• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Guy Incognito said:
He makes no mention of the right extending to self defense or hunting/sport. What do you make of it?
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry - you need to show that the intent was to protect the collective right to self-defense to the specific exclusion of the individual right. Simply posting a quote that doesnt mention the individual right to self-defense doesnt cut it.
Try again.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I said nothing about owning a car. I said driving. In order to drive, legally, in Ohio, what are the rules, Goobie?
Click to expand...
As noted:
-You only need a license to drive on public property
-You only need to register a car if you will drve it on public property.
And so, to treat guns like cars, there would be no licensing or registration requirements for guns that are not used on public property.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, you said "protect".

In order for the Bill of Rights to have been intended to protect certain rights, it would have had to grant authority to the Federal Government, not restrict authority form the federal government. In the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it clearly states that the bill of right
s was restricting federal authority.
Click to expand...
Yes... but by forbidding the federal government to act against those rgihts, it protects those rights from the federal government.
???
 
Goobieman said:
Yes... but by forbidding the federal government to act against those rgihts, it protects those rights from the federal government.
???
Click to expand...

The key is adding the "From the federal government". Your wording is accurate, his wasn't.

I can say the intention of a condom is to protect a person, but I'd be being inaccurate if I didn't say "From sexually transmitted diseases".

If someone wasn't aware of the unstated prepositional phrase, they might put on a condom before running into a fire. Then they'll end up dead with a condom melted to their giblets. They were offered no protection by said condom.

The Bill of Rights isn't an unlimited protection of those rights. Just like a condom isn't an unlimited protection of a person's well-being.
 
Tucker Case said:
The key is adding the "From the federal government". Your wording is accurate, his wasn't.

I can say the intention of a condom is to protect a person, but I'd be being inaccurate if I didn't say "From sexually transmitted diseases".

If someone wasn't aware of the unstated prepositional phrase, they might put on a condom before running into a fire. Then they'll end up dead with a condom melted to their giblets. They were offered no protection by said condom.

The Bill of Rights isn't an unlimited protection of those rights. Just like a condom isn't an unlimited protection of a person's well-being.
Click to expand...

You said giblets.
 
Tucker Case said:
The key is adding the "From the federal government". Your wording is accurate, his wasn't.

I can say the intention of a condom is to protect a person, but I'd be being inaccurate if I didn't say "From sexually transmitted diseases".

If someone wasn't aware of the unstated prepositional phrase, they might put on a condom before running into a fire. Then they'll end up dead with a condom melted to their giblets. They were offered no protection by said condom.

The Bill of Rights isn't an unlimited protection of those rights. Just like a condom isn't an unlimited protection of a person's well-being.
Click to expand...

I love it when you talk dirty.:devil:
 
Blackdog said:
I think without the 2nd amendment it would be hard to protect the 1st amendment. At least it was back when they were penned. Not so much true anymore because the police/military are much to powerful for even armed civilians to confront.

We are winning battles and still loosing the war.
Click to expand...

What war?
...
 
jamesrage said:
So you want gun classes in high school like they have drivers ed in high school(which I wouldn't mind seeing how it doesn't actually infringe on the right to keep and bear arms,if its just a extra curricular class) and license in order to legally shoot a gun outside private property?
Click to expand...

I am absolutely fine with exactly what you said, above.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I am absolutely fine with exactly what you said, above.
Click to expand...

The chief problem with that is that when government has the power to license a right, it becomes a privilege and the potential to raise the bar until it is almost impossible for Joe Average to obtain is a temptation to politicians that don't like armed peasants...uhm, citizens.

Been done. Carry permits and gun permits in NYC, NY state... for a long time they made it so an average citizen almost couldn't get one at all, while the well-connected got their permits easily.
 
Goshin said:
The chief problem with that is that when government has the power to license a right, it becomes a privilege and the potential to raise the bar until it is almost impossible for Joe Average to obtain is a temptation to politicians that don't like armed peasants...uhm, citizens.

Been done. Carry permits and gun permits in NYC, NY state... for a long time they made it so an average citizen almost couldn't get one at all, while the well-connected got their permits easily.
Click to expand...

The right is to bear arms. Not to shoot arms.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The right is to bear arms. Not to shoot arms.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure why you're making that distinction. Possibly I missed something a page or two ago?

What law-abiding citizen is going to be shooting in a public place, unless it is a firing range, or unless he is being criminally assaulted?
 
hazlnut said:
SlingBlade_ab3.jpg


It was the first image that popped into my head when you said: "I have lectured on this subject"

Watching far-righties trying to bull**** their way through a thread is funny...:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

watching people who are unlearned on a subject spew psychobabble is more entertaining
 
Guy Incognito said:
Ah, no quotations, how convenient. Have a nice night.
Click to expand...

NOt needed-hundreds have been posted on this board over the years

I am still waiting for evidence that the only protected Use (you confuse use versus ownership-obviously if you cannot own a gun prior to being in the militia you cannot serve the militia when it is mustered. If you can own a gun on the chance that you can meet the call up in the future than the possession is protected no matter what non-illegal reason you might use it for) is militia use. It is the OWNERSHIP (keep and bear) arms that is protected not how it is used. and just because Militia use was specifically mentioned by ONE individual that does not exclude other uses as being either protected or legitimate reasons to keep and bear arms
 
TurtleDude said:
NOt needed-hundreds have been posted on this board over the years

I am still waiting for evidence that the only protected Use (you confuse use versus ownership-obviously if you cannot own a gun prior to being in the militia you cannot serve the militia when it is mustered. If you can own a gun on the chance that you can meet the call up in the future than the possession is protected no matter what non-illegal reason you might use it for) is militia use. It is the OWNERSHIP (keep and bear) arms that is protected not how it is used. and just because Militia use was specifically mentioned by ONE individual that does not exclude other uses as being either protected or legitimate reasons to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...

I've posted dozens of supporting quotes in this thread, which he has simply ignored or brushed off as "out of context" and "not relevant".

I think it is becoming clear that he isn't going to allow facts to confuse his agenda.
 
Goshin said:
I've posted dozens of supporting quotes in this thread, which he has simply ignored or brushed off as "out of context" and "not relevant".

I think it is becoming clear that he isn't going to allow facts to confuse his agenda.
Click to expand...

It took me a few posts to see that I was dealing with a rope a dope contrarian.

some of these newbies act as if they have some novel trick that I haven't seen in the 35 years I have been dealing with the ARC
 
TurtleDude said:
Not needed-hundreds have been posted on this board over the years

I am still waiting for evidence that the only protected Use (you confuse use versus ownership-obviously if you cannot own a gun prior to being in the militia you cannot serve the militia when it is mustered. If you can own a gun on the chance that you can meet the call up in the future than the possession is protected no matter what non-illegal reason you might use it for) is militia use. It is the OWNERSHIP (keep and bear) arms that is protected not how it is used. and just because Militia use was specifically mentioned by ONE individual that does not exclude other uses as being either protected or legitimate reasons to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...
Personally, I view it this way:

This: "Ok guys, since personal weapon ownership is key to a effective militia, it shall not be infringed upon."

And not this: "Personal weapons used in militia duty shall not be infringed upon."
 
The Mark said:
Personally, I view it this way:

This: "Ok guys, since personal weapon ownership is key to a effective militia, it shall not be infringed upon."

And not this: "Personal weapons used in militia duty shall not be infringed upon."
Click to expand...

yeah that cuts through the ARC BS.

I also note that those who claim that the second amendment only applies to the militia never can tell us where the federal government actually was delegated the power to regulate small arms. and anyone who claims that the founders intended that the commerce clause be used regulate say a Ky Long rifle smithed in Lexington but sold in Ohio is dishonest. That was a creation of FDR's AG who told FDR that banning machine guns was a violation of the second amendment so they used an interstate tax scheme

jurisprudential dishonesty at is New Deal worst
 
What I love about this OP is how they spin this as 'good' for the right to bear arms... "they've expanded on the right". So, now you have the 'right' to jump through a series of hoops to have the 'priveledge' of owning a weapon.... different states will enact it differently.
 
BmanMcfly said:
What I love about this OP is how they spin this as 'good' for the right to bear arms... "they've expanded on the right". So, now you have the 'right' to jump through a series of hoops to have the 'priveledge' of owning a weapon.... different states will enact it differently.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court rulling will now jump start lawsuits to challenge state gun laws and its retarded hoops. You shouldve seen the amount of crap I had to go through just to get a pistol.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
The Supreme Court rulling will now jump start lawsuits to challenge state gun laws and its retarded hoops. You shouldve seen the amount of crap I had to go through just to get a pistol.
Click to expand...

I looked into what it would take for me to get a pistol where I live... I would :
- Take a gun safety course, where they teach you that you must lock your gun, luck the trigger, and lock the bullets seperately.
- Write a test
- Get the gun ownership / possession ticket
- Take a pistol safety course
- Pass a test
- Get a criminal background check
- and get 2 special licenses to transport the weapon to and from anywhere I might take it.
- Open carry is illegal
- concealed carry is illegal

So, the main reason I'd want the pistol, for home protection should someone decide to break in, I would have to unlock 3 seperate locks, load the weapon all before the person wishing me harm finds my room all under the stress of hearing the movement... I doubt many people follow the law strictly though.

I care about your rights as much as my own, because well... if there was ever a dictator take over the US, Canada would get sucked in.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Not quite sure why you're making that distinction. Possibly I missed something a page or two ago?

What law-abiding citizen is going to be shooting in a public place, unless it is a firing range, or unless he is being criminally assaulted?
Click to expand...

I would think a firing range would be considered private property.


Goshin said:
The chief problem with that is that when government has the power to license a right, it becomes a privilege and the potential to raise the bar until it is almost impossible for Joe Average to obtain is a temptation to politicians that don't like armed peasants...uhm, citizens.

Been done. Carry permits and gun permits in NYC, NY state... for a long time they made it so an average citizen almost couldn't get one at all, while the well-connected got their permits easily.
Click to expand...
A permit should never be required to own, keep, bear or fire arms. I think if the anti-2nd amendment loons want to mandate gun safety classes then the only way it could be done without violating the constitution would be require gun safety and proper used a required subject in highschools. That would essentially ensure that the next generation is properly trained in firearms use and safety, you do not need a functional gun to teach safety and training rounds could be used to teach firearm use.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Not quite sure why you're making that distinction. Possibly I missed something a page or two ago?

What law-abiding citizen is going to be shooting in a public place, unless it is a firing range, or unless he is being criminally assaulted?
Click to expand...

Just making a distinction between a right and a privilege to show consistency with my driving=gun usage argument. Also, to demonstrate, based on the 2nd Amendment, taken literally, what the government can and cannot regulate. The government CANNOT regulate the bearing of arms. This shall not be infringed. Accordingly, from an originalist point of view, one can own/have/carry any gun they choose. However, since there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says anything about firing/using those arms, the government CAN regulate this. When, how, where, and why. Now, from what I know, there ARE laws that regulate this; according to the literal reading of the 2nd Amendment, this does NOT infringe on one's rights to bear arms. Only to shoot arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom