- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,559
- Reaction score
- 31,163
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Those activist judges are the pits, aren't they!
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.He makes no mention of the right extending to self defense or hunting/sport. What do you make of it?
As noted:I said nothing about owning a car. I said driving. In order to drive, legally, in Ohio, what are the rules, Goobie?
Yes... but by forbidding the federal government to act against those rgihts, it protects those rights from the federal government.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.
Yes... but by forbidding the federal government to act against those rgihts, it protects those rights from the federal government.
???
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.
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.
You said giblets.
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.
Holy crap, this is an incredible discovery!
Goobie has a sense of humor!!! :mrgreen:
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?
I am absolutely fine with exactly what you said, above.
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.
The right is to bear arms. Not to shoot arms.
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
Ah, no quotations, how convenient. Have a nice night.
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
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.
Personally, I view it this way: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
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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?