Thousands Petition To Allow Guns At Republican Convention For ‘Safety’ [UPDATE]

[Black Dog]

You can't carry at the pentagon or congress or the white house either. Is that a violation?

Again, no. For reasons I already mentioned above.

 

[joG]

I'm asking - now you - is it a violation?

I am not really enough interested in it right now to look at the details of why guns are forbidden under specific conditions and in certain circumstances.

 

[TOG 6]

Is the “the right to bear” being violated; yes or no and why or why not?

Absurd question.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

/thread

 

[jet57]

I am not really enough interested in it right now to look at the details of why guns are forbidden under specific conditions and in certain circumstances.

Right. You won't answer the question because you can't successfully defend your position of rights.

 

[joG]

Right. You won't answer the question because you can't successfully defend your position of rights.

Huh? That private venues can forbid carry? Or that it is probably less obvious in governmental ones? Odd. That is how Constitutional law works.

 

[jet57]

No. It is private property administered and owned by the government. It has nothing to do with any law or restriction of rights. You cannot have a weapon on someone else's private property if they say you can't. Your rights end where there's begin.

The government is answered to by US and doesn't have the right to infringe on the second amendment and the second amendment says so - I mean - right? And it was our government that created the right to begin with! So, now suddenly the government can infringe because they think it's a good idea?!

But when the government decides that gun control is a good idea, that's infringement. So, our own government, both federal and state, are too stupid to understand the constitution.

Right?

 

[jet57]

Absurd question.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

/thread

So, now my case for gun control makes sense?


And, if you don't mind, what is /thread ?

 

[TheGoverness]

So, now my case for gun control makes sense?

Depends on what kind of Gun Control you would want to see implemented.

 

[Black Dog]

The government is answered to by US and doesn't have the right to infringe on the second amendment and the second amendment says so - I mean - right? And it was our government that created the right to begin with! So, now suddenly the government can infringe because they think it's a good idea?!

But when the government decides that gun control is a good idea, that's infringement. So, our own government, both federal and state, are too stupid to understand the constitution.

Right?

The government has rights as well just like the people as the government IS the people including government property like military bases etc. So no, your argument is baseless and rooted in a flawed or weak premise. Your rights end where others begin including the government. This is no more an infringement than not allowing carry on civilian private property by the owner.

PS Still waiting...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...ing-his-lawnmower-into-21.html#post1065713293

 

[jet57]

The government has rights as well just like the people as the government IS the people including government property like military bases etc. So no, your argument is baseless and rooted in a flawed or weak premise. Your rights end where others begin including the government. This is no more an infringement than not allowing carry on civilian private property by the owner.

So, the government has the right to insure people's right to safety. But when that right to safety involves gun control, it's infringement and anybody who doesn't see it that way especially the government is too stupid to understand the constitution.

That's (your) position.

 

[TOG 6]

So, now my case for gun control makes sense?

I have no idea what that case is.

And, if you don't mind, what is /thread ?

HTML end tag, like /quote or /i or /b

I gave you the definitive answer; said answer ends the thread.

 

[jet57]

Depends on what kind of Gun Control you would want to see implemented.

I was referring to gun control in general. You're new so (welcome), we've had this discussion for a long long time around here. I have used that part of the Heller decision countless times to inform gun advocates that the second amendment is open to gun control, and at every turn, I've been told that I don't get what Scalia was saying and that I'm too dumb to understand the constitution. But, all of a sudden, my own argument makes perfect sense.

 

[Black Dog]

So, the government has the right to insure people's right to safety.

Has nothing to do with your question or my reply.

But when that right to safety involves gun control, it's infringement and anybody who doesn't see it that way especially the government is too stupid to understand the constitution.

That's (your) position.

This also has nothing to do with my reply. My reply had...

#1 Nothing to do with any right to safety.
#2 Nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution.
#3 Nothing to do with my personal position on anything.

If you are not going to reply to what I said, or even what you said we can stop here. I have no want to argue constant straw man arguments with you.

 

[jet57]

So, now my case for gun control makes sense?


And, if you don't mind, what is /thread ?

No it doesn't end anything (thanks BTW).

I have used that very quote FOR gun controls and have been told repeatedly by those of your leaning that I don't know what I'm talking about. You use the very same argument for the very same reason and suddenly it makes perfect sense?! So it's not a matter of specific case, it's a matter of Scalia arguing in favor of some gun controls.

 

[jet57]

Has nothing to do with your question or my reply.



This also has nothing to do with my reply. My reply had...

#1 Nothing to do with any right to safety.
#2 Nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution.
#3 Nothing to do with my personal position on anything.

If you are not going to reply to what I said, or even what you said we can stop here. I have no want to argue constant straw man arguments with you.

Sure, that must be it. :roll:

 

[TheGoverness]

I was referring to gun control in general. You're new so (welcome), we've had this discussion for a long long time around here. I have used that part of the Heller decision countless times to inform gun advocates that the second amendment is open to gun control, and at every turn, I've been told that I don't get what Scalia was saying and that I'm too dumb to understand the constitution. But, all of a sudden, my own argument makes perfect sense.

Thanks for the welcome

And I understand the difficult of talking about gun control. I don't even want to do things like ban assault rifles, reduce magazine sizes, etc. But every time I get called a moron who 'doesn't know how the Constitution works'.

 

[TOG 6]

No it doesn't end anything (thanks BTW).

It fully answers the question asked in the OP - if the prohibition of firearms at the RNC convention violates the 2nd.
It doesn't.
/thread

I have used that very quote FOR gun controls and have been told repeatedly by those of your leaning that I don't know what I'm talking about.

This depends entirety on the gun control you propose, which part of the Heller decision you believe supports it, and how you believe it does so.
For instance: Heller struck every single law considered buy the court; it is therefore impossible to soundly argue that Heller upheld any law of any kind.

 

[Black Dog]

Sure, that must be it. :roll:

That is exactly what it is.

 

[TurtleDude]

So, the government has the right to insure people's right to safety. But when that right to safety involves gun control, it's infringement and anybody who doesn't see it that way especially the government is too stupid to understand the constitution.

That's (your) position.

governments have POWERS not rights.

and infringements are unconstitutional at a federal level. punishing people who harm others with firearms is not an infringement and is a proper exercise of governmental power

 

[jet57]

It fully answers the question asked in the OP - if the prohibition of firearms at the RNC convention violates the 2nd.
It doesn't.
/thread


This depends entirety on the gun control you propose, which part of the Heller decision you believe supports it, and how you believe it does so.
For instance: Heller struck every single law considered buy the court; it is therefore impossible to soundly argue that Heller upheld any law of any kind.

Uh, noooo, it depends on gun control period. Word is among the conservatives that the feds have no power to to initiate gun control per the second amendment. But strangely now, they suddenly have the power to do it...

 

[jet57]

That is exactly what it is.

No, what it is, is that you got caught in the illogical position of the conservative gun rights crowd. It's a paradox that you can't answer.

 

[Black Dog]

No, what it is, is that you got caught in the illogical position of the conservative gun rights crowd. It's a paradox that you can't answer.

The only paradox here is your dishonest straw man. Just like your appeal to emotion that you ran away from in the other thread.

No one is falling for your bait and switch.

 

[jet57]

The only paradox here is your dishonest straw man. Just like your appeal to emotion that you ran away from in the other thread.

No one is falling for your bait and switch.

:lamo

"Dishonest strawman".

Show me the strawman and then we can talk about honesty.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

:lamo

"Dishonest strawman".

Show me the strawman and then we can talk about honesty.

Uh, noooo, it depends on gun control period. Word is among the conservatives that the feds have no power to to initiate gun control per the second amendment. But strangely now, they suddenly have the power to do it...

There it is, right there.

Where do you get that this is the position of conservatives?

 

[Black Dog]

:lamo

"Dishonest strawman".

Show me the strawman and then we can talk about honesty.

I would be happy to...

No. It is private property administered and owned by the government. It has nothing to do with any law or restriction of rights. You cannot have a weapon on someone else's private property if they say you can't. Your rights end where there's begin.

So feel free to explain what this rant has to do with my discussion or even the thread as a whole?

So, the government has the right to insure people's right to safety. But when that right to safety involves gun control, it's infringement and anybody who doesn't see it that way especially the government is too stupid to understand the constitution.

That's (your) position.

That is nothing but a giant straw man.

Here is the worthless appeal to emotion you refused to answer...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...ing-his-lawnmower-into-21.html#post1065713293