to beat up.
    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."

  3. #503
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    True. But in a perfect world, the People would recognize the importance of the militia and would have connections to it.
    in a perfect world there would be no need for a militia
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  4. #504
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Last Seen
    01-10-12 @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    906

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Really. Who among the people that were involved with the amendment made such an argument?


    Of course you do -- defensless people are the easiest to control.
    I don't really care what the Founding Fathers thought; I care what they wrote down.

    The grammar of the passage is quite clear.

  5. #505
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    in a perfect world there would be no need for a militia
    hahah, yeah. Fair enough. I just wish people would take militia and the freeman's duty to it a bit more seriously.
    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."

  6. #506
    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 Patria Antiqua View Post
    I don't really care what the Founding Fathers thought; I care what they wrote down.
    So you dont have anything to support the idea that your interpretation matches what they meant when they wrote it. 10-4.

    The grammar of the passage is quite clear.
    It is. The militia is necessary; because of this, the right of the people shall not be infringed.

  7. #507
    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 OscarB63 View Post
    in a perfect world there would be no need for a militia
    In a perfect world, there would be no need for government.

  8. #508
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    hahah, yeah. Fair enough. I just wish people would take militia and the freeman's duty to it a bit more seriously.
    that's one of the reason's i joined my state's national guard.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  9. #509
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,503

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    No, but you did. You asked earlier: "does this judge even know the background behind the Bill of Rights?" That implies that Posner didn't address that in his article. But had you read the article, or even the quote posted here, you would see that Posner has taken into account both the textual meaning and the "concerned that actuated the adoption of the second amendment." You're not getting the full context of the quote, you should really read the whole article.

    The fact is that Posner is right, and the only reason the false history of Scalia's opinion in Heller has any traction is because it is so artfully contrived to fulfill the wishes of gun rights advocated who wish to maintain the veneer of "originalism." But that's not how historians operate, and it is hypocritcal when Scalia's stated intention is to arrive at the original intent of the law. The original intent of the second amendment was to create a right contingent on the militia, period.
    Posner wrote an unsourced position paper, and in so doing, he even contradicted some of what you had to say. Yet, you now adopt him as the irrefutable authority.

    This is beyond parody.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #510
    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 been thinking about it, and Scalia and the gun-rights advocates who are proposing this pseudo-history for the second amendment are right about one thing. The second amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. But unfortunately for them, this doesn't really help to bolster the pro-gun agenda when you also considered the text of the second amendment itself. The fact that it is a conditional sentence, and the fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" is a legal term of art referring to military service, have both been demonstrated repeatedly by me in this thread.

    Thus the right in the second amendment is an individual one, but only insofar as it its the right of the individuals who make up the people to be represented by the militia, and to take part in it as citizens. But that is contingent on the militia's being necessary for the security of the free state, and it is also contingent on the constraints of a well-regulated militia. The militia may lawfully constrain the individual use of weapons and even their ownership. Though the federal government may not infringe on gun ownership rights of the individual, the state government and the militia itself certainly could, and this is how the founders envisioned it and wrote it. This is the original intent.

    So why fight it? Clearly gun ownership is more important to the pro-gun advocates than actual historicity. I doubt that any historical consensus could sway the opinion of Scalia. As it should be that way. Gun rights are fundamental. But they shouldn't be placed on an insecure foundation of bad history. Because then it is opening it up to being undermined by people who might come along later and want to undermine gun ownership rights. They'll have a much easier time with it, since history will be on their side. A future justice who over rules Heller in fifty years may make an off-hand comment like, "Scalia's reasoning is sound, but considering on what we know of history now, Heller ought to be overturned based on Scalia's own logic." And he'd be right! Doesn't that worry you?

    It should.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 11-19-10 at 04:51 PM.

Page 51 of 65 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... 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
  •