|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 362
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 362 |
It sounds great to say "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. By that, clearly we should be able to buy nuclear weapons on eBay, convicted murderers should be able to carry unlimited guns and ammo, including in prison; guns and bombs should be allowed on commercial flights, and we should allow toddlers to play with loaded guns.
Robjordan, I think you're being reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 26,389 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 26,389 Likes: 6 |
It sounds great to say "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. By that, clearly we should be able to buy nuclear weapons on eBay, convicted murderers should be able to carry unlimited guns and ammo, including in prison; guns and bombs should be allowed on commercial flights, and we should allow toddlers to play with loaded guns.
That's almost verbatim what Diane Feinstein likes to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,188 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,188 Likes: 7 |
It sounds great to say "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. By that, clearly we should be able to buy nuclear weapons on eBay, convicted murderers should be able to carry unlimited guns and ammo, including in prison; guns and bombs should be allowed on commercial flights, and we should allow toddlers to play with loaded guns.
Robjordan, I think you're being reasonable.
Nuclear weapons are Weapons of Mass Destruction, and not "arms".
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 362
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 362 |
It sounds great to say "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. By that, clearly we should be able to buy nuclear weapons on eBay, convicted murderers should be able to carry unlimited guns and ammo, including in prison; guns and bombs should be allowed on commercial flights, and we should allow toddlers to play with loaded guns.
That's almost verbatim what Diane Feinstein likes to say. I'll bet Diane Feinstein doesn't have blood from a big buck under her fingernails right now. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
Don't know anything about the act of 34. Edumicate me. You claim to teach us about the legal history of gun laws in this country and you are not familiar with the National Firearms Act of 1934, and why it was set up as a tax? (hint, the only way 0care was declared constitutional is because it was declared a tax.) While you are at it, you should also study the history of the Sullivan Act, who got it passed, and who it was intended to protect, and the history of race based gun laws passed in the South following the Civil War. In addition, if you are going to quote from the Heller decision, I suggest you quote from Scalia's majority opinion, and not Breyer's dissenting opinion. You also need to study Wickard v. Filburn, how it expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause and enabled the GCA of '68.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals".
____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
Even Scalia says reasonable restrictions were envisioned by the Framers, as do Alito and Thomas. I know of no libertarian or conservative Constitutional scholar who thinks otherwise. Clearly, there are some crackpots out there who masquerade as scholars who think otherwise. If nothing else, this thread has established that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt.  Hope some of you guys will put your money where your mouths are and pony up to defend the next Islamic citizen who insist the Second gives him the right to possess nukes. You go boys!! I've never quoted Breyer's dissent.
Last edited by RobJordan; 11/09/13.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals".
____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,011 Likes: 60
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,011 Likes: 60 |
Even Scalia says reasonable restrictions were envisioned by the Framers, as do Alito and Thomas. I know of no libertarian or conservative Constitutional scholar who thinks otherwise. Clearly, there are some crackpots out there who masquerade as scholars who think otherwise. If nothing else, this thread has established that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt. Hope some of you guys will put your money where your mouths are and pony up to defend the next Islamic citizen who insist the Second gives him the right to possess nukes. You go boys!! I've never quoted Breyer's dissent. No one with any understanding of this issue thinks the Second Amendment gave anyone any right to anything. All it did was prohibit the Federal Government from infringing on a right already belonging to each adult human being on the planet, which stems from the right to life, and therefore the right to defend one's own life and the life of innocent others, which means we also have the right to possess the means of doing this. Nukes aren't useful in this role, except in the context of nation states defending themselves from other nation states. Now, the reason the Framers considered it good policy to prohibit the infringement of this right was that they understood the crucial role an armed citizenry played in providing a bulwark against tyranny. That's a different issue from the right. That's a question of good public policy, i.e., with regard to this particular human right, it's good public policy to prevent a central authority from violating it because history demonstrated that when central authorities were not prohibited from doing so, tyranny was the result, and the Founders were all about avoiding tyranny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,188 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,188 Likes: 7 |
Even Scalia says reasonable restrictions were envisioned by the Framers, as do Alito and Thomas. I know of no libertarian or conservative Constitutional scholar who thinks otherwise. Clearly, there are some crackpots out there who masquerade as scholars who think otherwise. If nothing else, this thread has established that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt. Hope some of you guys will put your money where your mouths are and pony up to defend the next Islamic citizen who insist the Second gives him the right to possess nukes. You go boys!! I've never quoted Breyer's dissent. Who's talking about possessing nukes? This is a big Straw Man, and you know it. We are discussing "arms" not WMD. To "Bear Arms" they must be carried, so this conversation may encompass RPG's and Stingers, but would not encompass Trident D5's and Peacekeepers.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
I believe the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is two-fold a fundamental right, that enshrines the inaliable rights (1) to facilitate (and protect) the capacity of the citizenry to revolt against tyrannical government and (2) to facilitate the right of self-defense. I think there is also a right to own and possess firearms if for no other reason than the enjoyment of it. That said, this is my short list of reasonable and unreasonable regs: Restrictions that pass strict scrutiny:
Reasonable: Passes Strict Scrutiny
-Prohibit individual who were adjudicated insane in a court of laws.
-Prohibit individuals convicted of a violent felons in a court of law.
-Prohibit illegal aliens from owning or possessing (they're not citizens).
-Prohibit persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders only if there is clear and convincing evidence by specific and articulable facts, of a risk of firearms violence toward the protected party. If they are such a bad person, prove it to a jury of their peers.
Unreasonable: Fails to pass Strict Scrutiny:
All others.
That is my short list.
Jordan Rob, it helps is you start with the correct legal standard. It wasn't my purpose to lay out the legal standard for review, but to list my opinion of reasonable restrictions.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals".
____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
Even Scalia says reasonable restrictions were envisioned by the Framers, as do Alito and Thomas. I know of no libertarian or conservative Constitutional scholar who thinks otherwise. Clearly, there are some crackpots out there who masquerade as scholars who think otherwise. If nothing else, this thread has established that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt. Hope some of you guys will put your money where your mouths are and pony up to defend the next Islamic citizen who insist the Second gives him the right to possess nukes. You go boys!! I've never quoted Breyer's dissent. No one with any understanding of this issue thinks the Second Amendment gave anyone any right to anything. All it did was prohibit the Federal Government from infringing on a right already belonging to each adult human being on the planet, which stems from the right to life, and therefore the right to defend one's own life and the life of innocent others, which means we also have the right to possess the means of doing this. Nukes aren't useful in this role, except in the context of nation states defending themselves from other nation states. Now, the reason the Framers considered it good policy to prohibit the infringement of this right was that they understood the crucial role an armed citizenry played in providing a bulwark against tyranny. That's a different issue from the right. That's a question of good public policy, i.e., with regard to this particular human right, it's good public policy to prevent a central authority from violating it because history demonstrated that when central authorities were not prohibited from doing so, tyranny was the result, and the Founders were all about avoiding tyranny. I agree completely with what just wrote.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals".
____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,188 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,188 Likes: 7 |
I believe the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is two-fold a fundamental right, that enshrines the inaliable rights (1) to facilitate (and protect) the capacity of the citizenry to revolt against tyrannical government and (2) to facilitate the right of self-defense. I think there is also a right to own and possess firearms if for no other reason than the enjoyment of it. That said, this is my short list of reasonable and unreasonable regs: Restrictions that pass strict scrutiny:
Reasonable: Passes Strict Scrutiny
-Prohibit individual who were adjudicated insane in a court of laws.
-Prohibit individuals convicted of a violent felons in a court of law.
-Prohibit illegal aliens from owning or possessing (they're not citizens).
-Prohibit persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders only if there is clear and convincing evidence by specific and articulable facts, of a risk of firearms violence toward the protected party. If they are such a bad person, prove it to a jury of their peers.
Unreasonable: Fails to pass Strict Scrutiny:
All others.
That is my short list.
Jordan Rob, it helps is you start with the correct legal standard. It wasn't my purpose to lay out the legal standard for review, but to list my opinion of reasonable restrictions. The lowest level of legal review is "Rational Basis" review where it is considered acceptable to infringe rights for any "reasonable" government interest. If you are truly a defender of the second amendment, the fight is not about what's "reasonable", it's about those restrictions that pass the highest level of scrutiny. If we succumb to using the language of the anti's the fight slips further from our fingers.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,439 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,439 Likes: 1 |
A right for a citizen is a right. Only if you have been adjudicated properly as unworthy of exercising that fundamental right may it be infringed.
Felons? Infringed until rights formally restored.
Nuts? Infringed if adjudicated nuts. Restored if adjudicated sane.
Weird politics? Not infringed.
Terror watch list? Not infringed unless adjudicated or convicted of some crime, or found nuts.
Rights can only be taken away after irresponsible or criminal conduct. We don't subject newspapers to background checks or say they can only print so many copies. We don't guarantee jury trials on condition or social status.
As for what the line is on civilian arms --- I guess I draw the line at nukes or WMDs or gas -- weapons which are absolutely not defensive in nature.
Up hills slow,
Down hills fast
Tonnage first and
Safety last.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,474 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,474 Likes: 3 |
This whole situation, in my opinion, stems from we are not playing the game they play.
If my baker can be sued for not serving a gay couple, who arguably are exercising their right to free association, or my black friends, because equal protection under the law is the law, then "no guns allowed" is the functional equal of "no gays or no blacks."
We keep arguing about the object, when this is in reality a civil liberties issue.
And the courts have already thrown out "I'm afraid of blacks" or "I don't like gays" as available outs for a company doing business with the public. We should use these cases for the basis of suits regarding the 2A.
“Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.” - General John Stark.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,728
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,728 |
A muslim has the right to have a gun. He does not have the right to unjustly use it. The rest of us have the right to defend ourselves from him if he misuses it. He does not have the right to commit murder. Look at the mil cemetaries. You find a few crescents, stars, along with the crosses and maybe other things.
It shoud be another posting about political religious leaders and rabble rousers who think their god is impotent, so they have to take things into their own hands and coerce others to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,993
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,993 |
I am of the "shall not be infringed" camp. We should be able to own anything we want but should be held accountable if we misuse a weapon. I have never considered it to be proper to punish people before they do something evil.
Unless I am mistaken, convicted felons have forfeited some of their rights by their actions. I think it is proper to include the ownership of certain weapons in those rights they have forfeited.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,011 Likes: 60
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,011 Likes: 60 |
I am of the "shall not be infringed" camp. We should be able to own anything we want but should be held accountable if we misuse a weapon. I have never considered it to be proper to punish people before they do something evil.
Unless I am mistaken, convicted felons have forfeited some of their rights by their actions. I think it is proper to include the ownership of certain weapons in those rights they have forfeited. Traditionally, felons had only been deprived of the exercise of certain of their rights during their period of incarceration, i.e., during the time they ceased being free men. Once it had been deemed that they had paid their debt to society, and had been restored to their status as free men, the freedom to exercise all the rights of free men was restored to them. That seems right to me. Otherwise you create a system with two classes of men apparently free in society. I could see that becoming a slippery slope very easily.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,154
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,154 |
I am pleased to read that so many think as I do. Absolutely no restrictions on keeping and bearing arms is the best practice for a free society........ and I believe the way God intended it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
Barak:
You're an anarchist who has no use for the Constitution, so arguing with you about its correct meaning is pointless.
Jordan Are you talking about the Constitution, or are you talking about "reasonable" gun control? They're two different things, you know, and not related in any way.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
The 2A right is not absolute, any more than the free speech right is absolute. The notional free speech right in the Bill of Rights is (unfortunately) absolute. The Constitution has no authority to make it absolute--it's actually part of the right of private property, and governed by the same body of natural law--but it does anyway. The oft-cited fire-in-a-crowded-theater objection is an objection to fraud, not to free speech. The right to bear arms--Constitution or no--is equally absolute. Look at it this way: does the government have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons? Yes? Then where did it get that right? Must have been delegated from the people, mustn't it? So the people must have that right to delegate. Reasonable:
Violent felons can't possess firearms or ammunition. I disagree. I know too many violent felons personally to believe that this kind of zero-tolerance prohibition isn't just as dumb an idea as any other kind. Prohibition of firearm discharge within city limits. That doesn't even address the right to keep and bear arms, does it?
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
557 members (007FJ, 160user, 12344mag, 17CalFan, 1234, 10gaugeman, 53 invisible),
2,633
guests, and
1,326
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,403
Posts18,527,970
Members74,031
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
