CDZ Does the gun control side have any argument that supports banning guns?

[Liquid Reigns]

The Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.

The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.

Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

This case had to do with Federal law, not state law.

Some felons can get there 2A rights back when they are taken. SHRUG

In some states that is true but that did not happen on the Federal level when convicted of a Federal crime, which is why the judge ruled as he did.

The beauty of the case is not a judge telling the Feds they need to do what most states do but the fact that he said very specifically that the government needs to start treating the right to keep and bears like the individual right that it is.

The judges ruling doesn't force the feds to give him his right to own a firearm back, the judge is merely saying the feds should do as the sates are doing, granting the right to own/posses firearms back to non-violent felons. Doesn't matter what the judge specifically opined regarding what the govt needs to start doing (federal judges get overturned more often then not), the 2A merely recognizes the existing right to own "weapons as allowed by law" from the 1689 EBoR for the owning and possessing of arms, it doesn't grant a right to own firearms or anything else. A felon being denied the ability to own a firearm doesn't effect his right to self-protection nor his ability to own/posses arms, nor is his 2A right infringed.

The judge also said:


This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

That is admonishment to the filthy Federal government to stop stepping on our Constitutional rights. The best part of the ruling. I bet the filthy ass Feds won't appeal the case because they don't want the Supremes to rule on it.

As far as your point about "arms" not being modern firearms then that is a position that is simply too silly and too convoluted for me to waste my time responding to.

The point of modern firearms being protected under the Second Amendment was also address under the Heller case so that argument is not only silly but moot.

Arms are weapons, nothing more. Please point out where I stated anything about "arms" not being modern firearms. the felon is still allowed to own arms, i.e. a weapon or weapons, he is simply denied the ability to own a firearm, modern or whatever.

I never made any point about modern firearms, seems you are creating strawman arguments to knock down when there is no need to.

As to the judges opinion, that's all it is, his opinion, and whatever he claims regarding the policy in place, i.e. 18usc922 as the case was about, and its relation to non-violent felons has no bearing on the 2A, only Hatfields ability to regain the owning of a firearm for himself and those of like circumstance, non-violent felons that spent no time in prison.

In my opinion the judges opinion is poorly written and shows he didn't put much effort into it.

 

[Flash]

[QU


In my opinion the judges opinion is poorly written and shown he didn't put much effort into it.

The judge said that the Feds needed to restore the man's Constitutional rights and he said that the Federal government needs to stop ignoring our rights.

That is pretty damn well written in my book.

I hop the larger District Court overturns his ruling because then it can go to the Supreme Court and that would be a great case to help reestablish our rights.

We have far to much filthy government regulation of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

[2aguy]

Well...... several threads on this topic and they still haven't presented actual facts on magazine limits, gun registration, background checks, the AR-15 civilian rifle......

All they have is emotion in order to take power from uninformed Americans.

 

[Leo123]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Democrats think that 'well regulated militia' means gun control by the very government that can become tyrannical. 'Bassakwards' thinking as usual. They take stupidity to a whole new level.

 

[Darkwind]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Here, read this..

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[Toronado3800]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Democrats think that 'well regulated militia' means gun control by the very government that can become tyrannical. 'Bassakwards' thinking as usual. They take stupidity to a whole new level.

If you are talking to me I think it is part of a non-nonsensical run on sentence. It is a good think we can look at 1807 and see how the 2nd was applied by the people who wrote it.

 

[Toronado3800]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Here, read this..

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

yeah, "prefatory statements", "tension between the prefatory phrase and the operative clause"...... Even the Virginia Institute for books in favor of the tobacco industry or whoever they are must use ridiculous phrases to describe the poorly written 2nd.

Once again, we can look back and see how it was implemented but as written the 2nd is a couple random thoughts, shoved into once sentence, pretty dangerously open to interpretation. (commas use inspired by the 2nd).

 

[2aguy]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Here, read this..

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

yeah, "prefatory statements", "tension between the prefatory phrase and the operative clause"...... Even the Virginia Institute for books in favor of the tobacco industry or whoever they are must use ridiculous phrases to describe the poorly written 2nd.

Once again, we can look back and see how it was implemented but as written the 2nd is a couple random thoughts, shoved into once sentence, pretty dangerously open to interpretation. (commas use inspired by the 2nd).

No...it isn't......it is completely and thoroughly explained in D.C. v Heller including the history and legal precedents going back the the Stewart Reign in England......you can pretend it is unclear, but that is only because you favor gun control.

 

[Toronado3800]

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Here, read this..

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

yeah, "prefatory statements", "tension between the prefatory phrase and the operative clause"...... Even the Virginia Institute for books in favor of the tobacco industry or whoever they are must use ridiculous phrases to describe the poorly written 2nd.

Once again, we can look back and see how it was implemented but as written the 2nd is a couple random thoughts, shoved into once sentence, pretty dangerously open to interpretation. (commas use inspired by the 2nd).

No...it isn't......it is completely and thoroughly explained in D.C. v Heller including the history and legal precedents going back the the Stewart Reign in England......you can pretend it is unclear, but that is only because you favor gun control.

Now I suspect me and many others do support gun control as in we figure if automatics require a bit of paperwork bump stocks should also. (There are a couple other points that I am open to but can't quite define....yet). In general though I think you'd find the world with my idea of gun regulations quite similar to the one we live in now.

What I really favor are rational arguments not excuse making for a writer, political team or document I worship. Figuring out what the 2nd means as written reminds me of a course in English grammar. That makes it poorly written.

Figuring out what it means as intended (a gamer term) is easy. We can look at 1805 and see how it was implemented.

Let me give you a bit more background.

While I love the idea of universal healthcare I can admit Obamacare is only constitutional under the most Reagan liberal of terms. And yes mentioning Reagan is important to that because w/o the liberalness of some Reagan policies Obamacare would never have snuck through. So as much as I like making everyone pay for the socialist healthcare system we already had I can admit the law was sketchy at best for a legal term.

 

[2aguy]

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Here, read this..

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

yeah, "prefatory statements", "tension between the prefatory phrase and the operative clause"...... Even the Virginia Institute for books in favor of the tobacco industry or whoever they are must use ridiculous phrases to describe the poorly written 2nd.

Once again, we can look back and see how it was implemented but as written the 2nd is a couple random thoughts, shoved into once sentence, pretty dangerously open to interpretation. (commas use inspired by the 2nd).

No...it isn't......it is completely and thoroughly explained in D.C. v Heller including the history and legal precedents going back the the Stewart Reign in England......you can pretend it is unclear, but that is only because you favor gun control.

Now I suspect me and many others do support gun control as in we figure if automatics require a bit of paperwork bump stocks should also. (There are a couple other points that I am open to but can't quite define....yet). In general though I think you'd find the world with my idea of gun regulations quite similar to the one we live in now.

What I really favor are rational arguments not excuse making for a writer, political team or document I worship. Figuring out what the 2nd means as written reminds me of a course in English grammar. That makes it poorly written.

Figuring out what it means as intended (a gamer term) is easy. We can look at 1805 and see how it was implemented.

Let me give you a bit more background.

While I love the idea of universal healthcare I can admit Obamacare is only constitutional under the most Reagan liberal of terms. And yes mentioning Reagan is important to that because w/o the liberalness of some Reagan policies Obamacare would never have snuck through. So as much as I like making everyone pay for the socialist healthcare system we already had I can admit the law was sketchy at best for a legal term.

You have the exact break down of the 2nd Amendment, it's grammar, it's history and the legal precedents since it was created, all detailed in the D.C. v Heller decision.....go read that...it explains everything in detail.

 

[Toronado3800]

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Here, read this..

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

yeah, "prefatory statements", "tension between the prefatory phrase and the operative clause"...... Even the Virginia Institute for books in favor of the tobacco industry or whoever they are must use ridiculous phrases to describe the poorly written 2nd.

Once again, we can look back and see how it was implemented but as written the 2nd is a couple random thoughts, shoved into once sentence, pretty dangerously open to interpretation. (commas use inspired by the 2nd).

No...it isn't......it is completely and thoroughly explained in D.C. v Heller including the history and legal precedents going back the the Stewart Reign in England......you can pretend it is unclear, but that is only because you favor gun control.

Now I suspect me and many others do support gun control as in we figure if automatics require a bit of paperwork bump stocks should also. (There are a couple other points that I am open to but can't quite define....yet). In general though I think you'd find the world with my idea of gun regulations quite similar to the one we live in now.

What I really favor are rational arguments not excuse making for a writer, political team or document I worship. Figuring out what the 2nd means as written reminds me of a course in English grammar. That makes it poorly written.

Figuring out what it means as intended (a gamer term) is easy. We can look at 1805 and see how it was implemented.

Let me give you a bit more background.

While I love the idea of universal healthcare I can admit Obamacare is only constitutional under the most Reagan liberal of terms. And yes mentioning Reagan is important to that because w/o the liberalness of some Reagan policies Obamacare would never have snuck through. So as much as I like making everyone pay for the socialist healthcare system we already had I can admit the law was sketchy at best for a legal term.

You have the exact break down of the 2nd Amendment, it's grammar, it's history and the legal precedents since it was created, all detailed in the D.C. v Heller decision.....go read that...it explains everything in detail.

This is dragging on.

My statement is the 2nd was poorly written but we know what it was intended to mean because we can look back at history.

The correct reply is not go read a legal decision because putting too much faith in legal precedents undermines any attempt you may ever undertake to overturn a different legal precedent.

The right reply is not "the 2nd is well written, go read a few chapters on grammar so you can understand it."

Let me give you what I think your best reply is. "The rest of the Bill of Rights is full of commas and overly complicated sentence construction also. We are just going to have to live with that being the style of the day or the style of people who want to appear to write better than a modern 4th grader." To that logic I have no counter, just some grumbling about grammar at best.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Sophistry alert: Gun control is not synonymous with banning guns.

Strawman.

No the gun control freaks just want to ban a certain type of gun but when they finally realize that the certain type of gun they wan to ban is no different from guns they didn't want to ban what do you think they will do?