K3
Member
What those 76 are probably wanting to say is that these things they call for are...
wait...
COMMONSENSE regulations!
Where have I heard that before?
wait...
COMMONSENSE regulations!
Where have I heard that before?
Poll:Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed In Any Way?
- Thread starter Duke Junior
- Start date
- Status
zminer
Member
So, am I to assume that everybody who voted for "No Restrictions" would be perfectly fine with a gun store selling an automatic weapon to a 12 year old gang member who's already spent time in juvenile hall for shooting at a policeman? That strikes me as beyond irresponsibility.
Everything has restrictions, folks, including those things in the Amendments (speech, for example). There can, and should, be vigorous debate over what those restrictions are, but nothing is permitted absolutely. Why should firearms be any different?
Everything has restrictions, folks, including those things in the Amendments (speech, for example). There can, and should, be vigorous debate over what those restrictions are, but nothing is permitted absolutely. Why should firearms be any different?
K3
Member
I'll take that over registration any day of the week.
Freedom has a risk or two that comes with it.
That said, don't children's rights generally flow through the parents? Your 'scenario' is one of those internet things - a strawman, red herring, or some such thing. It's as ludicrous as people saying ' We need SOME restrictions! We can't have people owning nukes!'
mljdeckard
Member
I am more suspicious of politicians who want to 'regulate' automatic weapons and tanks than I am of citizens who want to posess them.
Unless we are willing to house common criminals for life, (which we aren't) the felon restriction needs to stick.
Unless we are willing to house common criminals for life, (which we aren't) the felon restriction needs to stick.
K3
Member
Even non-violent felons?
If a man has served his time, should he not have the same ability to provide for the defense of his family? Or are you OK with that?
LaEscopeta
Member
The question in the original post is “Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed In Any Way”. The Second Amendment is about a Right. It is not about crime nor criminals nor “bad guys.”
Here in the United States, we have a Supreme Court, one responsibility of which is to interpret the Constitution. The Court does not always interpret the Constitution correctly, and a minority of people will always disagree with every Court decision. It’s not a perfect system but most Americans are going with it for the time being.
In the recent Heller case the Court interpreted the 2cd Amendment as protecting “…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.” (page 1 of the Heller decision Syllabus.)
The Heller decision went on to confirm the interpretations of the previous Miller case that “The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense…” and “…the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time.”” (Ibid page 2)
Going beyond the questions of the case, the Heller cautions “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…” (page 2 again.)
And finally “…the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously…” (Ibid page 3)
You don’t have to like it or agree with it, but that is the Right the Law now says is protected by the 2cd Amendment, and those who have and do not have that Right.
Oh, and those examples in the above posts about no firearms for people with ponytails, diabetes, homosexuality or too many post on certain web sites? They come under the heading of “arbitrary and capricious”, and the Supreme Court has already said they are not permissible under the Constitution.
This is not to say they “can’t happen here.” Many states had for decades arbitrary and capricious laws to prevent certain people from having the Right to vote (poll taxes, property requirements, literacy tests, etc.) It took a lot of political agitation, public opinion campaigns and court decisions, but in the end the Right to vote was restored. I’m expecting the same for the current laws in certain States preventing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I’m not expecting the limitations the Supreme Court has already decided upon being lifted.
Here in the United States, we have a Supreme Court, one responsibility of which is to interpret the Constitution. The Court does not always interpret the Constitution correctly, and a minority of people will always disagree with every Court decision. It’s not a perfect system but most Americans are going with it for the time being.
In the recent Heller case the Court interpreted the 2cd Amendment as protecting “…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.” (page 1 of the Heller decision Syllabus.)
The Heller decision went on to confirm the interpretations of the previous Miller case that “The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense…” and “…the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time.”” (Ibid page 2)
Going beyond the questions of the case, the Heller cautions “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…” (page 2 again.)
And finally “…the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously…” (Ibid page 3)
You don’t have to like it or agree with it, but that is the Right the Law now says is protected by the 2cd Amendment, and those who have and do not have that Right.
Oh, and those examples in the above posts about no firearms for people with ponytails, diabetes, homosexuality or too many post on certain web sites? They come under the heading of “arbitrary and capricious”, and the Supreme Court has already said they are not permissible under the Constitution.
This is not to say they “can’t happen here.” Many states had for decades arbitrary and capricious laws to prevent certain people from having the Right to vote (poll taxes, property requirements, literacy tests, etc.) It took a lot of political agitation, public opinion campaigns and court decisions, but in the end the Right to vote was restored. I’m expecting the same for the current laws in certain States preventing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I’m not expecting the limitations the Supreme Court has already decided upon being lifted.
m700m
Member
th Constitution, does not allow for firearms to be held by felons.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Logical Fallacy
@zminer -
Y'all are engaging in a logical fallacy. With a little research, you can figure out which one.
You can't get a loan for a car without being 18 or having a parent/guardian co-sign. You can't enter into any contract under 18.
You can't gamble in a casino or drink, most places, until you're 21.
Pretty easy to do an age check.
I don't have to prove I'm not a felon to prove I'm over 18, and thus that's not discriminatory, and doesn't require the keeping of a special set of records to know who's naughty and who's nice.
Don't argue nonsense.
Nonsense posts that provoke argument are called "trolling."
Don't do that.
@zminer -
Y'all are engaging in a logical fallacy. With a little research, you can figure out which one.
You can't get a loan for a car without being 18 or having a parent/guardian co-sign. You can't enter into any contract under 18.
You can't gamble in a casino or drink, most places, until you're 21.
Pretty easy to do an age check.
I don't have to prove I'm not a felon to prove I'm over 18, and thus that's not discriminatory, and doesn't require the keeping of a special set of records to know who's naughty and who's nice.
Don't argue nonsense.
Nonsense posts that provoke argument are called "trolling."
Don't do that.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Felons
@m700m -
'Splain to me, kind sir, why I have to prove to you that I'm not a felon.
Where do you get off assuming I'm a criminal?
@m700m -
'Splain to me, kind sir, why I have to prove to you that I'm not a felon.
Where do you get off assuming I'm a criminal?
HankB
Member
I guess I'm not a Second Amendment absolutist.
I don't support unrestricted sale of firearms to little children. As an occasional air traveler, I wouldn't support over the counter sales of SAMs. Likewise, I see no need or desirability for readily available WMDs. (Poison gas, deadly germs & biotoxins, and nukes.) Land mines? Uh uh. (If you live along our Southern border, I'm willing to discuss an exemption.
)
Violent felons ought to be kept in jail, but if they're not, they should have some restrictions. Non-violent felons - uh uh. (I seriously doubt people like Martha Stewart would be a danger to me.) Druggies - no. Illegal aliens - HECK no.
Otherwise . . . I'm having a bit of a problem coming up with additonal restrictions. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, concealed carry, SBRs, AOWs, full auto, suppressors . . . all OK. Simply by virtue of being a U.S. Citizen, you should have access to the above, with no further licensing, registration, or the need to go hat-in-hand to some government functionary for permission to exercise your rights.
I don't support unrestricted sale of firearms to little children. As an occasional air traveler, I wouldn't support over the counter sales of SAMs. Likewise, I see no need or desirability for readily available WMDs. (Poison gas, deadly germs & biotoxins, and nukes.) Land mines? Uh uh. (If you live along our Southern border, I'm willing to discuss an exemption.
)Violent felons ought to be kept in jail, but if they're not, they should have some restrictions. Non-violent felons - uh uh. (I seriously doubt people like Martha Stewart would be a danger to me.) Druggies - no. Illegal aliens - HECK no.
Otherwise . . . I'm having a bit of a problem coming up with additonal restrictions. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, concealed carry, SBRs, AOWs, full auto, suppressors . . . all OK. Simply by virtue of being a U.S. Citizen, you should have access to the above, with no further licensing, registration, or the need to go hat-in-hand to some government functionary for permission to exercise your rights.
I put some restrictions meaning, no purchase until 18 or whatever the age of majority happens to be(however kids can get one from their parents and may even carryt if ok'd by the parents-converse side parents are responsible for their children)
I also think some weapons should be regulated, ie no crew served weapons nor indiscriminate weapons(rpgs grenades, artillery) unless you A have a background check, B demonstrate a safe place to discharge and C have a registry ONLY of these weapons.
Note that I would like to see automatic weapons allowed ie M16, M14, AK47, uzi, tommy guns,etc. But light machine guns ie saws m60 would need a liacence as stated above. The difference is these weapons can be used to do great damage with minimal training due to being belt fed, a sad fact is school shootings and such are bad but citizens with ccw can defend against an uzi or m16 but imagine two guys with m60s
Once you get this liscence you may buy as many as you want. I think felons should have all rights restored after serving their sentence so after parole/probation sure go ahead.
These are the only restrictions I think make sense
I also think some weapons should be regulated, ie no crew served weapons nor indiscriminate weapons(rpgs grenades, artillery) unless you A have a background check, B demonstrate a safe place to discharge and C have a registry ONLY of these weapons.
Note that I would like to see automatic weapons allowed ie M16, M14, AK47, uzi, tommy guns,etc. But light machine guns ie saws m60 would need a liacence as stated above. The difference is these weapons can be used to do great damage with minimal training due to being belt fed, a sad fact is school shootings and such are bad but citizens with ccw can defend against an uzi or m16 but imagine two guys with m60s
Once you get this liscence you may buy as many as you want. I think felons should have all rights restored after serving their sentence so after parole/probation sure go ahead.
These are the only restrictions I think make sense
Opinions aside, according the Heller some restrictions are allowed. Those people arguing "no restrictions period" are arguing an UNconstitutional viewpoint. So what are you supporting when you claim you own guns to support and defend The Constitution against all enemies? Are you going to defend it against yourself?
This behavior does nothing but hurt the standing of gun owners. Argue over what restrictions are allowable. Argue over federal vs. state power re: Incorporation. But arguing for something unsupported by a recent Supreme Court decision THAT WAS IN OUR FAVOR makes us all look like extremist lunatics.
This behavior does nothing but hurt the standing of gun owners. Argue over what restrictions are allowable. Argue over federal vs. state power re: Incorporation. But arguing for something unsupported by a recent Supreme Court decision THAT WAS IN OUR FAVOR makes us all look like extremist lunatics.
m700m
Member
pardon me ArfinGreebly, but i never assumed you, or anyone else was/is a criminal. i am only stating that a felon has forfeited his constitutional rights for the time being, until he should receive a full pardon. do you not agree?
mljdeckard
Member
Yes, I would absolutely entertain cutting it back to VIOLENT felon. But that includes conspiracy, facilitation, and accessory crimes involving violent felonies as well.
mljdeckard
Member
Yes, it would be great to just keep everyone locked up and not release them until they can be trusted, if ever. However, we can't afford the prison system we already have. There's also that 'cruel and unusual punishment" thingy in the Constitution which is interpreted to mean that we should at least PRETEND that the punishment fits the crime. Crimes for which you take away a man's life should reflect that you have taken away someone else's life, or at least changed it profoundly and permanently.
And we all know under the current system, there's barely any such thing as a life sentence. Criminals will be walking around, unless you want to go to a sci-fi channel b-movie world of permanent incarceration island penal colonies.
And we all know under the current system, there's barely any such thing as a life sentence. Criminals will be walking around, unless you want to go to a sci-fi channel b-movie world of permanent incarceration island penal colonies.
I used to think, commit a felony, lose your rights. Lately with the ever increasing legal restrictions being passed by all the lawyers we continuously send to Federal and State Congresses, it seems that it gets easier for someone in authority to find anyone guilty of something...
If I could do it my way...
if your a felon no gun
18 you can buy whatever you want full auto, 20mm, 50 cal., pistol, ect.
none of this overall length must be ___"
before you can legaly buy a gun you must take a class for one day
where you would learn how to properly hold and shoot a gun safely basically to cut down on people doing dumb things like shooting up in the air ect.
basically if your a law abiding citizen you can buy whatever the heck you wan't provided it isn't explosive, RPG, TOW, missle, or artillary I would make you get a permit for that stuff and prove you had a safe place to shoot it
if your a felon no gun
18 you can buy whatever you want full auto, 20mm, 50 cal., pistol, ect.
none of this overall length must be ___"
before you can legaly buy a gun you must take a class for one day
where you would learn how to properly hold and shoot a gun safely basically to cut down on people doing dumb things like shooting up in the air ect.
basically if your a law abiding citizen you can buy whatever the heck you wan't provided it isn't explosive, RPG, TOW, missle, or artillary I would make you get a permit for that stuff and prove you had a safe place to shoot it
to fix this I'd redefine a felon to cut down on those bogous felonys
zminer
Member
ArfinGreebly said:
My post was not meant as trolling, and I hope it wasn't taken that way. It seems obvious to me that age restrictions on firearms purchasing are, by definition, restrictions. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about age, therefore adding an age restriction is beyond the scope of what the Amendment says. Therefore, it falls under option #2 of the poll, which most people seem not to realize.
My point was, if age is going to be a restriction, then we can argue over what that restriction should be. Why is 18 the legal age for owning a gun? Could it be 17? Or 16? Or 14? Sure, it could be any of those ... but whatever it is, it's a restriction. I didn't mean it to be trolling - I meant it to point out that people are getting upset that someone could assume that some restrictions are advisable, when they themselves are implicitly assuming restrictions (in this case, age).
K3 said:
Fine, my original scenario was a little extreme. My point was this - on its face, it seems to be an affront to reason to give easy access to firearms to those who would do violence. How do we keep that from happening? It seems like restrictions are the only way.
My secondary point, then, is this: it doesn't seem obvious that restrictions are necessarily a slippery slope to the complete banning of firearms. We have free speech rights which are constantly expanding - first to radio, then to television, and now to the Internet. This right is governed by restrictions, and yet continues to expand into areas where it is logical for it to go. It seems like, in theory, the same could be true of firearms. (Again, this is a debatable point - but that's good, as debate can produce understanding in those on both sides of an issue.)
TeamPrecisionIT
Member
I thought parents were supposed to do that job, not the government? Oh wait, that's right, when people fail, they just blame the government. So that's how we got here!
And as far as the full auto's should be hard to get... Um, they are pretty damn expensive for the most part so that right there is a restriction. To use an example that has almost nothing to do with guns, I will use cars (but keep in mind, driving is a priviledge, not a constitutional right):
A Ford F-350, a Ford Taurus, a Dodge Neon, a Toyota Tundra, a Porsche 911 Turbo, a Bugatti Veyron all are automobiles, correct? All of them have immensely different designs and functions and more importantly performance differences. Yet, all can be obtained with the right amount of funds, correct? If you walk into any of the dealerships and hand them the price tag in cash, the vehicle is yours. Hell, you don't even need to have a license if you buy it outright!
But wait a minute, you mean to tell me I am restricted from purchasing a HK G36C just because its a select fire weapon? How retarded is that line of thinking? (I used HK G36C since it falls after the 1986 ban)
Damian
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Rolled any stop signs lately?
No gun for you! You have exhibited a disdain for the rules of society...
Oh, you meant felons.
Bounced any checks lately?
Taken a pee against a tree in the National Forest?
I think the point has been made several times, over and over, repeatedly and redundantly, that expansion of the crimes classed as "felonies" has become ridiculous.
And perhaps by October 13th, 2009, hollering at your kid may be a felony.
Ridiculous?
I'm just looking at the trend.
Maybe some of you (now 101) who voted for any kind of restriction should look at the trends, too.
After all, rolling stop signs and red lights is rife with danger to other citizens. We must stop this behavior and make it a felony...
And while we're at it, we should make Macwendyking stop selling all those harmful transfats.
Everything, after all, should be either illegal or compulsory.
Where are my pitons and carabiners? I'm gonna need them on this slope.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
