U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 03-01-2018, 11:36 AM
 
Location: San Diego
4,968 posts, read 1,346,514 times
Reputation: 3551

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Try the 5th.
This is the usual rejoinder of gun-rights-haters: The 5th amendment completely cancels any possible effect the 2nd amendment would have had on government actions against people's guns.

If the 2nd had never been ratified, the govt still couldn't walk up to you and lift your gun out of its holster. Or your watch off your wrist. Or your chair out of your house. They would need to get a warrant first, for any of those items.

So the sillier of the gun-rights-haters like to pretend the 2nd makes no difference, and doesn't change a thing: All the government needs is a warrant. And even pretend that the Framers intended it that way, and deliberately passed an amendment that was completely a waste of ink and paper. Maybe they just wanted to try out a new pen or something.

The "5th amendment makes it OK for govt to take away your guns" argument is one of the more obviously fatuous pieces of wishful thinking they come up with. And that's saying a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,644 posts, read 9,000,371 times
Reputation: 5916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
This is the usual rejoinder of gun-rights-haters: The 5th amendment completely cancels any possible effect the 2nd amendment would have had on government actions against people's guns.

If the 2nd had never been ratified, the govt still couldn't walk up to you and lift your gun out of its holster. Or your watch off your wrist. Or your chair out of your house. They would need to get a warrant first, for any of those items.

So the sillier of the gun-rights-haters like to pretend the 2nd makes no difference, and doesn't change a thing. And even pretend that the Framers intended it that way, and deliberately passed an amendment that was completely a waste of ink and paper. Maybe they just wanted to try out a new pen or something.

The "5th amendment makes it OK for govt to take away your guns" argument is one of the more obviously fatuous pieces of wishful thinking they come up with. And that's saying a lot.
Sweet jesus. Pay attention. I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd. I've been on here arguing about the craziness some of these people are spouting. I am, however, also aware of the rest of the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions. So as a gun owner, an NRA member, and a huge supporter of the 2nd, I am real damn interested in due process. Why? Because right now we have a bunch of knee jerk reactionaries who are itching to take away lawful guns from law abiding citizens and without any due process whatsoever. So if you want to sound like a complete nutter, keep saying there's zero restrictions on the 2nd. If you want to ensure citizens can maintain lawful ownership of their lawful weapons, remind them again and again and again and again they can't do crap without due process. One will get them to ignore you and the other will get them to understand they have to jump through a hell of lot of hoops before they can just carte blanche take anyone's guns. You choose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:46 AM
 
Location: San Diego
4,968 posts, read 1,346,514 times
Reputation: 3551
Quote:
If the 2nd had never been ratified, the govt still couldn't walk up to you and lift your gun out of its holster. Or your watch off your wrist. Or your chair out of your house. They would need to get a warrant first, for any of those items.

So the sillier of the gun-rights-haters like to pretend the 2nd makes no difference, and doesn't change a thing: All the government needs is a warrant. And even pretend that the Framers intended it that way, and deliberately passed an amendment that was completely a waste of ink and paper. Maybe they just wanted to try out a new pen or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Sweet jesus. Pay attention. I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd. I've been on here arguing about the craziness some of these people are spouting. I am, however, also aware of the rest of the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions. So as a gun owner, an NRA member, and a huge supporter of the 2nd, I am real damn interested in due process. Why? Because right now we have a bunch of knee jerk reactionaries who are itching to take away lawful guns from law abiding citizens and without any due process whatsoever. So if you want to sound like a complete nutter, keep saying there's zero restrictions on the 2nd. If you want to ensure citizens can maintain lawful ownership of their lawful weapons, remind them again and again and again and again they can't do crap without due process. One will get them to ignore you and the other will get them to understand they have to jump through a hell of lot of hoops before they can just carte blanche take anyone's guns. You choose.
TRANSLATION: Yes, I am one of the sillier people who believe the 2nd amendment means nothing at all, and that all the govt needs to take your guns is a warrant. And that the framers wanted it that way, and simply put up the 2nd as a smokescreen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,644 posts, read 9,000,371 times
Reputation: 5916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
TRANSLATION: Yes, I am one of the sillier people who believe the 2nd amendment means nothing at all, and that all the govt needs to take your guns is a warrant. And that the framers wanted it that way, and simply put up the 2nd as a smokescreen.
Okay sure. Whatever you say. Meanwhile I'll be over here in reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
30,893 posts, read 13,400,869 times
Reputation: 21991
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Confiscation of guns without due process (hearing 30 days later is not due process) IS intrusive. It's violating someone's right - you know - that 2nd one.
Let's try to put this in a different context and leave guns out of it. In California if Police are called to a domestic violence situation and they feel there is an immediate threat that one party will be injured or killed they can have a judge immediately issue an EPO (emergency protective order) which restrains the party it is issued against from contacting or being in the vicinity of the victim for 7 calendar days. If the couple resides together and there are children, the primary caretaker of the children is usually allowed to remain in the family residence and the other party is forced to leave. I guess you could argue that is unconstitutional but if so, where are the court challenges to it? Yes one party is deprived of living in their own home for a week, but lives can be saved as a result. Would it be better for the cops to walk away and possibly get called back a few hours later to a homicide scene?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,048 posts, read 10,060,490 times
Reputation: 6966
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
Ooooh well hon, the 4th Circuit like they're the end all be all when it comes to judgements.

Wake me up when it's the actual designation ruled on by SCOTUS. Until then it's nada...
The Fourth Circuit ruling allows the states to do as they please with the weapons.

As I said, please try to follow the conversaton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,048 posts, read 10,060,490 times
Reputation: 6966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
The absurd ruling by uneducated people, ignorant on the topic, affecting Maryland law and completely disregarding the Supreme Court Heller decision?

I prefer to use actual definitions versus fictitious ones.
If you ever actually read the Heller decision, in particular Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, you would find that is plainly states that 2A is not absolute. You do not have the right to own or carry whatever weapon you choose anywhere you want. That's the RW darling who wrote that, not a Liberal judge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,048 posts, read 10,060,490 times
Reputation: 6966
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I think you are mistaken, i always thought it was effective government, not big government. Only libertarians really want that.
The libertarians I've talked with lately seem to be moving towards anarchy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,644 posts, read 9,000,371 times
Reputation: 5916
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Let's try to put this in a different context and leave guns out of it. In California if Police are called to a domestic violence situation and they feel there is an immediate threat that one party will be injured or killed they can have a judge immediately issue an EPO (emergency protective order) which restrains the party it is issued against from contacting or being in the vicinity of the victim for 7 calendar days. If the couple resides together and there are children, the primary caretaker of the children is usually allowed to remain in the family residence and the other party is forced to leave. I guess you could argue that is unconstitutional but if so, where are the court challenges to it? Yes one party is deprived of living in their own home for a week, but lives can be saved as a result. Would it be better for the cops to walk away and possibly get called back a few hours later to a homicide scene?
No, I actually do not disagree with you. The poster I was responding to proposed that the guns would be removed for 30 days without cause simply because someone called a "hotline". And then the police would have 30 days to investigate to then determine if there was a threat. That's not due process. An EPO is actually due process. Why? Because the person could actually fight against said EPO and/or get an injunction is that EPO was taken out in bad faith. I think we're talking about two different things here. I was arguing against what I thought was a terrible idea by another poster and you brought up the law in CA.

Here's my position on the 2nd and frankly any of our rights. The gov't does have the ability to restrict one's rights BUT (and this is a BIG but), there needs to be due process which means the defendant, the one getting his or hers rights restricted has the ability to fight against said restriction. In addition, the burden of proof needs to merit removing said right. Such as an immediate danger, as you noted in the EPO example above. In a perfect world, no one would ever have any rights restricted ever. But we're not in a perfect world. So, unless the gov't can show just cause, be specific and targeted, allow due process, and maintain the least restriction possible to ensure the aforementioned, they need to ensure we as citizens are afforded our full rights, including that of the 2nd amendment.

Of note, the 2nd amendment doesn't ask us to show why we need to have guns or even what types. Just like I don't need to defend why I'm voting. It's my right. The gov't has the duty to show just cause why they are restricting my rights. Because a bad person once used it is not enough. Because children died in Florida is still not enough. Because it is semi-automatic is still not enough. None of those are specific and targeted or just cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 12:44 PM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,757,137 times
Reputation: 25411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
The issue is, that isn't what due process means and that isnt how logic works. That would be akin to, but much worse than taking something from a another person's house without permission and telling them you will explain why... eventually.
I understand that you don't agree with it. But post-deprivation hearings are done in lots of situations and have been found to be provide constitutional due process.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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