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.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Advertisements
Plus the Supreme Court, in the same decision, DC vs Heller, in which they ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, also stated that reasonable regulation of said right IS constitutional and that the 2nd amendment IS LIMITED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonin Scalia, favorite of the Tea Party
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See,e.g.,Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [...] Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams , 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.
It was written by Antonin Scalia, "strict constructionist", that is to say, "conservative". He was appointed by Bush 43 in the hopes that he would turn the Court to the right.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
You understand that none of that has anything to do with your rights limiting mine, don't you?
It very much does. The state is defending my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thus they have to limit your right to own a weapon.
Quote:
Are you saying that since you have a right to life and property, that nobody may possess the means to take your life or property?
I'm saying the right of other individuals to posses the means to take my life and property have to be limited because of my rights.
Quote:
I already addressed the private property issue, and I agree with it 100%. Private property owners absolutely have the right to invite or exclude whoever they wish.
Well, that's a limit on the 2nd Amendment. You're already admitting that you can't take any weapon you want to any location you want for any reason you want. ALL RIGHTS are limited by the rights of others.
In some states they require you to pass a safety course, or hunting safety test in order to purchase an firearm. I think California put this in place years ago, but maybe this should be required nationwide. There would be no registration just that one has passed a basic safety test. I'm a firearm owner I think most firearms should be legal, but having worked in a gun store a few folks that came in bought a firearm really had no idea how to safely handing it.
It's amazing to me that this qualifies as a debate. OF COURSE people should have to pass a safety course, at the bare minimum!
Well let's see, the government has an obligation to promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense and the 2nd amendment says that the militia is to be trained. All those things right there imply regulation as to who can own a weapon etc.
Then you have the fact that having a firearm makes it easier to violate my right to my life and my personal property when walking down the street. So it very much affects me. Plus many business owners do not want people on their property with a firearm.
Another silly play on words.
OK, its say "regulated" Militia, not "Regulated arms" of Militias. Civilians where the Militia. All those things there imply that a Militia has the same rights to equipment the Army has.
Then you have the fact that a firearm makes it easier to protect my life and property, and country, if needed. You also have the right not to have a firearm, if you think you will shoot yourself or others.
It's amazing to me that this qualifies as a debate. OF COURSE people should have to pass a safety course, at the bare minimum!
Nah, Oppose it. Keeps the anti-gunners busy trying to just maintain. That way they don't have time or resources to do all the stupid stuff they do. If you keep tearing the bridges they build out from under them, it keeps the stalled just putting stuff back.
It very much does. The state is defending my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thus they have to limit your right to own a weapon.
That is one of the bigger logical disconnects I've read here in a long time.
Quote:
I'm saying the right of other individuals to posses the means to take my life and property have to be limited because of my rights.
And more of the same. To restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights because of something that someone else MIGHT do is ridiculous.
To restrict my right to free speech because you might scream fire in a theater is silly. That action has a very real negative consequence, so we make that specific action illegal, rather than encroaching further on my rights.
We already have specific laws covering the possible negative actions that result from the illegal use of firearms. To make me take a test to have a gun, because I might rob or kill you, is silly, when robbing and killing you is already illegal.
Quote:
Quote:
I already addressed the private property issue, and I agree with it 100%. Private property owners absolutely have the right to invite or exclude whoever they wish.
Well, that's a limit on the 2nd Amendment. You're already admitting that you can't take any weapon you want to any location you want for any reason you want. ALL RIGHTS are limited by the rights of others.
It appears that you don't understand that the BOR is to restrict government action, not the action of regular citizens. I can absolutely restrict someone from bringing a weapon onto my property, and it isn't a 2nd amendment issue because I am not a government entity. I can restrict ANY of your rights(enumerated in the BOR) on my private property (other than limited situations on business property open to public accommodation) for any reason I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do about it. Your only remedy is to leave my property. Try having a Klan rally on my front yard, invoke your first amendment rights, and see how far that gets you.
That you don't understand this basic concept regarding the nature of the BOR calls into question everything you've posted on this topic related to the 2nd amendment.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
And more of the same. To restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights because of something that someone else MIGHT do is ridiculous.
No it isn't. We do it all the time. For example, your right to free speech doesn't mean that you can release classified information that would damage our national security. There we are trying to prevent the possibility that the enemy might use said information. Not ridiculous at all.
Quote:
To restrict my right to free speech because you might scream fire in a theater is silly. That action has a very real negative consequence, so we make that specific action illegal, rather than encroaching further on my rights.
Yeah but that's a limitation on the 1st Amendment right there. So you accept that rights are limited.
Quote:
It appears that you don't understand that the BOR is to restrict government action, not the action of regular citizens.
No, I know exactly what the intention of the BOR is. But if the government is not violating the bill of rights, they can regulate your activity.
As I posted above in the quote from Conservative Antonin Scalia, the government is not prevented from regulating the ownership of firearms by the 2nd Amendment.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Time to study up. You're already way behind.
Name a 1st world country which has no regulation on the ownership of firearms whatsoever.
Even Somalia has gun control, although for all practical purposes they don't have a government there so it is moot in their case.
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.
