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.
It's a fundamental right. Mandating training for firearms ownership or carry is no more reasonable than mandating a debate class for a public speaker.
And that's without getting into the issues of how you keep the regulation from becoming a backdoor method of prohibition. History (and present day practice) is full of cases where required courses were unavailable to the common person.
It is not a fundamental right.
Regulations for things like training become backdoors to prohibition when the people who were adamantly against the regulation refused to become part of the process in defining and establishing it. Case in point, the NRA used to be one of the foremost bodies for responsible and logical gun control in the country, now they are the opposite. Do you think better legislation for all would result from the NRA being part of the process for crafting the regulations, or just stubbornly refusing to even have the conversation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by soug
Haven't read this thread since the first page so sorry if I'm missing something, but I thought it was pretty much agreed upon that the "well regulated" term refers to training and discipline. I don't see why this phrase couldn't be used to mandate training.
Your understanding of what the Amendment actually means is correct. One could easily interpret based not only on the reading of the Amendment, but the historical context and precedent around it, that proper training was inexorably linked to the bearing of arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Because, no matter what "well regulated" refers to the first part is a preamble; it does not place any limitation on the right.
I won't rehash the same extensive historical and constitutional debate about what the Amendment means. Go back a few pages and you can read my response to your statement. If you disagree feel free to do so, but don't just express that disagremment by saying everyone else is wrong, I think this debate requires more then that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EBWick
Justice Scalia hinted that limits could be placed on types of weapons owned:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month...
...Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Interesting comment from Scalia who is generally one of the "backpocket" guys for the anti-gun regulation side. I fully believe that there is precedent to at the very least enact greater regulation and control and possibly do it at a nationwide level without destroying the right of someone to possess a firearm.
Right, that's why it was pointedly excluded from the Bill of Rights.
Quote:
Regulations for things like training become backdoors to prohibition when the people who were adamantly against the regulation refused to become part of the process in defining and establishing it. Case in point, the NRA used to be one of the foremost bodies for responsible and logical gun control in the country, now they are the opposite. Do you think better legislation for all would result from the NRA being part of the process for crafting the regulations, or just stubbornly refusing to even have the conversation?
Since gun control is like speech control -- that is, there's no good legislation on the subject -- there's no conversation to have. Having a hand in crafting the regulations for the NRA would be like newspapers having a hand in crafting censorship regulations.
Right, that's why it was pointedly excluded from the Bill of Rights.
Since gun control is like speech control -- that is, there's no good legislation on the subject -- there's no conversation to have. Having a hand in crafting the regulations for the NRA would be like newspapers having a hand in crafting censorship regulations.
We had a ban on assault weapons for 10 years. It was good legislation as was the limit on clips with lots of bullets in them. You know, common sense restrictions that most gun owners don't have a problem with. The NRA thinks the nut down the block with 500 guns preparing for some kind of armageddon is just your everyday, responsible gun owner. The NRA has a problem, 99% of Americans don't.
We had a ban on assault weapons for 10 years. It was good legislation as was the limit on clips with lots of bullets in them.
They are magazines but that's another issue.
So you think the fact that you couldn't have a bayonet lug and a stock that collapses four inches saved the world? Or a flash suppressor but a muzzle break was ok?
Care to show me a crime committed with a mounted bayonet? Do you even know that a bayonet can't be mounted on the standard 16 inch barrel of the popular M4 type. As the non-FS barrels are more accurate, what was proven there?
10 round max? As there were MILLIONS of 20 and 30 round magazines out there in the case of the AR series, anyone thinking of committing a serious crime would really be concerned about a violation of that? Nothing was proved by that legislation.
Right, that's why it was pointedly excluded from the Bill of Rights.
Again, go back several pages and read the constitutional debate over what the Amendment means. I'm not going to take the time to re-type pages and pages of discussion, quotes and sources. You are free to interpret it as you see fit, but you can't use that interpretation to support your position unless you can defend the interpretation.
Quote:
Since gun control is like speech control -- that is, there's no good legislation on the subject -- there's no conversation to have. Having a hand in crafting the regulations for the NRA would be like newspapers having a hand in crafting censorship regulations.
There's no good legislation or court precedent on speech control? It's already been mentioned by me several times. Ferber vs. New York, 1982. It's the SC case that upheld a New York State ban on child pornography and paved the way for all states to institute such laws. Do you not consider banning child pornography to be "good legislation" that places a limit on free speech?
As for the part about guns, the NRA used to be one of the foremost organizations in lobbying for sensible gun control laws. The NRA was heavily invovled in the crafting of the National Firearms Act of 1934. They represented the rights and desires of sensible/responsible gun owners while recognizing a need for legislation to help control the proliferation of certain types of weapons like Thompson Guns and BAR's, which at the time were heavily favored by criminals.
Again, go back several pages and read the constitutional debate over what the Amendment means.
How about if I read District of Columbia v. Heller instead?
Quote:
There's no good legislation or court precedent on speech control? It's already been mentioned by me several times. Ferber vs. New York, 1982. It's the SC case that upheld a New York State ban on child pornography and paved the way for all states to institute such laws. Do you not consider banning child pornography to be "good legislation" that places a limit on free speech?
I refuse to step down that slippery slope. The Ferber decision was based on the child pornography having been produced by abusing a child; it's a very narrow decision in that way, though damaging enough in the way the government abuses it. The Supreme Court has on several occasions declined to extend Ferber to cases of depictions of children where no actual children were involved. The closest equivalent for the Second Amendment would be something like a weapon made from a murder victim's body parts; it's not really relevant.
Quote:
As for the part about guns, the NRA used to be one of the foremost organizations in lobbying for sensible gun control laws.
Then they wised up.
Quote:
The NRA was heavily invovled in the crafting of the National Firearms Act of 1934. They represented the rights and desires of sensible/responsible gun owners while recognizing a need for legislation to help control the proliferation of certain types of weapons like Thompson Guns and BAR's, which at the time were heavily favored by criminals.
Right, you have NFA 1934 which requires machine guns to be registered and taxed. Then what happened? Congress passed a law in 1986 which refused new registrations of machine guns, effectively banning them for civilians. That sort of betrayal, even long in coming, is something to learn from.
So you think the fact that you couldn't have a bayonet lug and a stock that collapses four inches saved the world? Or a flash suppressor but a muzzle break was ok?
RS, why do you bother? You can't fix stupid any more than you can infuse a spine into a Jersey wussie. These sorry excuses for "men" don't have a clue about history, freedom, or what their constant howling and keening for big government to save them will actually bring about. I feel sad when I think about what these sorry excuses for humanity will do to the country that I bled for after I'm gone. They will throw away all of their freedom for an illusion of safety. If they weren't such craven cowards they might realize this.
How about if I read District of Columbia v. Heller instead?
Go ahead. Read Heller and the majority and minority opinions. Four of the nine justices interpreted the Second Amendment along the lines I exhaustively laid out earlier. The other five agreed that a total ban on a class of "common arm" was not allowed. However, all of them including Scalia believed that precedent existed for the states to enact legislation regulating arms. Heller was very narrowly defined in that way. The basic decision is that common arms cannot be outright banned, I am fine with that. However, it certainly leaves the door open to sensible regulation and control.
Quote:
I refuse to step down that slippery slope. The Ferber decision was based on the child pornography having been produced by abusing a child; it's a very narrow decision in that way, though damaging enough in the way the government abuses it. The Supreme Court has on several occasions declined to extend Ferber to cases of depictions of children where no actual children were involved. The closest equivalent for the Second Amendment would be something like a weapon made from a murder victim's body parts; it's not really relevant.
So, you think the government "abuses its power" by banning the production and distribution of child pornography? Do you think that the "Founding Fathers", whom I'm sure you love to invoke, imagined that when they wrote the guarantee for the freedom of speech that it should include the ability of perverts to produce material showing children engaged in sexual acts?
The argument and precedent is certainly relevant when you want to hide behind an idea that anything enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" is beyond the reach of regulation or common law to protect the general good of society or minority positions. Obviously, there are some things, like child pornography, that the government and people at large have decided do not deserve the protections afforded in the First Amendment. There are many other forms of speech that are also similarly censored, I picked this one because the vast majority of people would not support the idea that people have a right to do it. Again, the entire point being that just because it is an enumerated right, it does not make that right unlimited or beyond regulation.
Quote:
Then they wised up.
Right, you have NFA 1934 which requires machine guns to be registered and taxed. Then what happened? Congress passed a law in 1986 which refused new registrations of machine guns, effectively banning them for civilians. That sort of betrayal, even long in coming, is something to learn from.
Perhaps such a law creating an effective ban would not be necessary if other sensible regulations and controls were in place. We are left to have to ban the most dangerous weapons or tightly regulate their possession precisely because of the incredibly lax laws in many places regarding the purchase of firearms. Sorry, I don't recognize that anyone has the "right" to go to a store and buy a machine gun the way I can walk into a store and buy a pack of gum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFBonnett
RS, why do you bother? You can't fix stupid any more than you can infuse a spine into a Jersey wussie. These sorry excuses for "men" don't have a clue about history, freedom, or what their constant howling and keening for big government to save them will actually bring about. I feel sad when I think about what these sorry excuses for humanity will do to the country that I bled for after I'm gone. They will throw away all of their freedom for an illusion of safety. If they weren't such craven cowards they might realize this.
Strong words. Do you want to school me on "history and freedom"? What exactly did the guys at the gun club and your fourth grade teacher impart to you on those topics? I generally find the ones who are quickest to wrap themselves in the flag and invoke past military service tend to be the ones least educated on what our laws and constitution actually say. They are far too entranced with the story of America then the reality of America. Besides, isn't the "craven coward" the one that needs to hide behind his stockpile of firearms so they can "feel like a man"? People who make the kinds of statements you do are the reason I'm in favor of stricter gun regulation. I'm sure you saw the news in Colorado and uttered how, "if I was there I would've shot that SOB and this whole thing wouldn't have happened."
RS, why do you bother? You can't fix stupid any more than you can infuse a spine into a Jersey wussie. These sorry excuses for "men" don't have a clue about history, freedom, or what their constant howling and keening for big government to save them will actually bring about. I feel sad when I think about what these sorry excuses for humanity will do to the country that I bled for after I'm gone. They will throw away all of their freedom for an illusion of safety. If they weren't such craven cowards they might realize this.
You live in B.C. and you're so petrified of crime? Talk about who's scared & who isn't.
OOOH! It looks like I stepped on someones teeny liitle peeny and questioned their lack of manhood. Deal with it, Alice.
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 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.
