Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/6/2005 10:44:06 AM EDT
Is gun control a violation of the Bill of Rights? How can public safety and personal rights coexist?

This is the question my instructor asked us as a folllow up to my earlier thread about the 2nd.

Of course my first response is yes it is. Wanna help me answer how it is? or the second part of the question
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:47:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 10:47:35 AM EDT by BuckeyeRifleman]
The majority of gun control? Yes definately, however there are some restrictions on the first amendment, like yelling fire in a movie. A violent felon probably shouldnt have a right to own an RPG.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:49:43 AM EDT

violation
noun
1. An act or instance of breaking a law or regulation or of nonfulfillment of an obligation or promise, for example: breach, contravention, infraction, infringement, transgression, trespass.
2. An act of disrespect or impiety toward something regarded as sacred: blasphemy, desecration, profanation, sacrilege.


1. Since Interstate commerce laws are the source of power for Federal Gun Control laws - No.

2. Taking into consideration the distrust most of the Founding Fathers had for a standing Army - Yes.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:53:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
The majority of gun control? Yes definately, however there are some restrictions on the first amendment, like yelling fire in a movie. A violent felon probably shouldnt have a right to own an RPG.



is an RPG an arm? or is it ordnance?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:59:44 AM EDT
How can public safety and personal rights coexist?

Having a gun handy IS safety.
But if it came down to it, I'd take liberty over safety any day.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:01:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 11:02:15 AM EDT by bullyforyou]


absolutely it is. just reat the 2nd. if you aren't convinced, take a look at what the framers had to say about it and you will be.

as for the second part, it's kind of moot.

the greatest moments of civil unrest and breakdown of "public safety" were not caused by guns. they were caused by religious zealots (911 attacks), people who are sick in the head but really good at public speaking (hitler), or both (imams and various other radical religious leaders).

so i guess for me, a more reasonable question would be, if free speech and free religion are so much more dangerous than the right to bear arms, why is it we go after guns instead? also, since we KNOW that there are nuts out there like this, why would we not ensure everyone has the means to protect themselves from these people?


Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:09:14 AM EDT
I'll take "Obvious Answers" for $100, Alex...

That being said, I'd have to admit that preventing former felons from owning guns doesn't hold water either (Yes, dammit...I'm retired LEO) But in support of that argument, none of the other items enumerated in the Bill of Rights are withheld from former convicts...

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
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.


Amendment II

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. Not considered for the purposes of this discussion.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

None of the other Rights are withheld from ex-cons...

What say you?

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:15:25 AM EDT
All gun control is bullshit. If convicts getting weapons are such a problem, lock them up longer or execute them faster.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:18:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
The majority of gun control? Yes definately, however there are some restrictions on the first amendment, like yelling fire in a movie. A violent felon probably shouldnt have a right to own an RPG.



is an RPG an arm? or is it ordnance?



It's considered a DD by BATFE, ya got the cash and somone has one that they are selling and it's properly documented and tax paid, you could buy it from them. Same with tank guns. You got the cash you can buy it legaly. It's just a question of someone having one to sell/willing to sell it
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:24:56 AM EDT
5 page pissing contest guaranteed. Dolomite was right. At this rate the only way we would have a truly open arms market in the U.S. is for the Supreme Court to overturn all Gun Control. Not going to happen.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:32:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 11:47:17 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

violation
noun
1. An act or instance of breaking a law or regulation or of nonfulfillment of an obligation or promise, for example: breach, contravention, infraction, infringement, transgression, trespass.
2. An act of disrespect or impiety toward something regarded as sacred: blasphemy, desecration, profanation, sacrilege.


1. Since Interstate commerce laws are the source of power for Federal Gun Control laws - No.

If the FedGov banned (via the Interstate Commerce Clause) the sale of all books, magazines and newspapers that cross state lines including those produced with materials that cross state lines or those that could potentially affect interstate sales of other printed materials - would that violate the 1st Amendment?

Of course it would.

The fact that Federal gun-control is done under the guise of the IC clause does not negate the fact that Federal gun-control laws still violate the 2nd Amendment.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:44:24 AM EDT
Gun control is a violation of my civil rights.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:54:29 AM EDT
I always like the typewriter argument. It relates directly to freedom of speech. If you had a right to free speech and no right to use/own a typewriter, or other communication device it would be extremely diminished. No, this doesn't mean you can slander or libel and no it doesn't guarantee you a column in a newspaper, a show on radio or the right to use a bullhorn anywhere you want.

A firearm relates directly and obviously to your right to keep and bear arms as well as your inherent right to self-protection.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:20:00 PM EDT
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:25:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

violation
noun
1. An act or instance of breaking a law or regulation or of nonfulfillment of an obligation or promise, for example: breach, contravention, infraction, infringement, transgression, trespass.
2. An act of disrespect or impiety toward something regarded as sacred: blasphemy, desecration, profanation, sacrilege.


1. Since Interstate commerce laws are the source of power for Federal Gun Control laws - No.

If the FedGov banned (via the Interstate Commerce Clause) the sale of all books, magazines and newspapers that cross state lines including those produced with materials that cross state lines or those that could potentially affect interstate sales of other printed materials - would that violate the 1st Amendment?

Of course it would.

The fact that Federal gun-control is done under the guise of the IC clause does not negate the fact that Federal gun-control laws still violate the 2nd Amendment.



That wouldn't violate the first amendment.
We could still say what we wanted. On a side note, prohibiting the sale of any arm to a any person by the government is a violation of our right to own and bear arms.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:42:47 PM EDT
Is gun control a violation of the Bill of Rights?


Yes, all gun control is a violation of the Bill of Rights. It reduces Freedom. It does not improve anyone's safety, except for dictators and other criminals.


How can public safety and personal rights coexist?


I don't care about public safety. It is not my problem, not my responsibility. I care about MY safety, the safety of MY family. I can't take care of my safety unarmed. If you try to disarm me, you are attempting to do me and mine harm.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:44:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 12:48:09 PM EDT by A_Free_Man]
Sorry, double post... bad connection.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:45:30 PM EDT
Its a balance of the two.........
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:50:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:27:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

violation
noun
1. An act or instance of breaking a law or regulation or of nonfulfillment of an obligation or promise, for example: breach, contravention, infraction, infringement, transgression, trespass.
2. An act of disrespect or impiety toward something regarded as sacred: blasphemy, desecration, profanation, sacrilege.


1. Since Interstate commerce laws are the source of power for Federal Gun Control laws - No.

2. Taking into consideration the distrust most of the Founding Fathers had for a standing Army - Yes.



As to point number 1, wouldn't the fact that the second amendment was enacted after the interstate commerce (I think, or was it part of a later amendment? I haven't read through the Constitution lately) clause supercede the governments authority over the weapons trade if it involves an infringement upon the people's ability to keep and bear them?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:34:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



Wrong. It says clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", not "the right of the people to keep and bear government approved arms of the 18th century, shall not be infringed." The simple fact that the types of arms are not specified is what should allow citizens to keep and bear an M1A1 abrams if they feel like it, and of course, can afford it.

At the time of the second amendment's enaction a Cannon was about as powerful weapon you could have, and they were permitted to be in civilian hands. The lack of logic used in the above argument should be readily apparent after a reading of the constitution and particularly the second amendment. The writings of the founders also very clearly spell out their intentions.

Most states also have parallel amendments to their state constitutions that prevent gun control, however, like the federal constitution they are mostly ignored.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:45:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



www.sydes.net/jokes/pictures/s/shut_the_fuck_up.jpg



+1

You are a moron and don't understand the bill of rights/constitution. It says the right to bare arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. This right supercedes states rights. All rights not mentioned are left to the states, but this is specifically mentioned and spelled out. It is an inalienable right that no state or federal government agency is supposed to be able to take from you.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:54:21 PM EDT
I think you folks who insist that there can be no limitations on firearms are a little unrealistic.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:01:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
All gun control is bullshit. If convicts getting weapons are such a problem, lock
them up longer or execute them faster.



That's what I'm thinking. When criminals have served their time and completed probation; all rights should be restored including voting and guns. If you can't trust them don't let 'em goto start with.

Regards,
Mild Bill
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:04:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mildbill39:

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
All gun control is bullshit. If convicts getting weapons are such a problem, lock
them up longer or execute them faster.



That's what I'm thinking. When criminals have served their time and completed probation; all rights should be restored including voting and guns. If you can't trust them don't let 'em goto start with.

Regards,
Mild Bill



+1

This wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't have so many people locked up on bullshit violations like pot usage and what not.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:06:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
I think you folks who insist that there can be no limitations on firearms are a little unrealistic.



Perhaps we would be unrealistic to think that short of a revolution, we will ever get our rights back, but it is perfectly realistic to support the second amendment as it was intended.

the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed. It doesn't say that a little infringement here and there for the "safety" of the people is OK, it says very clearly that the RIGHT (something that the founding fathers believed could not/should not ever be taken away) shal not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear indication that no limitations on arms was the intention of the founding fathers, so if it is unrealistic for us to believe that there should be no restrictions on arms, the founding fathers were just as (if not more so) unrealistic as we are.

(my own emphasis added)
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:13:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



Wrong. It says clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", not "the right of the people to keep and bear government approved arms of the 18th century, shall not be infringed." The simple fact that the types of arms are not specified is what should allow citizens to keep and bear an M1A1 abrams if they feel like it, and of course, can afford it.

At the time of the second amendment's enaction a Cannon was about as powerful weapon you could have, and they were permitted to be in civilian hands. The lack of logic used in the above argument should be readily apparent after a reading of the constitution and particularly the second amendment. The writings of the founders also very clearly spell out their intentions.

Most states also have parallel amendments to their state constitutions that prevent gun control, however, like the federal constitution they are mostly ignored.



People could own military hardware at the time. But in the language of the time, there was a clear distinction between arms and ordnance; and the Constitution only specifies the former. Arms are weapons carried by the individual, ordnance equated to crew-served heavy weapons.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:14:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GreyHat:

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



Wrong. It says clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", not "the right of the people to keep and bear government approved arms of the 18th century, shall not be infringed." The simple fact that the types of arms are not specified is what should allow citizens to keep and bear an M1A1 abrams if they feel like it, and of course, can afford it.

At the time of the second amendment's enaction a Cannon was about as powerful weapon you could have, and they were permitted to be in civilian hands. The lack of logic used in the above argument should be readily apparent after a reading of the constitution and particularly the second amendment. The writings of the founders also very clearly spell out their intentions.

Most states also have parallel amendments to their state constitutions that prevent gun control, however, like the federal constitution they are mostly ignored.



People could own military hardware at the time. But in the language of the time, there was a clear distinction between arms and ordnance; and the Constitution only specifies the former. Arms are weapons carried by the individual, ordnance equated to crew-served heavy weapons.



Either way, my point on firearms remains valid
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:18:43 PM EDT
Most of the arms that are now restricted were once legally owned and in widespread use by the American people. The majority should not be held accountable for the actions of a few.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:19:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
Most of the arms that are now restricted were once legally owned and in widespread use by the American people. The majority should not be held accountable for the actions of a few.



+1
Ding Ding! We have a winner!
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:24:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



I think the word infringed comes into play When attempting to regulate firearms or their keepers.

The tests for gun laws should be that first of all it does not infringe on the right and secondly it must be proven that the restriction will actually have a net benefit for society. Not many gun laws that we have can meet these standards as most are useless and restrict the right unduly.

An honest interpetation of the whole Constitution would prevent all Federal restrictiions and most state and local ones.
I would add however; The Constitution of the United States of America has little to do with the government the polititians have spent the last 225 years building for themselves.

Regards,
Mild Bill
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:32:46 PM EDT


People could own military hardware at the time. But in the language of the time, there was a clear distinction between arms and ordnance; and the Constitution only specifies the former. Arms are weapons carried by the individual, ordnance equated to crew-served heavy weapons.



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:36:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 2:37:51 PM EDT by glock23carry]
SkycatII is correct. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with Arms, or weapons. Knives, swords, rifles, pistols, cannon, whatever. The Founding Fathers saw no need to restrict the weapons of the population, as the government was for, by and of the people.

It's clear to anyone who spends a second thinking about it.

G
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:48:05 PM EDT
The answer to this is so obvious that I am tired of arguing it with people. If people refuse to fucking read English then no amount of logic and reason is going to appeal to them. They "believe" either what they want the truth to be, or they believe what others have told them to believe because they are too mentally lazy to engage in any thought. Either way, they are either morally questionable or just plain stupid. I'd rather spend my time loading mags for when the day comes that we will have to show them what the 2nd is all about.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:48:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



www.sydes.net/jokes/pictures/s/shut_the_fuck_up.jpg



+1

You are a moron and don't understand the bill of rights/constitution. It says the right to bare arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. This right supercedes states rights. All rights not mentioned are left to the states, but this is specifically mentioned and spelled out. It is an inalienable right that no state or federal government agency is supposed to be able to take from you.



The legal argument is that since the 2nd Amend. has not been incorporated under the 14th Amend., it does not resrtict the States from infringing. This has been the main problem with getting the Supreme Court to support the right against State laws.

And why has it never been incorporated? The Supreme Court says they haven't therefore it isn't. Something really stinks there. The "Elites" of all stripes just don't want the masses to be armed.

Regards,
Mild Bill
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:49:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 2:52:24 PM EDT by Mattl]
Noteworthy link added should you want to stop the pissing contest and focus efforts in a positive direction
HR 1703

HR800 / S397 will come up soon in the house we should try and get at least part of HR1703 added to it

Hit the link and give your thoughts.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:49:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
I think you folks who insist that there can be no limitations on firearms are a little unrealistic.



And those of you who are willing to accept limitations are the enablers of gun control.

When the Sarah Brady's of the world, and the Ted Kennedy's of the world are fighting for absolute gun control, the only way to keep the balance in the middle is to fight for absolute gun freedom.

Otherwise, any and all compromises will eventually slide towards the side of control. And you will have no one left to blame other than yourself.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:49:48 PM EDT
Personally, where I'd draw the line would be Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. I know this will sound like Feinstein, but these are devestating weapons that one person could use to inflict massive casualties against a civilian population and would just be too easy for a terrorist to use.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:46:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 3:48:22 PM EDT by Kacer]

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



No offense intended... but.....

arms

• plural noun 1 guns and other weapons. ]

WTF is "vague" about THAT???

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms guns and other weapons, shall not be infringed.



Originally Posted By tc556guy:
I think you folks who insist that there can be no limitations on firearms are a little unrealistic.



Well, I'd agree that nuclear bombs are a ... but ... umm.... that's about all that comes to mind. And, given appropriate "restrictions"... I might even be open to that... but probably not. But a J-Dam? You betcha!


Originally Posted By mildbill39:

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
All gun control is bullshit. If convicts getting weapons are such a problem, lock
them up longer or execute them faster.



That's what I'm thinking. When criminals have served their time and completed probation; all rights should be restored including voting and guns. If you can't trust them don't let 'em goto start with.

Regards,
Mild Bill



I'd have to agree. In fact - former criiminals, IMO, need effective arms more, reallyy, than MOST of us do, as they tend to be aquainted w/more unsavory sorts than your average "Joe".


Originally Posted By GreyHat:
People could own military hardware at the time. But in the language of the time, there was a clear distinction between arms and ordnance; and the Constitution only specifies the former. Arms are weapons carried by the individual, ordnance equated to crew-served heavy weapons.



So, then you DO or do NOT believe that one should be UNRESTRICTED to the purchase of say - an M-16? Grenades? Shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missles? Sounds like you're NOT, but I'm thinking you ARE.

Just FYI, I'm NOT.


Originally Posted By Sully0812:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
I think you folks who insist that there can be no limitations on firearms are a little unrealistic.



And those of you who are willing to accept limitations are the enablers of gun control.

When the Sarah Brady's of the world, and the Ted Kennedy's of the world are fighting for absolute gun control, the only way to keep the balance in the middle is to fight for absolute gun freedom.

Otherwise, any and all compromises will eventually slide towards the side of control. And you will have no one left to blame other than yourself.



Amen! The "hunters and sportsmen" are against us w/the "evil black rifles" why? They do not want ALL gun owners to be percieved as "crazy"... BUT! The answer isn't to ostracise US, the answer is to change the "general Public's view of the black rifle. NO "gun control" (aside from hitting what you're shooting at) is the REAL answer.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 4:06:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 4:11:39 PM EDT by EternalVigilance]

Originally Posted By Alien:
Personally, where I'd draw the line would be Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. I know this will sound like Feinstein, but these are devestating weapons that one person could use to inflict massive casualties against a civilian population and would just be too easy for a terrorist to use.





And if the courts would interpret the Constitution the way it was intended there would be no problem with drawing that line, as the purpose of the second amendment has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. You cannot use these weapons either for self-defense, home defense, or resistance against tyranny. The purpose of these weapons is to kill civilians.



ETA:

here is an area where it would be very easy for the government to amend the US Constitution. Make an amendment saying these weapons (and only these types of weapons) are an exception, and it would have no problem being passed. The problem with libtards and sometimes conservatives is that instead of proposing legitimate amendments that should be made to the constitution, they argue that the whole constitution should just be ignored because of problematic things like this. That is what the amendment process is for, it is difficult, but obviously something like that would breeze right on through.



ETA again:

Another thing that pisses me off is the war on drugs and federal involvement with it. I think certain drugs should be dealt with by the federal government but not at the expense of the US Constitution. Doing it under the guise of "innerstate commerce" is obviously total bullshit, as it often has nothing to do with that. What I wish they would do, in order to respect our Constitution, is pass a damn amendment allowing them to do so. They did it with prohibition, somebody please explain to me what the fuck has changed that caused them to do it back then but now they don't need to???? WTF???

I know whats changed. The Constitution has many many enemies these days.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:16:25 PM EDT
Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>


Main Entry: en·croach
Pronunciation: in-'krOch, en-
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English encrochen to get, seize, from Middle French encrochier, from Old French, from en- + croc, croche hook -- more at CROCHET
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another


Every gun law that has been enacted in the US is a small step towards their ultimate goal of breaking the Right.

The gun grabbers admit that this is their goal.

The oath of office that our Senators and Represntatives take upon entering office is to "support and defend the constitution". Any activity they engage in to infringe our rights is in direct conflict with their oaths of office.
IMO they should be removed from office and charged with conspiracy.

www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:44:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
I think you folks who insist that there can be no limitations on firearms are a little unrealistic.



That sickens me.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed"

Unfortunately, there are a lot of restictions and limitations directly because of people like yourself, thanks.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:50:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrMurphy:
Ok heres where it gets sticky and how gun control can exist. The Bill of Rights is vague. You're guarenteed the Right to Bear Arms but you're NOT guarenteed the right to any and all arms possible. Remember when the document was written there were cannons, and muzzle loading rifles, and flint lock pistols. Also with the rights of the staes to govern themsleves is exactly how NJ and California and other no load, dickless states can ban certain firearms from being used by residents of those states.



By that argument, you would allow restrictions on computers and the internet since the founding fathers never could have envisioned such contraptions when writing the 1st amendment!
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:51:07 PM EDT
US v Cruikshank identified the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. It also ruled that that right preexisted the federal constitution and was not dependent on it for its existance.


Even if the second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals, the ninth certainly does.

So yes, gun control abridges your reserved right to own guns. The ninth amendment reserves that right to the people and until the people amend the constitution of the United States to give it the power to control gun ownership, any federal laws which do so are unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:10:35 PM EDT
In the 2nd ammendment, when it states "arms" that is reffering to anything that is portable by one man onto the field of battle. So yes, that does mean you can't have an M1A1. When the BOA was ratified and excepted by the colonies, a cannon was considered a field piece, an ordnance not an arm.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:25:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 6:37:07 PM EDT by jimtash9]
As long as we, yes we allow our rights to be infringed then we have no one else to blame and every gun law and ban passed is an infringement on our rights, period. For instance, following something as absurd as the parts count on an AK build is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of because all it does is empower the BATFE to pass even more retarded laws. People that followed the law and did the parts count ended up with yet another ban that is nothing more than another attempt to stifle any and all builds. The other bans out there are just as equally stupid and are only meant to gradually take out right away, one type or style of firearm at a time. So unless we stand up in mass and literally just start openly defying the un-Constitutional laws that are passed, the day will come when will be regulated out of exsistance.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:27:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By colesteele:
In the 2nd ammendment, when it states "arms" that is reffering to anything that is portable by one man onto the field of battle. So yes, that does mean you can't have an M1A1. When the BOA was ratified and excepted by the colonies, a cannon was considered a field piece, an ordnance not an arm.



Not that I think you are wrong, but I would prefer that when you offer a "fact" you show proof. When you offer an opinion, anything goes.

Please provide references, etc.

G
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:53:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By colesteele:
In the 2nd ammendment, when it states "arms" that is reffering to anything that is portable by one man onto the field of battle. So yes, that does mean you can't have an M1A1. When the BOA was ratified and excepted by the colonies, a cannon was considered a field piece, an ordnance not an arm.



Could you point me to where you came to this marvelous conclusion of yours? You certainly didn't just make that up, or just take the word of someone else did you? I would imagine there would be something written somewhere that confirms this. Just knowing that the existance of privateers who had their own private cannons on their ships durring the war of 1812 would seem to go against this. hinking.gif
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:28:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By clement:

Originally Posted By colesteele:
In the 2nd ammendment, when it states "arms" that is reffering to anything that is portable by one man onto the field of battle. So yes, that does mean you can't have an M1A1. When the BOA was ratified and excepted by the colonies, a cannon was considered a field piece, an ordnance not an arm.



Could you point me to where you came to this marvelous conclusion of yours? You certainly didn't just make that up, or just take the word of someone else did you? I would imagine there would be something written somewhere that confirms this. Just knowing that the existance of privateers who had their own private cannons on their ships durring the war of 1812 would seem to go against this.



And I believe that the Supreme Court upheld a citizen's right to own a cannon based upon the 2nd Amendment, although I'm not sure when or what case it was. It was certainly before 1934 though
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:15:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2005 7:08:33 AM EDT by M4-CQBR]

Originally Posted By Alien:

+1

You are a moron and don't understand the bill of rights/constitution. It says the right to bare arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. This right supercedes states rights. All rights not mentioned are left to the states, but this is specifically mentioned and spelled out. It is an inalienable right that no state or federal government agency is supposed to be able to take from you.






When did it become acceptable to us, (the general public), that our lawyers, judges, mayors, governors, congress men & women, etc. etc. etc. Even the President. . . take an oath with one hand on a bible, swearing to God, that they will (above & beyond anything else), protect & uphold the U.S. Constitution. Only to turn around & act like they never said those words... bringing before congress, these unconstitutional laws, limiting our right to keep & bear arms... these actions clearly do not protect & uphold the U.S. Constitution, but violate it, and yet we accept it, because they took the oath. They slip these bills through, over & over again, without the knowledge of the public half of the time, making laws upon laws to fix this and fix that. All Gun Control laws are clearly violating the 2nd Amendment, yet we ignore this fact & no one says or does anything about it... To me this is not ok. Especially when all this is done under the pretext that the Constitution is a sacred document that is upheld by our country, one which guarantees all our freedoms; It does not guarantee the freedoms of any person holding a political office to lie & change it's meaning every few years.

M4-CQBR
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:28:03 PM EDT
So those oppposed to any regulation believe that violent felons should be allowed to bear arms? How about people with various mental illnesses?

Be reasonable. For the sake of a functioning society, there are limits on all freedoms. Don't believe me? Stand up on a plane and exercise your 1st Amendment right to free speech and announce that you have a bomb. Or start a religion based on the sacred principle of selling crack to kids, and see how long you'll be around.

The same principle applies to the 2nd Amendment. Certainly, I believe that right now we have too many restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights; but that does not mean that I think every single firearms-related law or regulation should be swept away.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top