Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-02-2014, 08:54 PM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,563 posts, read 4,240,817 times
Reputation: 2127

Advertisements

Still nothing. How interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
AAAAANNNNND…. still no takers on showing me where in the Constitution it specifies where gun owners must be allowed to bear arms. Everywhere? Anywhere they want? Where does it say????

Even though I've asked repeatedly.

Why is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2014, 10:08 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,741,552 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
Still nothing. How interesting.
When you ask a question that shows you know nothing (or are avoiding learning) about the Constitution, nobody wants to bother with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 10:11 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,741,552 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Of course.

The question is, who should decide what those restrictions are?

The Framers knew, and warned repeatedly, of the great dangers of letting government have ANY say in who could own and carry a gun, and where. Particularly since they had just fought a major war against a government that had used such powers to try to disarm them again and again. The first shots of the war, fired at Concord and Lexington in Massachusetts, were fired when British troops tried to confiscate the Americans' guns and powder.

So they wrote a flat ban against government having ANY voice in the decision of who can carry and gun and who can't. And they left a loophole, where a group COULD make that decision and enforce it... but it wasn't a government group.

I gave the example of a guy who goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun, and blows away half a dozen people. The cops arrive, and one of them says to him, "Give me your gun right now." The murderer says, "The 2nd amendment says no government person can take away anyone's gun, so you can't make me give you mine."

Whereupon the cop cracks him over the head with his billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

Later the murderer sues the cop on grounds that the cop violated his 2nd amendment rights, and the case goes before a jury of the cop's peers. And despite the clear command of the 2nd, no jury in the world would find the cop "guilty" in this case, and the cop walks, for obvious reasons. It's called "jury nullification", the decision that the law should not apply in this case, and it is theirs to make. And it is irrevocable - NO ONE can overrule the jury who decides that.

What's the difference between the jury ruling that, and the government making a law saying murderers can't have guns?

The jury is not part of the government, owes it nothing, and has reason to not be loyal to it. And as long as a jury is the ONLY body that has the power to overrule the 2nd amendment's flat prohibition, then it can make "reasonable restrictions" (like that one) on a case-by-case basis.... and government remains 100% prohibited from having ANY say in who can carry a gun and who can't. Even in obvious cases like that one.

And it was vitally important to the Framers, that government be 100% prohibited from having any say in who could carry a gun and who couldn't... while a non-govt body still COULD make "reasonable restrictions", via jury nullification.

People here have said that it's not a bad idea to have "reasonable restrictions" on who can own and carry a gun. And I agree.

But when they give government the power to make those restrictions, no matter how "reasonable", that's where they flatly violate the Constitution. And no, the Framers did NOT intend for them to do that. They wrote the 2nd with a 100% ban, to make sure that government couldn't... and gave that power instead to juries of your peers. But it has to be done on a case-by-case basis... because to do it any other way, creates far more harm than good.
One of the problems with leaving things up to a jury is that by definition they only act after the fact.
True.

But one of the advantages of having a jury as sole repository of the power to decide who can carry a gun and who can't, is that it completely locks out the government from having any voice in the decision.

The advantage FAR outweighs the disadvantage.

Which probably contributes to the reason the Framers made that method, the Supreme Law of the Land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 12:02 PM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,563 posts, read 4,240,817 times
Reputation: 2127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
When you ask a question that shows you know nothing (or are avoiding learning) about the Constitution, nobody wants to bother with you.
As I thought. You guys just made up the part where the Constitution allows you to be armed everywhere you go, so you got nuthin' to back it up.

I had to ask, what, 6 times, just to force you to evade the question?

LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 01:18 PM
 
31,993 posts, read 36,525,834 times
Reputation: 13254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
True.

But one of the advantages of having a jury as sole repository of the power to decide who can carry a gun and who can't, is that it completely locks out the government from having any voice in the decision.

The advantage FAR outweighs the disadvantage.

Which probably contributes to the reason the Framers made that method, the Supreme Law of the Land.
The "after the fact" problem is only one of the limitations on leaving such matters up to a jury.

Another is the fact that juries are often wrong -- consider, for example, the juries that acquitted O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Lorena Bobbitt, Casey Anthony, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,964,646 times
Reputation: 6189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
As I thought. You guys just made up the part where the Constitution allows you to be armed everywhere you go, so you got nuthin' to back it up.

I had to ask, what, 6 times, just to force you to evade the question?

LOL.
Do you think the Constitution enumerates your rights or tells the government what it cannot do? Lots of people see the purpose of the Constitution differently. I think the OP is saying "shall not be infringed" does not include any exceptions (e.g. can or cannot carry in specific places). While SCOTUS has determined some restrictions, a strict Constitutionalist would not agree with those restrictions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:38 PM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,563 posts, read 4,240,817 times
Reputation: 2127
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Do you think the Constitution enumerates your rights or tells the government what it cannot do? Lots of people see the purpose of the Constitution differently. I think the OP is saying "shall not be infringed" does not include any exceptions (e.g. can or cannot carry in specific places). While SCOTUS has determined some restrictions, a strict Constitutionalist would not agree with those restrictions.
Well, a personal interpretation of the Constitution is one thing … insults and condescension, accompanied by absolute certainty that a poster can't possibly be wrong and all others are morons, in support of that personal interpretation, is another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:39 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,439,974 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
The point of the thread is, of course, that banning a law-abiding citizen from carrying a gun in a Federal building, is constitutionally no different from telling a black person he can't go into the Federal building because he is black.

The Constitution forbids either act, to an equal degree, and with equal force of law.

So why are liberals fine with one act and not fine with the other?
Because there is a certain segment of liberals that don't actually care about the constitution. They decide what's good and bad first. Then, if the constitution happens to support what they like, they will point to the constitution. If the constitution doesn't support what they like, they will ignore it. It is a "living document", ie "only applies when we want it to"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 05:13 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,338,463 times
Reputation: 18520
How did the Constitution change in 1814, concerning arms?
How did the Constitution change in 1914, concerning arms?
How did the Constitution change in 2014, concerning arms?


I don't see the amendment anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 05:43 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,741,552 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
The "after the fact" problem is only one of the limitations on leaving such matters up to a jury.

Another is the fact that juries are often wrong -- consider, for example, the juries that acquitted O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Lorena Bobbitt, Casey Anthony, etc.
And this is different from any other group (such as lawmakers)....how?

BTW, you left out the other 342,453,237 juries that returned correct verdicts. I always get a kick out of these "Effen it ain't perfect then it ain't shiite" troglodytes, who then turn around and announce that government (which is far less perfect than the group they are opposing) is the group that should make the decisions.

Again, the fact that a jury is NOT part of government and owes it no loyalty, but is instead concerned with the safety and well-being of regular people like itself, makes it by far the best group to decide whether someone should be punished for a putative violation of the 2nd amendment's flat ban on government having anything to do with deciding who can own and carry, and who can't.

By the same standard, government is about the worst possible group to make such decisions... which is why the Framers make the 2nd as absolute as they did.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top