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 9 of 65 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 647

Thread: 2nd amendment rights.

  1. #81
    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 jamesrage View Post
    What do you define as personal weapon? Because infantry soldiers weapons do not just consist only of hand grenades, M203 grenade launcher, M16s,M4 and M249LMG (previously designate the M249SAW). Depending on the type of squad and position there is M240s,MK19,AT4s and various other weapons that a infantry soldier may use and carry. I believe the average citizen should be able to get what ever the military and law enforcement can get assuming they can pay for it and have a place to put it.

    I think a compelling government intrest in the case of explosives could be and has been made. The indiscriminate nature of explosives, and hazards associated with their storage and use, are such that reasonable regulation could meet a strict Constitutional test.

    Light support weapons, like full-auto LMGs, could be argued either way.

    Actually I'm mostly okay with how things are right now in many states: you can buy most any common weapons without any restrictions; you have to have a Class III license for full-auto or grenade launchers, with storage requirements. The main thing I'd change is removing selective-fire "assault rifles" from the Class III list and returning them to unrestricted status.

    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.'.."

  2. #82
    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 Guy Incognito View Post
    Somebody else earlier in the thread was arguing the Second Amenement only applied to US citizens.
    On reflection, it could be argued either way I suppose. We typically extend most rights in the BoR to visiting foreigners, unless they do something to get them classified as enemy combatants.

    I have no problem with a Canadian visiting Colorado and hunting Moose there with his .350 Nitro Express bolt rifle.

    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.'.."

  3. #83
    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.

    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. I think most people would agree that's not acceptable. Therefore, regardless of what the Constitution says, we can and must control who has access to what arms.
    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. #84
    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 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. I think most people would agree that's not acceptable. Therefore, regardless of what the Constitution says, we can and must control who has access to what arms.


    So with the right to restrict a felon and a crazy person means that the right to restrict me or goshin is on the table as well?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #85
    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
    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.
    You have to understand that at the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as a standing army. 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. 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. 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, we have to realize that as times change, our interpretation of things must change too, unless you want to go back to having Joe Blow Plumber being required to have a gun and go out and stop crime at night whether he likes it or not.
    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!

  6. #86
    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
    So with the right to restrict a felon and a crazy person means that the right to restrict me or goshin is on the table as well?
    It means that you cannot go strictly by what's written. Doing so means we cannot restrict a felon or crazy person. You can't have it both ways, demanding no restrictions whatsoever and then imposing restrictions.
    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!

  7. #87
    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 Cephus View Post
    It means that you cannot go strictly by what's written. Doing so means we cannot restrict a felon or crazy person. You can't have it both ways, demanding no restrictions whatsoever and then imposing restrictions.


    One gets a judgment against them, the other are freemen like myself and Goshin, there is no comparison.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: 2nd amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    ...we have to realize that as times change, our interpretation of things must change too, unless you want to go back to having Joe Blow Plumber being required to have a gun and go out and stop crime at night whether he likes it or not.
    : that hit the funny button!

  9. #89
    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
    It means that you cannot go strictly by what's written. Doing so means we cannot restrict a felon or crazy person. You can't have it both ways, demanding no restrictions whatsoever and then imposing restrictions.

    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.

    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.'.."

  10. #90
    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 a man truly possessed a "sound mind", that last thing he would be doing is buying more guns and ammo..
    England has the answer.
    Now that is some serious insanity. England punished thousands of law abiding hand gun owners merely because one nut case killed some people. England's rate of handgun violence has increased as legal gun ownership decreased. Cowards hate gun ownership because it reminds them that other men make personal safety an individual responsibility which in turn accentuates feelings of inadequacy in the cowards. Cowards try to ban guns to drive away their own timidity.

    Read A NATION OF COWARDS By Jeffrey Snyder ("The Public Interest") several years ago



Page 9 of 65 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... 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
  •