U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 03-26-2009, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
2,290 posts, read 4,950,201 times
Reputation: 784

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2 View Post
What do you consider to be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms?

GL2
Lawfully refusing to allow a convicted felon to purchase, own or possess a firearm. Or lawfully dispossessing said person of same.

Lawfully refusing to allow a mentally defective person to purchase, own or possess a firearm. Or dispossessing said person of same.

Lawfully refusing to allow a non-regulated entity to purchase, own or possess a flamethrower, RPG, Scud Missile, or other WMD. Or dispossessing said person of same.

In other words, it is technically legal to infringe on the RTKBA.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2009, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,638,476 times
Reputation: 35876
It means the government shall not interfere with the right of the citizenry to collectively defend itself with an armed militia, independent of the US military, provided that militia meets certain orderly criteria of being reasonably well-regulated; i.e., the militia enjoys its own chain of command. A civilian has a right to bear arms, just as a soldier does, subject to the same regulatory constraints and responsibilities that would apply to a soldier bearing arms.. What else could it possibly mean?

Last edited by jtur88; 03-26-2009 at 09:37 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 7,000,574 times
Reputation: 6603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
Isn't it peculiar that the people who make the most noise about the Second Amendment never bring up that phrase about the "well regulated militia," which seems to indicate that the Framers believed a formal military presence throughout the country would be necessary, as opposed to individual citizens running around yelling about their "right" to bear arms.
************************************************** *******
Well Fred324,
You would have to include the Supreme Court of the United States as part of the group making noise about the "individual" right to keep and bear arms. That is what the Heller decision was all about. (5 to 4)

GL2
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 7,000,574 times
Reputation: 6603
Steve Bagu,
"There was a song (can't remember the title) words were "surry with the fringe on top"."
************************************************** ***

I think you are referring to the song from the musical OKLAHOMA by Rogers & Hammerstein IIRC.
The Surrey With The Fringe On Top"

Any of you younger folks that haven't seen or listened to the soundtrack and the movie do yourself a big favor and rent it on DVD. If you can get SOUTH PACIFIC and SOUND OF MUSIC at the same time get a big box of popcorn and snuggle up with your best girl/boy friend and have a good evening.

GL2
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 08:24 PM
 
Location: So. of Rosarito, Baja, Mexico
6,571 posts, read 17,975,799 times
Reputation: 5924
Thats right "Oklahoma" could not recall the exact musical.

Believe the "surrey" was a horse drawn buggy with a canopy over the riders that had the fringe dangeling around the top edges.

Thanx. Steve
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2009, 06:45 AM
 
Location: MS
3,972 posts, read 3,861,820 times
Reputation: 1376
Quote:
Originally Posted by backfist View Post
Lawfully refusing to allow a non-regulated entity to purchase, own or possess a flamethrower,
Check out item #7 - 7 Items You Won't Believe Are Actually Legal.

-Robert
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2009, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,090,205 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2 View Post
************************************************** *******
Well Fred324,
You would have to include the Supreme Court of the United States as part of the group making noise about the "individual" right to keep and bear arms. That is what the Heller decision was all about. (5 to 4)

GL2
The Heller decision also allowed that right to be limited to within ones home.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 7,000,574 times
Reputation: 6603
"The Heller decision also allowed that right to be limited to within ones home."
************************************************** **********
RicChurch,
If you can post that quote I would like to see it. I think you are paraphrasing the majority opinion and adding your interpretation.

GL2
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top