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.
"Making it illegal to own a gun is far different than making it illegal to run a stop sign."
You do know there are laws that make it illegal for certain people to drive a car, right? How different is this from laws intended to prevent some people from owning a gun?
I don't see automotive rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights or even horse ownership rights.
Now, individuals can be prohibited from owning guns; felons are a good example. No right is unlimited but the infringements on those rights should be as rare as possible.
I don't see automotive rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights or even horse ownership rights.
Now, individuals can be prohibited from owning guns; felons are a good example. No right is unlimited but the infringements on those rights should be as rare as possible.
HISTORY: There were no cars when the Constitution was crafted. There certainly were guns, and just about all citizens had them (white males that is). There were also slaves, despite the Constitutional premise that "all men are created equal," and there were also women, not mentioned.
If you want to look at what makes sense from a legal or social standpoint today by pretending to be a Minuteman of days gone by, your judgment will be very limited, poor and misguided, even if you might like the idea of having the right to shoot an American Indian.
Ultimately, again, I find the Constitutional arguments against gun control antiquated and distracting, though quaint. Doesn't seem to help gun folks to know they have a SCTUS to look after their Constitutional rights, and even the rest of us who are not gun slingers want those rights protected too, at least I know I do.
Gun control laws and the want of better enforcement is simply not in contradiction of our Constitution. Only laws that are unconstitutional as deemed by our legal system are prevented from becoming law, and fortunately that is not for those who want to play minutemen to decide!
This also applies to all other areas of our societal order, whether it be the right to be served in a restaurant, have access to health care, ride in the front of the bus, or take drugs -- regardless what was specifically mentioned in the Constitution or not.
No doubt our forefathers are rolling over in their graves thinking how much time they put into the Constitution that would allow us to grow and evolve as a nation, only to find such profound misunderstanding of those efforts and words as we grapple today with the world of 2015 they could have never foreseen...
"Making it illegal to own a gun is far different than making it illegal to run a stop sign."
You do know there are laws that make it illegal for certain people to drive a car, right? How different is this from laws intended to prevent some people from owning a gun?
You really shouldn't have to ask at this point. I guess this is where I stop.
HISTORY: There were no cars when the Constitution was crafted. There certainly were guns, and just about all citizens had them (white males that is). There were also slaves, despite the Constitutional premise that "all men are created equal," and there were also women, not mentioned.
There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about personal transportation, be it cars, trucks, horses, or mules. Nothing. On the other hand, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically enumerated as one of the rights which the government is not allowed to infringe upon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
If you want to look at what makes sense from a legal or social standpoint today by pretending to be a Minuteman of days gone by, your judgment will be very limited, poor and misguided, even if you might like the idea of having the right to shoot an American Indian.
Most individuals at the time the Constitution were written were uneducated. I don't see anyone wanting to emulate the Minuteman of days gone by - except the ones who refuse to educate themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
Ultimately, again, I find the Constitutional arguments against gun control antiquated and distracting, though quaint. Doesn't seem to help gun folks to know they have a SCTUS to look after their Constitutional rights, and even the rest of us who are not gun slingers want those rights protected too, at least I know I do.
You can find them distracting, antiquated, quaint, or whatever you want to find them. The fact of the matter is that our entire nation is built upon the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments. Feel free to disagree with those amendments, but bear in mind that they aren't going away without a major move upon the part of those who wish them gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
Gun control laws and the want of better enforcement is simply not in contradiction of our Constitution. Only laws that are unconstitutional as deemed by our legal system are prevented from becoming law, and fortunately that is not for those who want to play minutemen to decide!
If those gun control laws involve the prohibition of firearms from anyone who should otherwise have the right to own one, then yes, they are unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
This also applies to all other areas of our societal order, whether it be the right to be served in a restaurant, have access to health care, ride in the front of the bus, or take drugs -- regardless what was specifically mentioned in the Constitution or not.
You don't have the right to be served in a restaurant. Any restaurant can, by law, refuse to serve you. Granted, they can't do it for reasons of race, but other than that it's fair game. As a middle manager in retail, I refuse to serve customers on a regular basis due to inappropriate attire or behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
No doubt our forefathers are rolling over in their graves thinking how much time they put into the Constitution that would allow us to grow and evolve as a nation, only to find such profound misunderstanding of those efforts and words as we grapple today with the world of 2015 they could have never foreseen...
Chances are, the rolling is because of the vast infringement upon all of our rights that have happened in the past few decades. The founding fathers wrote copiously about why the 2nd Amendment, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, was written the way it was. They didn't mean it as something to be "interpreted", they meant it exactly as what it is; the nonnegotiable right to keep and bear arms for the people of the United States. They didn't say "the people can bear arms as long as the arms fit certain criteria," they didn't say "the people can bear arms but not the same arms that are available to law enforcement and the military." They protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms, period.
"Most individuals at the time the Constitution were written were uneducated. I don't see anyone wanting to emulate the Minuteman of days gone by - except the ones who refuse to educate themselves."
Seems you haven't read much of this thread, but in any case you miss my point. The Constitution was an amazing piece of work, enduring for a lot of very impressive reasons, but there are far too many people today who fancy themselves as Constitutional scholars and protectors of the Constitution that actually are nothing of the sort.
Sure guns are specifically referenced in the Second Amendment, and for good reason, but IMHO it was not to keep us from legislation that might help to protect us from the wrongful use of guns. To simply keep throwing the Constitution in the face of everyone who utters gun control is not only small-minded, but it is offensive to those of us who have equally strong feelings about upholding the Constitution.
It is a challenge for me most of the time, rather than attempt reason or logic, to simply ask who the Hell these people think they are...
Oh for the love of the ridiculous, have mercy! You too and another strawman argument!?!
I do NOT disagree with our Constitution (except the parts that needed to be changed about slaves and such).
Really, who do you think you are to suggest this even in the face of all I have explained here?
Want to be treated in the same way? Feel free to misrepresent the truths of these matters as best you can, but falsehoods won't serve you or your guns well.
I am having trouble following what it is you are advocating for or against...could you please be specific as to what your views are for or against, to what level etc
so we as debaters can understand what we are actually debating
my view:
1. every person 'within reason' has a right to own a weapon if they chose
2. the exceptions would be: convicted felons....people who far under the launtenberg act (domestic issues)......people deamed 'not fit for society in their mental state'...ie people who should be instutitionalize....
3. I have no issues with background checks
4. I have no issues with a small waiting period for those background checks
5. I dont agree with the 'assault weapon' ban, especially since it is a bunch of bull
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.
Got context?
