Both Sides of the Gun Debate Need to Listen to This

[Skull Pilot]

Kind of a squishy definition. Swords are arms. Does the 2nd give us the right to bear every possible kind of arm or only a limited subset?

It does not specify

So we can regulate and or ban certain guns under the Constitution then. Since it doesn't specify.

It doesn't say you can......

either

It doesn't say I can yell fire in a crowded theater either. Do I have that right?

I don't see why not.
I'm certainly not stupid enough to believe there is a fire because one person says there is a fire. I'll wait for the alarms to go off

 

[alang1216]

You may want to live in a country where you can have a gun and not know how to use it but I don't.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Betcha he lives in a City with HUGE gun restrictions, you know, where people get shot a lot.

Are you two really in favor of ignorance when it comes to how and when to use a gun?

 

[alang1216]

Kind of a squishy definition. Swords are arms. Does the 2nd give us the right to bear every possible kind of arm or only a limited subset?

It does not specify

So we can regulate and or ban certain guns under the Constitution then. Since it doesn't specify.

It doesn't say you can......

either

It doesn't say I can yell fire in a crowded theater either. Do I have that right?

I don't see why not.
I'm certainly not stupid enough to believe there is a fire because one person says there is a fire. I'll wait for the alarms to go off

I'm glad you're not on SCOTUS. They disagree.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you have no right to infringe n my rights if I am not breaking the law

I agree but you might want to think about what you're saying because it may not be what you mean.

I know what it means what do you think it means

It means you accept that we can pass gun control laws and, only if you don't break them, you may exercise your 2nd amendment rights. That is what you wrote.

You can pass laws yes but you cannot infringe on the rights of people to keep and bear.

Which means I have the right to buy whatever and as many guns as I want, can carry guns if I want.

For example I have a concealed carry permit that says I can carry a concealed weapon. That permit does not allow me to draw and shoot that weapon and if I do draw andf shoot that weapon I have to justify it to the authorities.

Now I don't think I should have to get a permit to carry as it is my right to keep and bear

 

[Skull Pilot]

It does not specify

So we can regulate and or ban certain guns under the Constitution then. Since it doesn't specify.

It doesn't say you can......

either

It doesn't say I can yell fire in a crowded theater either. Do I have that right?

I don't see why not.
I'm certainly not stupid enough to believe there is a fire because one person says there is a fire. I'll wait for the alarms to go off

I'm glad you're not on SCOTUS. They disagree.

So what?

 

[alang1216]

You register a car for several reasons, but most have to be about using one on a TAX PAYER FUNDED ROADWAY.

Do any of the reasons include a hidden agenda to confiscate the cars?

No, automobiles are not covered in the constitution.

Continue

Neither are automatic weapons. Or should those be covered by the 2nd?

They are covered by the 2nd Amendment...

From Heller.....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Funny how conservatives never complain about activist judges when they like the results but that is a topic for another thread. Currently your right to an automatic weapon is infringed. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You register a car for several reasons, but most have to be about using one on a TAX PAYER FUNDED ROADWAY.

Do any of the reasons include a hidden agenda to confiscate the cars?

No, automobiles are not covered in the constitution.

Continue

Neither are automatic weapons. Or should those be covered by the 2nd?

They are covered by the 2nd Amendment...

From Heller.....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Funny how conservatives never complain about activist judges when they like the results but that is a topic for another thread. Currently your right to an automatic weapon is infringed. Do you have a problem with that?

It really isn't

all you have to do is get a federal permit and pay an additional tax and anyone who can pass a background check to buy a rifle can get one

 

[alang1216]

You punish them when they are caught using them illegally, just like every other item that is dangerous...

Go try and buy some dynamite and let me know how easy it is.

 

[hunarcy]

These Libtards don't want to hear that so they ignore it.

Just like they ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has been declared by the Supreme Court as an individual right and not restricted to some state regulated militia.

Liberals are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

Spoke to Dred Scott too, doesn’t make it right or permanent.

Although unpopular, the Dred Scott decision was proper and required under the Constitution at that time. Luckily, the Constitution was later amended and the Dred Scott decision is no longer valid.

Maybe, maybe not.
But still disembowels any argument that just because the SCOTUS votes for something does not make it right or moral.

Government seizure of private property so that it may be used by another private citizen is yet another example where the court blew it. Imprisonment of Americans for simply having a family history linking to Japan is another.

It may not make things moral, but as long as it conforms to the Constitution, it makes it right.

 

[hunarcy]

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

Yes. I would like to ensure that only law-abiding, trained, sane people have access to guns.

trained is not a requirement. Sane and law abiding, after due process is acceptable.

You may want to live in a country where you can have a gun and not know how to use it but I don't.

You are free to move if you choose. Strictly speaking, there is NO Constitutional mandate to receive training.

 

[alang1216]

Only for product safety.....otherwise, no. You can't limit free speech before the speaker speaks.....and no, requiring a permit for a march is not limiting or regulating speech, it is coordinating the use of a public space where many may want to use it. We don't require that writers and journalists register with the government before publishing their work, we do not require them to get training in libel, and slander laws before they publish, we do not limit how much paper or ink they can use to express themselves....

Product safety seems to apply just fine but you're wrong, we can limit free speech before the speaker speaks. We can say what kinds of speech (e.g., hate speech or slander/libel) are proscribed. If someone chooses to engage in such speech they are in violation and can be prosecuted.

 

[hunarcy]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You may disagree with me but this country is my home and I have the right to protect my home and decide how it is run.

But, you don't have the right to infringe on HIS rights to do that.

 

[hunarcy]

Kind of a squishy definition. Swords are arms. Does the 2nd give us the right to bear every possible kind of arm or only a limited subset?

It does not specify

So we can regulate and or ban certain guns under the Constitution then. Since it doesn't specify.

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...all arms.

 

[alang1216]

There is no provision for the state to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The right belongs to the people, to the person, to the individual as all rights do

When your right to a gun infringes on my right to life, the state has a right and duty to intervene.

 

[alang1216]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You may disagree with me but this country is my home and I have the right to protect my home and decide how it is run.

But, you don't have the right to infringe on HIS rights to do that.

When his rights conflict with my rights the state does have a right to intervene.

 

[hunarcy]

You punish them when they are caught using them illegally, just like every other item that is dangerous...

Go try and buy some dynamite and let me know how easy it is.

Are you claiming that dynamite is an "arm"?

 

[alang1216]

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...all arms.

It is not an absolute right, just like the freedom of speech doesn't grant you right to slander someone.

 

[hunarcy]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You may disagree with me but this country is my home and I have the right to protect my home and decide how it is run.

But, you don't have the right to infringe on HIS rights to do that.

When his rights conflict with my rights the state does have a right to intervene.

True, but just because you "feel" there is a conflict does not mean one exists. He would have to actively do something to require intervention. Merely exercising his right does not constitute such an infringement.

 

[hunarcy]

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...all arms.

It is not an absolute right, just like the freedom of speech doesn't grant you right to slander someone.

The right can not be limited. The PERSON can be limited.

 

[alang1216]

You punish them when they are caught using them illegally, just like every other item that is dangerous...

Go try and buy some dynamite and let me know how easy it is.

Are you claiming that dynamite is an "arm"?

It can be considered a weapon but more to the point it is and item that is dangerous and access to it is controlled. You don't get to buy dynamite and only face punishment when you are caught using them illegally. You don't get to buy it at all.