Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

[JoeB131]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

You're right it is.

Well Regulated Militia.

As in regulated by the government.

I'm reasonably sure that they did not mean, Jared Loughner can walk into a store despite being certifiably insane, and purchase a gun with an extra large clip of ammo.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't mean the Virginia Tech shooter could walk in and buy two guns and then proceed to shoot up forty of his classmates.

Somewhere between the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers and the NRA "let's arm the kids, too!" Gun huggers, there are sensible people who think that guns should be treated like any other potentially dangerous device- something that should be licensed and regulated.

 

[Full-Auto]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

You're right it is.

Well Regulated Militia.

As in regulated by the government.

I'm reasonably sure that they did not mean, Jared Loughner can walk into a store despite being certifiably insane, and purchase a gun with an extra large clip of ammo.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't mean the Virginia Tech shooter could walk in and buy two guns and then proceed to shoot up forty of his classmates.

Somewhere between the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers and the NRA "let's arm the kids, too!" Gun huggers, there are sensible people who think that guns should be treated like any other potentially dangerous device- something that should be licensed and regulated.

I consider your mouth dangerous, when will that be regulated and licensed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Even if one subscribes to the living breathing document theory (which I don't)...

That the Constitution is subject to judicial interpretation is beyond dispute, as intended by the Framers, who understood and anticipated this. Scalia acknowledges such in Heller, as ‘original intent’ is not evident, he bases his opinion on ‘original understanding,’ where ‘a variety of legal and other sources [are used] to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification. That sort of inquiry is a critical tool of constitutional interpretation.’ (See DC v Heller, 2008.)

Indeed, the word ‘individual’ is nowhere in the Second Amendment, yet in Heller the Court interprets an ‘individual right’ nonetheless. If two hard-core arch-conservatives such as Scalia and Thomas agree that the Constitution is subject to interpretation/judicial review and infer an individual right where no such right is mentioned in the Original Text, I fail to see how any conservative of any stripe can still maintain the position that the Constitution is not subject to interpretation.

...it's hard to interpret "shall not be infringed" as anything but...well...shall not be infringed.

Heller did not address the issue of regulation, as that was beyond the scope of the review. Scalia does note, however, that the Second Amendment is no different than any other enumerated privilege in the Bill of Rights, in that it is subject to limitations:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…[N]othing in our opinion should 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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The sensible middle position is that you should have the ability to own a gun in the same context that you are able to own a car- only after you've been trained, licensed and insured to do so.

Is one required to be trained, licensed, or insured to give a speech, practice a religion, or peaceably assemble? Is one required to wait three days before he may give a speech so the authorities may review the content of the speech for ‘dangerous ideas’?

Of course not. Yet the same is being required of those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, determined an individual right by the Court.

Again, that one may use a firearm to harm someone or himself is not legal justification to preempt that right.

As with abortion, where the solution to the problem is not bans or restrictions, firearm violence is a social and cultural issue requiring difficult choices, not simple Band-Aide for a brain tumor remedies.

The second Amendment does not protect all firearms, it only protects those that are of military grade and value. Which are the ones that have been banned in the past.

 

[Full-Auto]

Even if one subscribes to the living breathing document theory (which I don't)...

That the Constitution is subject to judicial interpretation is beyond dispute, as intended by the Framers, who understood and anticipated this. Scalia acknowledges such in Heller, as ‘original intent’ is not evident, he bases his opinion on ‘original understanding,’ where ‘a variety of legal and other sources [are used] to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification. That sort of inquiry is a critical tool of constitutional interpretation.’ (See DC v Heller, 2008.)

Indeed, the word ‘individual’ is nowhere in the Second Amendment, yet in Heller the Court interprets an ‘individual right’ nonetheless. If two hard-core arch-conservatives such as Scalia and Thomas agree that the Constitution is subject to interpretation/judicial review and infer an individual right where no such right is mentioned in the Original Text, I fail to see how any conservative of any stripe can still maintain the position that the Constitution is not subject to interpretation.


Heller did not address the issue of regulation, as that was beyond the scope of the review. Scalia does note, however, that the Second Amendment is no different than any other enumerated privilege in the Bill of Rights, in that it is subject to limitations:

The sensible middle position is that you should have the ability to own a gun in the same context that you are able to own a car- only after you've been trained, licensed and insured to do so.

Is one required to be trained, licensed, or insured to give a speech, practice a religion, or peaceably assemble? Is one required to wait three days before he may give a speech so the authorities may review the content of the speech for ‘dangerous ideas’?

Of course not. Yet the same is being required of those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, determined an individual right by the Court.

Again, that one may use a firearm to harm someone or himself is not legal justification to preempt that right.

As with abortion, where the solution to the problem is not bans or restrictions, firearm violence is a social and cultural issue requiring difficult choices, not simple Band-Aide for a brain tumor remedies.

The second Amendment does not protect all firearms, it only protects those that are of military grade and value. Which are the ones that have been banned in the past.

We have 5 pages of discussion and no where in the contents does the left want to ban the weapon responsible for the most deaths in human history. Hell they dont even know what that weapon is.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

You're right it is.

Well Regulated Militia.

As in regulated by the government.

I'm reasonably sure that they did not mean, Jared Loughner can walk into a store despite being certifiably insane, and purchase a gun with an extra large clip of ammo.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't mean the Virginia Tech shooter could walk in and buy two guns and then proceed to shoot up forty of his classmates.

Somewhere between the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers and the NRA "let's arm the kids, too!" Gun huggers, there are sensible people who think that guns should be treated like any other potentially dangerous device- something that should be licensed and regulated.

The term Well Regulate does not mean today what it meant to the founders. Well Regulated to the founders meant in working order.


The founders did not say
A militia well regulated by Congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They said

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.

Well regulated did not mean government over sight

 

[JoeB131]

Here is another leftie with his own twist on history. All of the Founding Fathers were not slave holder and the French and Indian War was not provoked by the Founding Fathers. It was a war between the British and French that spilled over to the colonies and drew indian factions into the war on both sides. Get you history straight.

Sorry, man, I'm pretty right wing. Look at my posts in other threads.

Some of the founders WERE slave holders. Slavery is the worst stain on our history, we can't go around pretending it didn't exist. We are still paying for it today.

Yes, the F&I war is considered a part of larger Seven Years War, except the colonists took it upon themselves to attack the French holdings in North America without an authorization from London, and the Crown had to send troops in that they really needed to fight the war on the continent to bale them out.

The point was, those expendatures cost money, and the Crown felt that the colonists should have to pay their fair share.

Of lesser note, the colonists wanted to settle beyond the appalachias, and George III, probably concerned about further conflicts with the Indians, forbade that from happening.

In short, this was not a noble endevour. It was a bunch of greedy people getting other people to fight for their benefit. Kind of like most wars are, really.

Now, to their credit, they wrote a good constitution, with some flaws, and laid the groudwork for some great things to happen later. But they weren't saints.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That the Constitution is subject to judicial interpretation is beyond dispute, as intended by the Framers, who understood and anticipated this. Scalia acknowledges such in Heller, as ‘original intent’ is not evident, he bases his opinion on ‘original understanding,’ where ‘a variety of legal and other sources [are used] to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification. That sort of inquiry is a critical tool of constitutional interpretation.’ (See DC v Heller, 2008.)

Indeed, the word ‘individual’ is nowhere in the Second Amendment, yet in Heller the Court interprets an ‘individual right’ nonetheless. If two hard-core arch-conservatives such as Scalia and Thomas agree that the Constitution is subject to interpretation/judicial review and infer an individual right where no such right is mentioned in the Original Text, I fail to see how any conservative of any stripe can still maintain the position that the Constitution is not subject to interpretation.


Heller did not address the issue of regulation, as that was beyond the scope of the review. Scalia does note, however, that the Second Amendment is no different than any other enumerated privilege in the Bill of Rights, in that it is subject to limitations:





Is one required to be trained, licensed, or insured to give a speech, practice a religion, or peaceably assemble? Is one required to wait three days before he may give a speech so the authorities may review the content of the speech for ‘dangerous ideas’?

Of course not. Yet the same is being required of those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, determined an individual right by the Court.

Again, that one may use a firearm to harm someone or himself is not legal justification to preempt that right.

As with abortion, where the solution to the problem is not bans or restrictions, firearm violence is a social and cultural issue requiring difficult choices, not simple Band-Aide for a brain tumor remedies.

The second Amendment does not protect all firearms, it only protects those that are of military grade and value. Which are the ones that have been banned in the past.

We have 5 pages of discussion and no where in the contents does the left want to ban the weapon responsible for the most deaths in human history. Hell they dont even know what that weapon is.

I think it was a knife or pointy spear.

 

[Full-Auto]

The second Amendment does not protect all firearms, it only protects those that are of military grade and value. Which are the ones that have been banned in the past.

We have 5 pages of discussion and no where in the contents does the left want to ban the weapon responsible for the most deaths in human history. Hell they dont even know what that weapon is.

I think it was a knife or pointy spear.

Nope, think Africa. A child can walk into a hardware store and buy one.

 

[JoeB131]

I consider your mouth dangerous, when will that be regulated and licensed?

Can you show where my mouth can kill people.

Now you are just getting silly.

Come on, you guys know the polls are against you on this one.

Guns

Should the federal government be allowed to ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, except for use by the military or police, or is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners to purchase any guns they wish to purchase?"

Allowed to ban - 62%
Protect rights of gun owners - 35%


Overall, do you think that gun control laws in this country should be more strict than they are now, less strict, or are gun control laws about right now?"

More strict - 51%
Less strict - 7%
About right - 39%

So, really, a majority wants to go even further than I'd like to go, since I think that the gun laws are about right and we probably shouldn't ban semi-automatics.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have 5 pages of discussion and no where in the contents does the left want to ban the weapon responsible for the most deaths in human history. Hell they dont even know what that weapon is.

I think it was a knife or pointy spear.

Nope, think Africa. A child can walk into a hardware store and buy one.

oh thats right a sling shot.

 

[Full-Auto]

I consider your mouth dangerous, when will that be regulated and licensed?

Can you show where my mouth can kill people.

Now you are just getting silly.

Come on, you guys know the polls are against you on this one.

Guns

Should the federal government be allowed to ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, except for use by the military or police, or is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners to purchase any guns they wish to purchase?"

Allowed to ban - 62%
Protect rights of gun owners - 35%


Overall, do you think that gun control laws in this country should be more strict than they are now, less strict, or are gun control laws about right now?"

More strict - 51%
Less strict - 7%
About right - 39%

So, really, a majority wants to go even further than I'd like to go, since I think that the gun laws are about right and we probably shouldn't ban semi-automatics.

Can I show where a voice can incite violence? Are you serious? As far as that poll, unless you can point to the party affiliation breakdown it remains worthless.

 

[Seawytch]

We have 5 pages of discussion and no where in the contents does the left want to ban the weapon responsible for the most deaths in human history. Hell they dont even know what that weapon is.

You want to ban religion?

 

[Full-Auto]

We have 5 pages of discussion and no where in the contents does the left want to ban the weapon responsible for the most deaths in human history. Hell they dont even know what that weapon is.

You want to ban religion?

HAT TIP ON THAT ONE. But that opens up a different debate. Lets keep it to the physical tools.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I consider your mouth dangerous, when will that be regulated and licensed?

Can you show where my mouth can kill people.

Now you are just getting silly.

Come on, you guys know the polls are against you on this one.

Guns

Should the federal government be allowed to ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, except for use by the military or police, or is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners to purchase any guns they wish to purchase?"

Allowed to ban - 62%
Protect rights of gun owners - 35%


Overall, do you think that gun control laws in this country should be more strict than they are now, less strict, or are gun control laws about right now?"

More strict - 51%
Less strict - 7%
About right - 39%

So, really, a majority wants to go even further than I'd like to go, since I think that the gun laws are about right and we probably shouldn't ban semi-automatics.

Why do people use polls as a last ditch effort to win a losing battle? Why do they only use a poll that is worded to suit thier argument?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have 5 pages of discussion and no where in the contents does the left want to ban the weapon responsible for the most deaths in human history. Hell they dont even know what that weapon is.

You want to ban religion?

HAT TIP ON THAT ONE. But that opens up a different debate. Lets keep it to the physical tools.

Religon Poltics and women have been the big three killers of men through out human history,

Do not start banning Women.

 

[Full-Auto]

Can you show where my mouth can kill people.

Now you are just getting silly.

Come on, you guys know the polls are against you on this one.

Guns

Should the federal government be allowed to ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, except for use by the military or police, or is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners to purchase any guns they wish to purchase?"

Allowed to ban - 62%
Protect rights of gun owners - 35%


Overall, do you think that gun control laws in this country should be more strict than they are now, less strict, or are gun control laws about right now?"

More strict - 51%
Less strict - 7%
About right - 39%

So, really, a majority wants to go even further than I'd like to go, since I think that the gun laws are about right and we probably shouldn't ban semi-automatics.

Why do people use polls as a last ditch effort to win a losing battle? Why do they only use a poll that is worded to suit thier argument?

Well in the interest of pissing off lefties. I just bought my grandson his first red ryder. Took him shooting, taught him firearm safety. Just picked up an AMT 22 auto so he could participate with more then pellets and BB's

 

[JoeB131]

Can you show where my mouth can kill people.

Now you are just getting silly.

Come on, you guys know the polls are against you on this one.

Guns

Should the federal government be allowed to ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, except for use by the military or police, or is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners to purchase any guns they wish to purchase?"

Allowed to ban - 62%
Protect rights of gun owners - 35%


Overall, do you think that gun control laws in this country should be more strict than they are now, less strict, or are gun control laws about right now?"

More strict - 51%
Less strict - 7%
About right - 39%

So, really, a majority wants to go even further than I'd like to go, since I think that the gun laws are about right and we probably shouldn't ban semi-automatics.

Can I show where a voice can incite violence? Are you serious? As far as that poll, unless you can point to the party affiliation breakdown it remains worthless.

Why should party affiliation matter at all?

Fact is, most Americans don't want Jared Loughner to be able to walk into a gun store and come out armed to the teeth and ready to kill the people the voices in his head tell him to.

But the NRA has managed to block any kind of common sense gun regulation.

 

[jgarden]

At the invitation of a poster whom I respect, I'm starting this thread as an off-shoot from another (Things I Disagree with Tea Party / Liberals...).

"When you are done with this topic, we can discuss this one in more detail.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

Good post otherwise."

So apparently my new found friend thinks this part of my post was bad. I'm betting it's not because he thinks all guns should be banned...

What's funny is, in the same thread, for the paragraph above, I was called a Conservative who puts human life before property and a Liberal who wants to take away our protection from that tyrannical government that we all know is going to invade ou homes any day now.

So there it is.
If you don't think we need gun ownership at all and can state your reasons why, guess what? I can respect those views. I'm not going to call you names or sling petty insults like some arrogant moron who thinks I know all.
If you think we should have more gun rights and can state your reasons why, guess what? Same thing. Intelligent people can appreciate differing views.

Given that a "tyrannical government" wants guns and ammunition locked away in different locations, what are the chances of an intruder being so obliging as to waiting around for you retrieve you gun and ammunition in order to exercise your 2nd Ammendment Rights.

Statistically, guns in the home are much more likely to be used to shoot someone you know - suicide, domestic violence, an accident. The chances of these occuring far outweigh the "intruder" scenario!

 

[Full-Auto]

Can I show where a voice can incite violence? Are you serious? As far as that poll, unless you can point to the party affiliation breakdown it remains worthless.

Why should party affiliation matter at all?

Fact is, most Americans don't want Jared Loughner to be able to walk into a gun store and come out armed to the teeth and ready to kill the people the voices in his head tell him to.

But the NRA has managed to block any kind of common sense gun regulation.

Because when you stack the opinion of like minded individuals it will skew the results.

 

[Full-Auto]

At the invitation of a poster whom I respect, I'm starting this thread as an off-shoot from another (Things I Disagree with Tea Party / Liberals...).

"When you are done with this topic, we can discuss this one in more detail.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

Good post otherwise."

So apparently my new found friend thinks this part of my post was bad. I'm betting it's not because he thinks all guns should be banned...

What's funny is, in the same thread, for the paragraph above, I was called a Conservative who puts human life before property and a Liberal who wants to take away our protection from that tyrannical government that we all know is going to invade ou homes any day now.

So there it is.
If you don't think we need gun ownership at all and can state your reasons why, guess what? I can respect those views. I'm not going to call you names or sling petty insults like some arrogant moron who thinks I know all.
If you think we should have more gun rights and can state your reasons why, guess what? Same thing. Intelligent people can appreciate differing views.

Given that a "tyrannical government" wants guns and ammunition locked away in different locations, what are the chances of an intruder being so obliging as to waiting around for you retrieve you gun and ammunition in order to exercise your 2nd Ammendment Rights.

Statistically, guns in the home are much more likely to be used to shoot someone you know - suicide, domestic violence, an accident. The chances of these occuring far outweigh the "intruder" scenario!

Ok time to play on the merry go round.

What stats?