- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,603
- Reaction score
- 75,532
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Heh, to reiterate....yes, I am a Democrat and pretty darn liberal.
Can you list any gun laws, proposed or imagined, that would keep guns out of inner cities? Aside from national confiscation...and then the inner cities would STILL have guns.
We're not talking about which gun laws work and which don't. We're talking about if the government has a right to regulate arms.Can you list any gun laws, proposed or imagined, that would keep guns out of inner cities? Aside from national confiscation...and then the inner cities would STILL have guns.
We're not talking about which gun laws work and which don't. We're talking about if the government has a right to regulate arms.
Do you think that people should be able to carry a firearm on a plane... where any bullets fired are likely to lead to a explosive decompression? If not, then you need to reconcile the constitutional basis for governments ability to regulate arms on a plane, but not on the ground.
We're not talking about which gun laws work and which don't. We're talking about if the government has a right to regulate arms.
.
We're not talking about which gun laws work and which don't. We're talking about if the government has a right to regulate arms.
Do you think that people should be able to carry a firearm on a plane... where any bullets fired are likely to lead to a explosive decompression? If not, then you need to reconcile the constitutional basis for governments ability to regulate arms on a plane, but not on the ground.
`
Dropping the "gun nuts" disparaging moniker, it still comes down to the point that a large segment of particular gun owners have voiced enough potential violence should anyone threatened their guns rights, that they now represent a clear and present danger to society as a whole.
I personally would like to see a lawsuit challenging the need for a CCW permit in the first place.
Why, then, did we have to comply with other OSHA requirements, since we were operating on private property? A private contractor hired by a private person for work don on private property...yet we had to have various licenseure regardless. Why this one, but not that one?On a private piece of property where you were invited to utilize it.
That is a fallacy.
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.
Discussion?
Article is here.
`Just those that would try and take Rights away. The rest of society is perfectly safe.
`
Wrong. Ideologically extreme men with guns will shoot to kill another man who took an oath to follow the law. Society just saw an example of the gun totting people at the Bundy ranch. There is much to fear when ignorance has a gun in its hand.
And yet that distrust of their fellow citizens is EXACTLY why many 'gun nuts' demand ARs and high cap mags- because they fear an armed biker gang attacking their house... :doh
`
Dropping the "gun nuts" disparaging moniker, it still comes down to the point that a large segment of particular gun owners have voiced enough potential violence should anyone threatened their guns rights, that they now represent a clear and present danger to society as a whole.
Gun rights advocates try to make a principled argument, but when it comes down to it; they believe regulation is needed, they just think it's a lot less than what a gun control advocate would want. That is a policy debate. Turning it into a constitutional question means that there is no policy debate; the government cannot restrict arms.
Just curious, because I'm trying to understand your argument here.
So would you suggest that if someone is in favor of slander and libel as laws then any disagreement over regulated speech...such as a law making it illegal to speak negatively about the President in public...would have to be from a "policy debate" perspective to them as opposed to a "constitutional debate"? That the logic or reasoning behind why you may support certain regulation as constitutional is irrelevant...that simply put, regulation of ANY kind, to ANY degree, for ANY reason instantly regulates ALL regulation, for ANY reason, to ANY degree into the "policy" sphere as opposed to "Constitutional" sphere?
Allow unwarranted search and seizure in any situation, and then you can't consider any other matters of serach and seizure as "unconstitutional"?
Allow any exception to equal protection and then any other exceptions to equal protection are a matter of policy, not of constitutionality?
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.
Well, I see your point. If your argument is that "they can't make this law because the government can't restrict firearms in any way", then yes...it is an issue of inconsistent application of a point.
HOWEVER....
You seemed to be suggesting that if you agree the state can regulate firearms in specific instances, for specific reasons then you MUST agree that in general they constitutionally can regulate firearms in ANY instance, for ANY reason.
Which is why I brought up slander.
That is a SPECIFIC instance, for a SPECIFIC reason, that limits freedom of speech. Going with how it appeared you were presenting your argument, agreeing with Slander meant then that you couldn't claim ANY instance of free speech being revoked, for ANY reason, was "unconstitutional".
There are concievable arguments suggesting why the competing rights of individuals allows for a legitimate ability on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in certain fashions (such as on an air plane) while at the same time suggesting there are NOt legitimate factors on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in other fashions.
Just like there are concievable arguments suggesting there are times where restriction of speech can be constitutional, while acknowledging there are other times where the lack of such factors mean it ISN'T constitutional.
That is not a "policy" debate, but a debate still centered around the notion of constitutionality.
I'm unsure, unless you can quote them, that there are individuals on the forum using the sole argument that "The Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms" who have also been advocating for regulations on firearms.
I was arguing that even the people who say that Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms actually want the government to regulate firearms. They just don't like a particular form regulation. If people actually thought it was a good idea for everyone to have guns, we'd be passing them out in downtown Detroit.
.
From my personal position, i'd say that the second amendment gives the state broad regulatory authority. They can't prevent people from obtaining weapons unless they're a threat to public safety, but the state can place some of the burden of proof of competence on the individual. I think this also jives with most of the gun owners I know. They're very serious about the right to carry their weapon(s) safely, and don't take kindly to people carrying who don't know what the hell they're doing.