Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
MShooter, you are right, nowhere in the constitution is there mention of the regulation of firearms.
Then why is the right given to "the people" instead of a "person" as in the 3rd, 5th and 6th? "The people" are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 4th because those rights may not be abridged as a general rule, but may be abridged upon the individual, because of the right of "the people" to security and reasonable order. The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, after all. The 5th and 6th include wording indicating an "hard" individual right with regard to due process in the courts, for example. Wording not present in the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Therefore, while regulation may not be specifically mentioned, it's definitelty implied or the right would have been made "person"al.
Does it annoy you that I don't share your lofty opinion of yourself?What did I tell you about condescension? It sounds like clucking chickens coming from you.
you don't have much do ya, Dave....man......
Good.
MShooter, you are right, nowhere in the constitution is there mention of the regulation of firearms.
Then why is the right given to "the people" instead of a "person" as in the 3rd, 5th and 6th? "The people" are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 4th because those rights may not be abridged as a general rule, but may be abridged upon the individual, because of the right of "the people" to security and reasonable order. The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, after all. The 5th and 6th include wording indicating an "hard" individual right with regard to due process in the courts, for example. Wording not present in the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Therefore, while regulation may not be specifically mentioned, it's definitelty implied or the right would have been made "person"al.
So, is this an individual right or does it only apply to the States?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Does it annoy you that I don't share your lofty opinion of yourself?you don't have much do ya, Dave....man......
Good.
No. I don't think about what you think of me....
I just don't see the country ever abandoning some level of gun control.
Then why is the right given to "the people" instead of a "person" as in the 3rd, 5th and 6th? "The people" are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 4th because those rights may not be abridged as a general rule, but may be abridged upon the individual, because of the right of "the people" to security and reasonable order. The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, after all. The 5th and 6th include wording indicating an "hard" individual right with regard to due process in the courts, for example. Wording not present in the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Therefore, while regulation may not be specifically mentioned, it's definitelty implied or the right would have been made "person"al.
So, is this an individual right or does it only apply to the States?
I just don't see the country ever abandoning some level of gun control.
And there wont be.
The question isnt gun control per se but the nature of the regulation and its Constitutionality.
Restrictions against those convicted of felonies or adjudicated mentally incompetent, for example, are perfectly legitimate restrictions.
Then why is the right given to "the people" instead of a "person" as in the 3rd, 5th and 6th? "The people" are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 4th because those rights may not be abridged as a general rule, but may be abridged upon the individual, because of the right of "the people" to security and reasonable order. The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, after all. The 5th and 6th include wording indicating an "hard" individual right with regard to due process in the courts, for example. Wording not present in the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Therefore, while regulation may not be specifically mentioned, it's definitelty implied or the right would have been made "person"al.
Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law; the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.
In Heller the Court ruled there is an individual Constitutional right to own a handgun, within the overall Constitutional right to self-defense. Note also that Scalia conceded it was impossible to extrapolate the original intent of the Framers with regard to the Second Amendment, relying instead on the original understanding of the Amendment by the average person at the time the Amendment was ratified.
So, is this an individual right or does it only apply to the States?
It was determined an individual right in Heller, incorporated (applied) to the states in McDonald.
i just don't see the country ever abandoning some level of gun control.
and there wont be.
The question isnt gun control per se but the nature of the regulation and its constitutionality.
Restrictions against those convicted of felonies or adjudicated mentally incompetent, for example, are perfectly legitimate restrictions.
Remember that the constitution exists only in the context of its case law; the supreme court determines what the constitution means.
In heller the court ruled there is an individual constitutional right to own a handgun, within the overall constitutional right to self-defense. Note also that scalia conceded it was impossible to extrapolate the original intent of the framers with regard to the second amendment, relying instead on the original understanding of the amendment by the average person at the time the amendment was ratified.
so, is this an individual right or does it only apply to the states?
it was determined an individual right in heller, incorporated (applied) to the states in mcdonald.
my problem with "original intent" or in this case "original understanding" is that the concepts don't exist, in that there was never a singular intent or understanding. Do you really think the "original understanding" extended to allowing violent felons to be allowed to have guns. I wouldn't think so.
My problem with "original intent" or in this case "original understanding" is that the concepts don't exist, in that there was never a singular intent or understanding. Do you really think the "original understanding" extended to allowing violent felons to be allowed to have guns. I wouldn't think so.
when a person pays a debt do you continue charging them for a debt that is already paid?
MShooter, you are right, nowhere in the constitution is there mention of the regulation of firearms.
Then why is the right given to "the people" instead of a "person" as in the 3rd, 5th and 6th? "The people" are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 4th because those rights may not be abridged as a general rule, but may be abridged upon the individual, because of the right of "the people" to security and reasonable order. The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, after all. The 5th and 6th include wording indicating an "hard" individual right with regard to due process in the courts, for example. Wording not present in the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Therefore, while regulation may not be specifically mentioned, it's definitelty implied or the right would have been made "person"al.
Interesting Konrad, now i'm looking forward to MShooter's response to this
My problem with "original intent" or in this case "original understanding" is that the concepts don't exist, in that there was never a singular intent or understanding. Do you really think the "original understanding" extended to allowing violent felons to be allowed to have guns. I wouldn't think so.
when a person pays a debt do you continue charging them for a debt that is already paid?
Who says their debt is paid? That's determined by law. Incarceration may be one part of a punishment, but not necessarily all. Probation rules come to mind.
when a person pays a debt do you continue charging them for a debt that is already paid?
Who says their debt is paid? That's determined by law. Incarceration may be one part of a punishment, but not necessarily all. Probation rules come to mind.
When they are released from prison their debt is paid.
According to my way of thinking, "The People" was intended to mean "citizens". Felons were generally denied some of the benefits of citizenship, the vote, the ability to hold public office, etc.I just don't see the country ever abandoning some level of gun control.
And there wont be.
The question isnt gun control per se but the nature of the regulation and its Constitutionality.
Restrictions against those convicted of felonies or adjudicated mentally incompetent, for example, are perfectly legitimate restrictions.
Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law; the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.
In Heller the Court ruled there is an individual Constitutional right to own a handgun, within the overall Constitutional right to self-defense. Note also that Scalia conceded it was impossible to extrapolate the original intent of the Framers with regard to the Second Amendment, relying instead on the original understanding of the Amendment by the average person at the time the Amendment was ratified.
So, is this an individual right or does it only apply to the States?
It was determined an individual right in Heller, incorporated (applied) to the states in McDonald.
My problem with "original intent" or in this case "original understanding" is that the concepts don't exist, in that there was never a singular intent or understanding. Do you really think the "original understanding" extended to allowing violent felons to be allowed to have guns. I wouldn't think so.
Who says their debt is paid? That's determined by law. Incarceration may be one part of a punishment, but not necessarily all. Probation rules come to mind.
When they are released from prison their debt is paid.
If the law says so, they are. If it doesn't, they aren't. At least that's the way it works in a democratic republic. That may vary depending on where in the world you're from. In the U.S. those kinds of decisions are determined by statue, NOT internet posters. Your particular circumstances may vary.
When they are released from prison their debt is paid.
If the law says so, they are. If it doesn't, they aren't. At least that's the way it works in a democratic republic. That may vary depending on where in the world you're from. In the U.S. those kinds of decisions are determined by statue, NOT internet posters. Your particular circumstances may vary.
Once you're a felon your are a felon and have lost your right to defend yourself anyway possible. It's like releasing a domesticated animal into the wild. How long do you think it will last?
If the law says so, they are. If it doesn't, they aren't. At least that's the way it works in a democratic republic. That may vary depending on where in the world you're from. In the U.S. those kinds of decisions are determined by statue, NOT internet posters. Your particular circumstances may vary.
Once you're a felon your are a felon and have lost your right to defend yourself anyway possible. It's like releasing a domesticated animal into the wild. How long do you think it will last?
I live in the Urban Jungle, have never owned a gun and have survived quite nicely thank you. The only time I've ever come face-to-face with a gun was because some countryboy didn't know the difference between fireworks and a gunshot! As for releasesd felons, they're not supposed to be putting themselves in a position where they're back in their former mileau. That's a probation violation and not something I'm NOT going to be an apologist for.
Once you're a felon your are a felon and have lost your right to defend yourself anyway possible. It's like releasing a domesticated animal into the wild. How long do you think it will last?
I live in the Urban Jungle, have never owned a gun and have survived quite nicely thank you. The only time I've ever come face-to-face with a gun was because some countryboy didn't know the difference between fireworks and a gunshot! As for releasesd felons, they're not supposed to be putting themselves in a position where they're back in their former mileau. That's a probation violation and not something I'm NOT going to be an apologist for.
someone who doesn't have a clue can someone loan him one.
I live in the Urban Jungle, have never owned a gun and have survived quite nicely thank you. The only time I've ever come face-to-face with a gun was because some countryboy didn't know the difference between fireworks and a gunshot! As for releasesd felons, they're not supposed to be putting themselves in a position where they're back in their former mileau. That's a probation violation and not something I'm NOT going to be an apologist for.
someone who doesn't have a clue can someone loan him one.
Fine be an apologist for criminals!
someone who doesn't have a clue can someone loan him one.
Fine be an apologist for criminals!
As I ask you earlier
when a person pays a debt do you continue charging them for a debt that is already paid?
Your answer is?
Fine be an apologist for criminals!
As I ask you earlier
when a person pays a debt do you continue charging them for a debt that is already paid?
Your answer is?
Already answered. The debt is paid when the law says its paid. If the law says "no guns for life', then its "no guns for life".
As I ask you earlier
when a person pays a debt do you continue charging them for a debt that is already paid?
Your answer is?
Already answered. The debt is paid when the law says its paid. If the law says "no guns for life', then its "no guns for life".
So you release a person unable to defend his life in anyway he can?
