The Right To Bear Arms

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Yes. However it's the right to bear arms, the right to be in the militia, that causes all the problems.
The right to bear arms is plainly covered, above. There is no problem except for those who decide they do not want to understand this.

Sorry - "look it up here" doesn't cut it. Post quotes.

Well firstly I have posted plenty of this article on here. In fact I appear to be the ONLY person who has posted for a while that actually does reference things and quote on it. So if you'd like to go back a few days and look at my posts and you want to comment you are free to do so. But I'm not repeating the same thing over and over because you can't be bothered to go look at what I wrote.

The RKBA isn't so clear for people to understand seeing as both the left and the right manage to get it so wrong sometimes.
 
Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?
Oh look -- an internet tough guy. :roll:
One who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
You're the one calling me a "she" and trolling for a flame, asswipe.

Generally, though, I find that most gun nuts carry guns? Because without them..they would really live in fear.

Because they are such fucking pussies.

Happy now? You got your flame.

:lol:
 
There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
Conclusion: Fail.
Actually you're wrong.
The 2A prevents the US govt from doing something. What?
Infrimnging upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Really? Firstly this phrase is used a lot, and often people don't know what the RKBA arms actually means, so don't even understand when it's being infringed.
Secondly should I make the assumption that you're against the feds infringing on the RKBA for felons, whether in prison or not, children and the mentally ill?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

So what do you make of this then?

Carry and conceal can be prevented. This is probably because carry is not necessarily protected by the RKBA. It is protected within keep arms only, as in a person has to be able to carry them at times in order to be able to buy and sell. The rest of carry isn't actually protected.
Also carrying in certain places is never allowed, and still constitutional.
What weapons are protected? Not "dangerous and unusual weapons", the term dangerous is a little misleading and I think, as with quite of lot of this case, the justices were sloppy and were being more political than they should have been. What the mean are things like SAM, tanks, warplanes, nukes and so on. These are not protected. Why?

The simple answer is that the govt can't prevent people keeping arms, but it can prevent them keeping specific arms, as long as individuals are allowed to keep arms, then not being able to own nukes doesn't mean they can't keep arms.


It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.
"A gun"? As in just one? That limiting a person to one gun does not violate the constitution? You jest.
It also, BTW, prohibits anything else that might be an infringement.

Well not, it's not really what I'm saying. The exact number, the exact make and so on has never been defined. The reality is the feds cannot put in place laws which stop individuals, before due process (ie the limitations in place) from being able to keep arms. What does it mean? One gun, five guns, any number of guns? the type of gun? It's all a bit of an unknown, especially as people don't really understand the amendment and fight over other stuff which isn't really relevant anyway.
Basically the govt imposes a law, it is either constitutional or not. That then defines it more closely. Without such a law, it's up in the air....

So here they make a few related points. First that the right is not unlimited
Like all rights, the right to arms is defined by the boundaries inherent to same. Everyone knows this.
Second that certain people can be denied this right
5th amendment, due process. Not news.

Well it's news to a lot of people actually, seeing as it says "shall not be infringed" and most people say "what's not clear about this then?"
What isn't clear is that what they are reading is more than the words on the paper. It's centuries of precedent, it the historical basis of the amendment, the theory of rights and so much more.

and lastly that common weapons are protected and not "dangerous" or unusual weapons.
But really the 2A means the US govt has to allow weapons to be sold, but it doesn't mean it has to allow ALL weapons to be sold.
Only those weapons not dangerous AND unusual, which are suitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one night have for a firearm, such as (but not limited to) self-defense within the home.
What class(es) of firearm would you argue this excludes?

Oh - it also means the government cannot otherwise infringe on the exercise of the right - you know, restrict the exercise of the right in such a way that if applied to speech or abortion or religion ts unconstituonality would be unquestioned.

You say "traditional lawful purposes", but at what point does a new gun qualify for this? At what point does an old gun not qualify? At what point does a new type of weapon no qualify or qualify? There are plenty of unanswered question.
The govt clearly can ban a type of gun for various reasons. It can deny import to guns, it can close down companies that don't meet requirements, it can ban certain guns for this that and the other, like safety and so on, even if they might meet your definition above.

The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.
 
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Yes. However it's the right to bear arms, the right to be in the militia, that causes all the problems.
The right to bear arms is plainly covered, above. There is no problem except for those who decide they do not want to understand this.

Sorry - "look it up here" doesn't cut it. Post quotes.

Well firstly I have posted plenty of this article on here. In fact I appear to be the ONLY person who has posted for a while that actually does reference things and quote on it. So if you'd like to go back a few days....
If you have it, post it. if you do not, do not.

Please also note that the court in Heller talks at some length of the "keep and bear" part of this argument.
How is it wrong?
 
The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.

What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.
 
shit happens.

Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.

That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.

They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.
you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.

Cars are not guns.
Swimming pools are not guns.
Bread boxes are not guns.

The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that.

But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...

10155896_744578182230716_2127971220_n_zpsc4051d7b.jpg
cars kill more than guns, more people drown each year than are killed by guns. ban cars and swimming, they are more dangerous than guns

Even if this were true, which I doubt..most guns have one purpose.

To kill human beings.
sallow showing his ignorance again. no wonder you come off sounding like such a flipping idiot all the time. you are ignorant of the facts.
 
The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.

What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.

Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.
 
you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.

firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?



the right of the people to keep and bear Arms


as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -

all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.

.
 
If you have it, post it. if you do not, do not.

Please also note that the court in Heller talks at some length of the "keep and bear" part of this argument.
How is it wrong?

You're being lazy. I'm sorry but you can reply to my post or not, whatever.

Yes, they talk about keep and bear. However I also know that even Supreme Court justices aren't experts in all areas of law. They were listening to two arguments, the DC side was just completely wrong, so they listened to the Heller side. They didn't necessarily get all of the information on this debate.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever "

They don't talk of keep and bear arms, they talk of keep and carry, as if carry means bear, when it does not.

However the Supreme Court justices aren't stupid, they know a lot more law than most people, and they also know how to manipulate their opinions in order to go towards their own bias. This is why cases aren't always 9-0 as you'd expect them to be if they're following the law as it "should be".

"Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Here is a summary by Scalia about the two sides. Both contend that "bear" means carry, I say it doesn't. Now, Scalia uses carry in place of bear in his argument.

"No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”"

Ie, he's saying that because neither side made a case for "bear arms" to mean "render military service" that he's not going to bother actually consider it. Here lies a problem.

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” "

This is a great argument (I'm being sarcastic). It's often used by people who want to misinterpret the 2A to mean "carry arms".
They say because it can mean "carry" it MUST mean "carry".

For example. "Stool" means a wooden object usually with three legs that you sit on, right?

"John went to the doctor who said he needed a sample of his stool". So because it can mean the definition I gave must mean it means this definition, or not? It would seem a little silly if I were to assume it is this definition.

They did look at other definitions

"When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. "

"bear arms" means something different to "bear +object"

"‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.""

However here they're getting much closer to the truth, and I have to wonder why they rejected it, or at least pandered to the pro-gun side by using the term "carry arms" instead of "bear arms".

" In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. "

I'm not disputing this. However it's interesting that they don't refer to "bear arms" meaning "render military service" or "militia duty" as Mr Gerry and other founding fathers did. It's as if they know the truth but are deliberately avoiding it.

"The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. "

Then they seem to be heading towards this, and then claim it needs "against", but like Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution this isn't the case. They use the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" WITHOUT against. So it seems odd that they would claim this.

However there isn't much difference between "bear arms" to mean the right to be in the militia, and "bear arms" to "of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."

Are we suggesting that people who carry weapons are "ready for offensive or defensive action"? My interpretation of this meaning would be that someone knows something is going to happen, rather than just having a gun just in case something may happen.

What it interesting about all of this is that the Bush govt helped. The MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (http://www.griegermd.com/secondamendment2[1].pdf here for example, page 16 onwards) they aimed to prove that the RKBA was individual.

The Supreme Court had this document and used it, clearly. What they didn't use were things like:

"It is true that “bear arms” often did refer to carrying arms in military service."

"Arms also could be “borne” for private, non-military purposes, principally tied to self-defense. For example, an early colonial statute in Massachusetts required every “freeman or other inhabitant” to provide arms for himself and anyone else in his household able to “beare armes,” and one in Virginia required “all men that are fittinge to beare armes” to “bring their pieces” to church."

Probably something like this had an impact. In fact some states included an individual bear arms which they spoke about in Heller.

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

For example PA, but they used the term with "defence of themselves", Vermont also used something similar. This could be ambiguous as to whether themselves was "the people" or "the individual".
Other states used it exclusively collective.
North Carolina "XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; "
Massachusetts "XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. "

Then the memorandum again, they say at the end:

"In sum, although “bear arms” often referred to carrying or wearing arms in connection
with military duty, it was not limited to such a meaning."

So the Supreme Court took the "it was not limited to such a meaning" to mean more than the fact that even the Bush govt said it usually had connection with the militia.

Now. Here's the BIG problem.

What's an amendment about when it starts with "A well regulated militia....."?

It's about the militia.

CONTEXT suggests that "bear arms" means something like "render military service" and "militia duty" as used by the founding fathers in a document completely ignored by the Supreme Court when discussing the Second Amendment.

How on earth could this document be missed out? It basically takes all the Supreme Court looks at and puts it into context and makes it make sense.

This is where the Supreme Court was wrong, especially Scalia.
 
What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.

The big problem is the anti-gun lobby believes the gun lobby and tries to combat the 2A based on what the gun lobby says. So they're basically totally unaware of what the 2A actually means. So they're never going to get anywhere.
 
Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.

I've been to quite a few countries in the world, probably a quarter of them. I've felt safe, and I've felt very unsafe in differing countries. Japan and China seem the safest. South Africa by far the least safe. Why? Because people are often armed in the streets. You don't know when you're going to get robbed. You want a gun in South Africa, you don't in Japan or China.

Oppression happens in countries where people are armed, and may not happen in countries where people aren't armed.

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/portals/0/images/comment and an/ormaporiginal.jpg

Here's a map of countries based on oppression.

ormaporiginal.jpg


How many of those green countries have people with guns? I'd say not many. Whereas South Africa with lots of guns and knives isn't doing too well.
 
What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.

The big problem is the anti-gun lobby believes the gun lobby and tries to combat the 2A based on what the gun lobby says. So they're basically totally unaware of what the 2A actually means. So they're never going to get anywhere.

Basically..yeah.

For now.

The argument should be that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary since we provide for a permanent military, which includes ground forces.

But adding an amendment that stipulates that citizens may have small arms for defense of the home isn't going to get anywhere.

So right now? While we have a great many judges that are in their seats because of the gun lobby? You are right.
 
The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.

What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.

Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.

Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.

However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
 
you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.

firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?



the right of the people to keep and bear Arms


as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -

all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.

.
This is your brilliant restriction?

How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?
]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
 
The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.

What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.

Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.

Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.

However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
Who gets to decide what a large sum of money is? I own a bar. My day's receipts are large to me whether they total $5,000 or $200.
If someone wants to rob me on the way out of Doc's early Sunday morning, they damned well better start shooting as soon as I walk out the door.
 
The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.

What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.

Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.

Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.

However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
Who gets to decide what a large sum of money is? I own a bar. My day's receipts are large to me whether they total $5,000 or $200.
If someone wants to rob me on the way out of Doc's early Sunday morning, they damned well better start shooting as soon as I walk out the door.

Business owners or people responsible for dropping the day's receipts?

Yeah..they should be armed..or have an armed guard.

I use to own a bar. I made damn sure to have a guard with me when I dropped money.
 
The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.

What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.

Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.

Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.

However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
Who gets to decide what a large sum of money is? I own a bar. My day's receipts are large to me whether they total $5,000 or $200.
If someone wants to rob me on the way out of Doc's early Sunday morning, they damned well better start shooting as soon as I walk out the door.

Business owners or people responsible for dropping the day's receipts?

Yeah..they should be armed..or have an armed guard.

I use to own a bar. I made damn sure to have a guard with me when I dropped money.
I prefer to be my own guard, thank you.
 
The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.

What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.

Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.

Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.

However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
Who gets to decide what a large sum of money is? I own a bar. My day's receipts are large to me whether they total $5,000 or $200.
If someone wants to rob me on the way out of Doc's early Sunday morning, they damned well better start shooting as soon as I walk out the door.

Business owners or people responsible for dropping the day's receipts?

Yeah..they should be armed..or have an armed guard.

I use to own a bar. I made damn sure to have a guard with me when I dropped money.
I prefer to be my own guard, thank you.

Are you just being disagreeable for the heck of it? Or what?
 
There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
Conclusion: Fail.
Actually you're wrong.
The 2A prevents the US govt from doing something. What?
Infrimnging upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Really?
That's what it says.

Secondly should I make the assumption that you're against the feds infringing on the RKBA for felons, whether in prison or not, children and the mentally ill?
Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyone has the right to vote - so, no.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

So what do you make of this then?
I don't see anything here that needs addressed

Carry and conceal can be prevented. This is probably because carry is not necessarily protected by the RKBA. It is protected within keep arms only, as in a person has to be able to carry them at times in order to be able to buy and sell. The rest of carry isn't actually protected.
.
Um....no. Both are protected, specifically:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Silly to argue that your right to own a gun is protected but your right to use it is not.

Note that there is some judicial movement towards Heller preventing an absolute prohibition of concealed carry:
Moore v. Madigan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Also carrying in certain places is never allowed, and still constitutional.
And this differs from time/place/manner restrictions on the right to free speech? Nothing earthshaking here.

What weapons are protected?
Heller:
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Note that Heller expands Miller rather than limits it.

Not "dangerous and unusual weapons", the term dangerous is a little misleading and I think, as with quite of lot of this case, the justices were sloppy and were being more political than they should have been. What the mean are things like SAM, tanks, warplanes, nukes and so on. These are not protected. Why?
They are dangerous and unusual. :dunno:

The simple answer is that the govt can't prevent people keeping arms, but it can prevent them keeping specific arms,
Yes -- those that are dangerous and unusual; those unsuitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.
Every class of firearm, however, is suitable for such purposes, and so the government cannot prevent ownership.

It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.
"A gun"? As in just one? That limiting a person to one gun does not violate the constitution? You jest.
It also, BTW, prohibits anything else that might be an infringement.
Well not, it's not really what I'm saying.
Good -- because that would be no different than arguing that because you can still go to church on Sunday, prohibiting you from going Mon-Sat does not violate the constitution.

Oh - it also means the government cannot otherwise infringe on the exercise of the right - you know, restrict the exercise of the right in such a way that if applied to speech or abortion or religion ts unconstituonality would be unquestioned.
You say "traditional lawful purposes",
No. The law says that.

The govt clearly can ban a type of gun for various reasons
Only those that are dangerous and unusual; only those unsuitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.
Every class of firearm, however, is suitable for such purposes, and so the government cannot prevent ownership.

The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun.
And to use, both protected specifically.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top