Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 288

Thread: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    But not a nuclear weapons system, at least not a western developed one they require authorization from a commander to use, and multiple people to arm, that section can be further clarified, but making 15 lines of text about WMDs when no one in their right mind is advocating unfettered ownership of suitcase nukes is unessecary. We can already technically legally own grenades and missiles....
    The common person cannot own grenades and missiles.

  2. #12
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,744
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

    Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

    Article 2
    1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
    A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
    B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
    2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.
    One of the problems we have had with the existing Constitution was whether those provisions intended to apply to the federal government would also be enforceable within the various states. States rights become blurred when states are forced by government regulation or the courts to comply with federal policy.

    So would a 'second amendment' clause as suggested here apply only to the federal government? Or will it be a universal law that states and local communities would not be able to override? Would it apply in every place including bars, schools, courthouses, etc. where firearms are usually banned? Or would there be exclusions permitted?

    This is where we have to be really careful. I strongly support the federal government being prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms. But I also believe strongly in self governance, and if the local community doesn't want guns, it shouldn't have to allow them.
    --Nobody deserves to be automatically judged guilty just because somebody accuses them. The accusation itself could be the crime.
    --"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  3. #13
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

    Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

    Article 2
    1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
    A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
    B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
    2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.
    I was going to say this is decent, but I think it's a little broad.

    How about "shall not be abridged except as needed for safety of the people in the country" or something like that?

    And the abridged clause is awfully broad - could someone say taxing the sale of a gun is discouraging someone from choosing to get it?

    I think background laws, trigger locks, and other safety features are reasonable, for example. I think not allowing someone to buy more than 1 or 2 guns a month is reasonable. But this abridged definition might open up to anarchy pretty much.

  4. #14
    Sage
    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Near Atlanta Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    9,031

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    sorry......

    but if we are going to write a new constitution, and a new bill of rights.....

    this is one of the areas where there will have to be some changes

    i have zero issue with any citizen owning guns.....but lets make it reasonable, shall we

    1. somehow, someway we need to make sure we can get guns away from people that have KNOWN psychological issues.....if you have been determined to suffer from schizophrenia, or a number of other illnesses, do we really want guns around you? yes....it will have to be debated, and some people will want more restrictions, and some others will want none.....maybe we can meet in the middle and maybe save a few lives

    2. i dont want to tread on the militias, or some of the other groups....but is there a number of weapons that any one individual should own? not a deal breaker for me, but i think it should be up for discussion

    3. i would love to eliminate automatic weapons.....i dont think it is possible, but it is on my wish list

    i dont think there is any need for every gun to be registered.....i know that is a big thing....

    again....dont want to take away your guns......but modifying the law slightly to keep them out of the hands of crazy people seems like a good idea to me
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    The congress, the states, or any other government entity, may make no law respecting the right of the people, and the states to keep and bear arms. There is one exception. The congress and ONLY the congress may restrict certain types of arms by law specifically weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear type bombs, exceptionally lethal chemicals, and exceptionally lethal biological weapons. Mass destruction defined as the ability to kill 1000 people simultaneously or so close to simultaneously as to be irrelevant. They must identify the particular arms type closely, and the law may not go into effect without 3/4s vote by congress with a presidential signature and ratification of 3/4's of the states of the union. Further these restrictions will continually sunset every 10 years. In any case personal arms types in common use by militaries shall not be any way restricted except by jury trial.
    I like it a lot. I think it would be reasonable to change, "Mass destruction defined as the ability to kill 1000 people simultaneously or so close to simultaneously as to be irrelevant." Just change the 1000 to a more reasonable number like 10 or 20.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The common person cannot own grenades and missiles.
    Maybe not but it is not forbidden in the constitution.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    One of the problems we have had with the existing Constitution was whether those provisions intended to apply to the federal government would also be enforceable within the various states. States rights become blurred when states are forced by government regulation or the courts to comply with federal policy.

    So would a 'second amendment' clause as suggested here apply only to the federal government? Or will it be a universal law that states and local communities would not be able to override? Would it apply in every place including bars, schools, courthouses, etc. where firearms are usually banned? Or would there be exclusions permitted?

    This is where we have to be really careful. I strongly support the federal government being prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms. But I also believe strongly in self governance, and if the local community doesn't want guns, it shouldn't have to allow them.
    I personally think that states should be forbidden to make laws regarding the bearing of arms. If a certain weapon is unwise for Louisiana then it is equally unwise for Connecticut. The federal or national government should be the only body to rule on matters of arms.

  8. #18
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by gdgyva View Post
    sorry......

    but if we are going to write a new constitution, and a new bill of rights.....

    this is one of the areas where there will have to be some changes

    i have zero issue with any citizen owning guns.....but lets make it reasonable, shall we

    1. somehow, someway we need to make sure we can get guns away from people that have KNOWN psychological issues.....if you have been determined to suffer from schizophrenia, or a number of other illnesses, do we really want guns around you? yes....it will have to be debated, and some people will want more restrictions, and some others will want none.....maybe we can meet in the middle and maybe save a few lives

    2. i dont want to tread on the militias, or some of the other groups....but is there a number of weapons that any one individual should own? not a deal breaker for me, but i think it should be up for discussion

    3. i would love to eliminate automatic weapons.....i dont think it is possible, but it is on my wish list

    i dont think there is any need for every gun to be registered.....i know that is a big thing....

    again....dont want to take away your guns......but modifying the law slightly to keep them out of the hands of crazy people seems like a good idea to me
    Maybe - as I think someone suggested earlier - the thing to do is to not put guns into the constitution. We don't have a constitutional right to drive a car or to own knives or other things. Why guns?

  9. #19
    No Shame!
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,923

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    I was going to say this is decent, but I think it's a little broad.

    How about "shall not be abridged except as needed for safety of the people in the country" or something like that?

    And the abridged clause is awfully broad - could someone say taxing the sale of a gun is discouraging someone from choosing to get it?

    I think background laws, trigger locks, and other safety features are reasonable, for example. I think not allowing someone to buy more than 1 or 2 guns a month is reasonable. But this abridged definition might open up to anarchy pretty much.
    No sales tax would not be abridgment. If a state like say my state,Washington, has a sales tax that is effectively 9% on all consumer products, it's just sales tax, however a fee like New York city which charges $350 just to apply for a permit to purchase one, would certainly be abridgment under this article, The one or two done a month law is made to discourage collectors and would be abridgment, in my opinion the possible penalties of violation should be considered in whether a certain law is abridgment, if the trigger lock violation is a ticket, probably not, if it's a felony then absolutely. It would be up to a judge to determine the exact nature of abridgment.
    What socialized medicine REALLY means, sometimes the mask slips!
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheist 2020 View Post
    I do not see were a woman has the right to take a child to full term.
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  10. #20
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    13,226

    Re: Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    I like it a lot. I think it would be reasonable to change, "Mass destruction defined as the ability to kill 1000 people simultaneously or so close to simultaneously as to be irrelevant." Just change the 1000 to a more reasonable number like 10 or 20.
    Then you classify grenades and such as weapons of mass destruction. Satchel charges and the like as well.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •