We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

[The Rabbi]

Please explain how voting trumps gun rights as I am sure that they are clearly spelled out in the same document without distinction over which right is 'better' or more 'fundamental' than the other. IMHO, rights do not have tiers that make some more fundamental than others. A right is a right, period.

THis is not correct. The Supremes have given some rights the standard of "strict scruitiny," meaning that every law is considered invalid unless the state can show a compelling interest. Gun rights do not fall into that category. At least not yet.

McDonald describes gun rights as "fundamental". Given that gun rights have been so described and that they are protected by the Constitution, there's no real way to argue that strict scrutiny does not apply.

Note that Heller struck down a gun ban w/o any reference to any level of scrutiny.

Fundamental is not the same as strict scrutiny.
This is a stupidity perpetuated on gun message boards by people who dont know anything.

 

[M14 Shooter]

THis is not correct. The Supremes have given some rights the standard of "strict scruitiny," meaning that every law is considered invalid unless the state can show a compelling interest. Gun rights do not fall into that category. At least not yet.

McDonald describes gun rights as "fundamental". Given that gun rights have been so described and that they are protected by the Constitution, there's no real way to argue that strict scrutiny does not apply.

Note that Heller struck down a gun ban w/o any reference to any level of scrutiny.

Fundamental is not the same as strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny is afforded to fundamental rights protected by the Constituon.

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a stupidity perpetuated on gun message boards by people who dont know anything.

I'm sorry that you do not have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I'm not really sure how this addresses the topic.
Perhaps you could clarify?

Sure. You use the car analogy to support the argument there should be no registration, licensing etc... of guns. I disagree.

Incorrect.
I point out that if guns were treated the same as cars, as many people suggest, then licenses and registration would be required only under very limited and specific circumstances, all related to operation/use on public property.

If you believee that licensing of owners and registration of guns should extend beyond those specific conditions, then you disagree with the premise that guns should be treated the same as cars.

Well of COURSE I disgree with the premise that guns should be treated the same as cars! Cars aren't built specifically to kill people! So guns should be more regulated, as far as tracking, distribution, licensing, training etc...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure. You use the car analogy to support the argument there should be no registration, licensing etc... of guns. I disagree.

Incorrect.
I point out that if guns were treated the same as cars, as many people suggest, then licenses and registration would be required only under very limited and specific circumstances, all related to operation/use on public property.

If you believee that licensing of owners and registration of guns should extend beyond those specific conditions, then you disagree with the premise that guns should be treated the same as cars.

Well of COURSE I disgree with the premise that guns should be treated the same as cars!

Then be sure to mention your disagreement to eveyrone that forwards the idea.

 

[The Rabbi]

McDonald describes gun rights as "fundamental". Given that gun rights have been so described and that they are protected by the Constitution, there's no real way to argue that strict scrutiny does not apply.

Note that Heller struck down a gun ban w/o any reference to any level of scrutiny.

Fundamental is not the same as strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny is afforded to fundamental rights protected by the Constituon.

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a stupidity perpetuated on gun message boards by people who dont know anything.

I'm sorry that you do not have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

I am sorry you think 2+2=22.
If the court had held for strict scrutiny they would have announced so. And every gun law on the books would be presumed to be unconstitutional.
That didnt happen.
But here's to hope.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fundamental is not the same as strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny is afforded to fundamental rights protected by the Constituon.


Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a stupidity perpetuated on gun message boards by people who dont know anything.

I'm sorry that you do not have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

I am sorry you think 2+2=22.
If the court had held for strict scrutiny they would have announced so. And every gun law on the books would be presumed to be unconstitutional.
That didnt happen.

This sort of willfull stupidity cannot be ignored.
The court said in the most recent case that the 2nd was a fundamental right.
That sets the stage for the NEXT court case to consider strict scrutiny.
:duh:

 

[The Rabbi]

Strict scrutiny is afforded to fundamental rights protected by the Constituon.


Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm sorry that you do not have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

I am sorry you think 2+2=22.
If the court had held for strict scrutiny they would have announced so. And every gun law on the books would be presumed to be unconstitutional.
That didnt happen.

This sort of willfull stupidity cannot be ignored.
The court said in the most recent case that the 2nd was a fundamental right.
That sets the stage for the NEXT court case to consider strict scrutiny.
:duh:

Wait a minute: Didnt you just say the Court already declared firearms a fundamental right, meaning strict scrutiny? Doesn't this post say the next court will consider it, meaning the Court did NOT declare firearms laws subject to strict scrutiny?
Aren't YOU the one who doesn't have the first fucking clue what he's talking about? Yes, I believe so.

 

[xotoxi]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

You have to pay personal property or excise tax each year on your car. Do you have to pay the same fee annually on your gun(s)?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Supremes do not make law.

Where does the Constitution state that any right is any more or less inalienable than another?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Supremes do not make law.

Where does the Constitution state that any right is any more or less inalienable than another?

Actually they do.
Where is the right to privacy in the constitution?
for that matter, where is the phrase "inalienable rights" found in the constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

You have to pay personal property or excise tax each year on your car.

I do?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Supremes do not make law.

Where does the Constitution state that any right is any more or less inalienable than another?

Actually they do.
Where is the right to privacy in the constitution?
for that matter, where is the phrase "inalienable rights" found in the constitution?

No, their purpose is to interpret what the Constitution says.
OK, where does the Constitution state that one right is more "fundamental" or in any other way more important than another?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supremes do not make law.

Where does the Constitution state that any right is any more or less inalienable than another?

That is one of the common misconceptions about the court - they are not the sole arbiters of the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am sorry you think 2+2=22.
If the court had held for strict scrutiny they would have announced so. And every gun law on the books would be presumed to be unconstitutional.
That didnt happen.

This sort of willfull stupidity cannot be ignored.
The court said in the most recent case that the 2nd was a fundamental right.
That sets the stage for the NEXT court case to consider strict scrutiny.
:duh:

Wait a minute: Didnt you just say the Court already declared firearms a fundamental right,

They did.

meaning strict scrutiny?

When next the issue is considered.
This isnt rocket science.

Aren't YOU the one who doesn't have the first fucking clue what he's talking about? Yes, I believe so.

Yes well, you also believe that you're making some sort of point - and we all know how abusrd an idea THAT is.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Supremes do not make law.

Where does the Constitution state that any right is any more or less inalienable than another?

Actually they do.
Where is the right to privacy in the constitution?
for that matter, where is the phrase "inalienable rights" found in the constitution?

No, their purpose is to interpret what the Constitution says.
OK, where does the Constitution state that one right is more "fundamental" or in any other way more important than another?

Their interpretation is authoritative, thus effectively creating law.
Where in the constution do they mention right at all? Only the BoR. Do you think only the rights enumerated in teh Constitution are the ones that count?

This is a losing argument for you. Give up while you're behind.

 

[The Rabbi]

This sort of willfull stupidity cannot be ignored.
The court said in the most recent case that the 2nd was a fundamental right.
That sets the stage for the NEXT court case to consider strict scrutiny.
:duh:

Wait a minute: Didnt you just say the Court already declared firearms a fundamental right,

They did.

meaning strict scrutiny?

When next the issue is considered.
This isnt rocket science.

Aren't YOU the one who doesn't have the first fucking clue what he's talking about? Yes, I believe so.

Yes well, you also believe that you're making some sort of point - and we all know how abusrd an idea THAT is.

If you don't think you've had your ass handed to you then there is no hope.
Dunning

 

[Contumacious]

Since anywhere between the gun shop and your home is public property you seem to have undermined your own argument.

Yeah man, the gun nuts are crazy.

Imagine if the German Jews had access to guns , they would harmed your friends at the gestapo and SS.

For shame.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wait a minute: Didnt you just say the Court already declared firearms a fundamental right,

They did.

When next the issue is considered.
This isnt rocket science.

Aren't YOU the one who doesn't have the first fucking clue what he's talking about? Yes, I believe so.

Yes well, you also believe that you're making some sort of point - and we all know how abusrd an idea THAT is.

If you don't think you've had your ass handed to you then there is no hope.

Funny... I've been effectively saying the same to you for several posts.
Back to ignore.

 

[candycorn]

Revolvers do not fail to feed. Autos do.
Revolvers do not fail to extract. Autos do.
Revolvers do not stovepipe. Autos do.
Revolvers do not fail to cycle. Autos do.

If you are not well-practiced in the drills necessary to deal with each of these issues, then you want a revolver.

Ahhh....I see your point.

Except what does "stovepipe" mean? I'm getting an education on the subject.

In a stovepipe the ejected brass fails to clear the chamber and ends up stuck straight up, like a stovepipe.

Ahh...

Like a candidate that the voters rejected who won't leave the race. Unlike Perry. LOL

Couldn't help myself.

Thanks.

 

[FA_Q2]

Now you're moving the goalposts. That's totally screwy, IMO. You can't run an advanced civilization like that.

Why exactly does an advanced society require that the government collect a fee to do certain things (i.e. drive, carry a gun, hunt, fish, build, etc.)?

Auto fees are collected to pay for maintaining the roads and the safety personnel who patrol them. Building permits and fees are to keep unsafe buildings from ever being built so rescue forces don't have to rush in after a collapse or unwarranted fire. Hunting and fishing license provide the funding to maintain wildlife environments and pay for the needed research to manager wildlife.

Have you lived here long?

I would actually have no problem with this line of thinking if it were actually true. The more common reality is that politicians say that these taxes and fees are going to such and such cause and then use them for various other reasons. Here, is WA, they commonly turn to such fees to close budget loopholes that have zero to do with the purpose of the fee itself.