Page 55 of 55 FirstFirst ... 545535455
Results 541 to 549 of 549

Thread: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

  1. #541
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,601

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    The wording is pretty clear.

    It refers to the right itself not being infringed.

    I believe the founders were attempting two things.

    Keep the state from disarming the people, a primary method of imposing tyranny.

    Make our military purely defensive, to prevent us from imposing tyranny ourselves on others. To curtail the "urge to empire".
    Then you believe all gun laws are unconstitutional?

  2. #542
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,701
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
    Then you believe all gun laws are unconstitutional?
    Well, I think it means firearms and not missiles or tanks, but yeah, kinda.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  3. #543
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    33,349

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    The constitution does allow for a navy and marines for coastal defense.
    I understand that completely.

    Are you advocating for constitutional amendment to allow a standing army or calling for it to be disbanded as unconstitutional? Or, perhaps, are you using having a standing army as an excuse for ignoring the 2A?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #544
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,601

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Well, I think it means firearms and not missiles or tanks, but yeah, kinda.
    deleted

  5. #545
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,601

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Well, I think it means firearms and not missiles or tanks, but yeah, kinda.
    So I can bring an uzi on a plane?

  6. #546
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,701
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
    So I can bring an uzi on a plane?
    Well if everybody does then any problems should take care of themselves.

    But seriously its a private place, so its owners can decide what you can and can't bring.

    I'm a "heinleiner" I think we should go armed and be able to challenge each other to duels. Sure would cut down on assholes.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  7. #547
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    173,850

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    The wording is pretty clear.

    It refers to the right itself not being infringed.

    I believe the founders were attempting two things.

    Keep the state from disarming the people, a primary method of imposing tyranny.

    Make our military purely defensive, to prevent us from imposing tyranny ourselves on others. To curtail the "urge to empire".
    well let me ask you a question then since your contributions seem pretty thoughtful

    do you believe that a person, after being convicted in a competent court of law, can be deprived of certain constitutional rights? for example, being imprisoned prevents you from exercising the right of assembly. Being a sex offender also does even if you are not currently incarcerated.

    Now I believe state governments have the power-though in many cases I disapprove of its exercise-to ban convicted felons of being able to vote, hold public office, or possess firearms. I have been called a "gun banner" for that by someone who not only believes that the state (and the federal government) has the power to ban felons from owning guns, said individual also believes that the federal government should pass additional laws that are designed to prevent private citizens from "unknowingly" selling firearms to convicts. Would you consider that person a gun banner as well?
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  8. #548
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    173,850

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by Rucker61 View Post
    My interpretation is that he said that Heller was flawed. You jumped in with a post suggesting that he was saying that the individual right decision was the flaw, but it seems clear from his posting history that the wording on allowable restrictions is flawed.
    yep, I assert that the federal government has almost no authority in this area. I don't believe it has the authority to regulate private citizens acting within their own states. that includes a felon buying a firearm from a dealer in his state. I believe the state has the power to regulate that activity. I gray area is the federal government banning someone who has a felony from having an FFL but I don't believe that someone selling firearms in his own state should require a federal license
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  9. #549
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,701
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    well let me ask you a question then since your contributions seem pretty thoughtful

    do you believe that a person, after being convicted in a competent court of law, can be deprived of certain constitutional rights? for example, being imprisoned prevents you from exercising the right of assembly. Being a sex offender also does even if you are not currently incarcerated.

    Now I believe state governments have the power-though in many cases I disapprove of its exercise-to ban convicted felons of being able to vote, hold public office, or possess firearms. I have been called a "gun banner" for that by someone who not only believes that the state (and the federal government) has the power to ban felons from owning guns, said individual also believes that the federal government should pass additional laws that are designed to prevent private citizens from "unknowingly" selling firearms to convicts. Would you consider that person a gun banner as well?
    All my ethics are situational, and I tend to consider laws "suggestions". That said I agree with most and so therefore comply.

    Now, as a non-violent federal felon, no weapons involved, I disagree with my permanent federal ban. Its arbitrary. One can get a felony for driving too fast.

    However, I could see the reasoning behind stripping the right to bear from someone who used a firearm in the commission of a crime. Clearly demonstrating they can't be trusted not to abuse the right to have a firearm.

    So I don't have a good answer. I disagree with the fundamental premise. That all "criminals" should never be allowed to have firearms.

    Also, there are so many unregistered guns here it doesn't really matter. And one can make one if they really want to.

    So its just another pointless gesture.

    There's a lot of noise on the left on this point. But most of it is all noise and thunder signifying nothing. Gestures that look good on TV and that's about it.

    So I guess I say he's a "slow banner". It was really over the day they required registration. If they know where they are they're just allowing you to keep them.

    They can come and get them whenever they want.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

Page 55 of 55 FirstFirst ... 545535455

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •