txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Now THAT is being consitent. Now we have a basis for a conversation.
Who's Right?
- Thread starter MR Redneck
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Now THAT is being consitent. Now we have a basis for a conversation.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Fair point; however, the point remains that the right to free speech does not include a limit on how it effect others. The same is true ot of the 2nd. But we all KNOW that some sort of restriction is necessary.
Ok Students. Listen up
In spite of all the discussion here, gun legislation has been in respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as efforts to substantially curtail ownership of firearms. There has been absolutely no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.
The ''individual rights'' position protects ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' position is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.
The 2A bars federal action, and does not extend to the states. The SCOTUS has only "affirmed" individual protection only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. Allow me to repeat what the 2A says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
In other words, the states can opt for either a "liberal" or "conservative" definition of the 2A. This position by the SCOTUS is exactly why the permission OR prohibition of OC, for example, has not been challenged in the courts! The political infrastructure, not the courts, is where the fight for, or against, OC must take place.
Sidebar: Original construction by our Founding Fathers did not comprehend the evolution to hand grenades, RPGs, Cannon, or Nuclear Weapons. So using such examples is beyond the "strict constructionist" position of our Founding Fathers. So quit being ridiculous.
In spite of all the discussion here, gun legislation has been in respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as efforts to substantially curtail ownership of firearms. There has been absolutely no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.
The ''individual rights'' position protects ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' position is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.
The 2A bars federal action, and does not extend to the states. The SCOTUS has only "affirmed" individual protection only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. Allow me to repeat what the 2A says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
In other words, the states can opt for either a "liberal" or "conservative" definition of the 2A. This position by the SCOTUS is exactly why the permission OR prohibition of OC, for example, has not been challenged in the courts! The political infrastructure, not the courts, is where the fight for, or against, OC must take place.
Sidebar: Original construction by our Founding Fathers did not comprehend the evolution to hand grenades, RPGs, Cannon, or Nuclear Weapons. So using such examples is beyond the "strict constructionist" position of our Founding Fathers. So quit being ridiculous.
Does a 50 Barret classify as Anti Tank?
.50 BMG couldn't be construed as anti-tank against any tank built after about 1938. Some APCs, sure, but most of those are '60s era. So, no, not anything I would consider AT.
Just to clarify: Mags of >10 round capacity are not illegal to possess in CA. They're illegal to import, manufacture, sell or offer for sale (there are a few exceptions to each of these...). Possession isn't part of that particular ban.
My basic guiding idea on this is "would Washington be happy to see me show up in the Continental Army with this?" Nukes? Probably not, we weren't trying to wipe the Brits out, just make them leave us alone. AT-4s, Mk19s and 105mm howitzers? Most certainly.
O RLY? Argument A: In other Amendments, like the 1st, it plainly singles out the Feds ("Congress shall make no law...") Not so in the 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc. Are you saying that your local police are not restricted from torturing a confession out of you, or that the county court can force you onto the stand to bear witness against yourself? That the State of Texas can take your home without a hearing of any kind?
Argument B: 14A, 'nuff said.
No it isn't, no more than stating that using the internet constitutes free speech. The term "arms" was used vaguely on purpose. These men had actually seen some evolution in small arms and tactics, and there was a fairly wide variety of both fielded in the Revolution. Everything from pole arms and long bows to rifled flintlocks which were more advanced than anything the Brits fielded. Either they got lucky by being vague, or they did it on purpose. As smart as some of them were, I tend to lean toward "on purpose".
Also, it was pretty common for merchantmen of the day to carry some light cannon on board their ships to ward off pirates and privateers. Depredation on the sea is nothing new, and in fact is probably at a lower point now than in history. So to me, it's pretty obvious that cannon were included as "arms", since there were at the time a number of privately (probably more likely corporate) owned cannon in circulation.
To be strict constructionist you have to look at the intent of what was written. What was that intent? That we be able to defend our homes, our towns and our nation against foreign aggressors and our own government should it become poisonous to our freedom. By definition, this requires military arms of many types. More so now than then, obviously, but I don't see how the type of arms required to do so changes the intent behind this Amendment.
Either the 2A is about shooting invaders, looters and would-be dictators or it's empty words. Which is it? Is an internet conversation covered under the 1A? What about the contents of my HD under the 4th?
Fair point; however, the point remains that the right to free speech does not include a limit on how it effect others. The same is true ot of the 2nd. But we all KNOW that some sort of restriction is necessary.
I disagree. Speech and Keeping and bearing arms are not functionally equivalent. A more accurate analogy would be to say thought is to keeping and bearing arms as speech is to employing arms against others. Restrictions on thought make no more sense than restrictions on carrying weapons, but when the action intensifies to speech or actual shooting reasonable restrictions can apply.
But like I said I do agree in extreme circumstances restrictions to our right to own weapons do make sense, eg nukes.
A more interesting discussion, for me, would be to assume reasonable restrictions can apply and to discuss what those restrictions should be. What do you think?
Again Students, there has been absolutely no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The 2A bars federal action, and does not extend to the states. The SCOTUS has only "affirmed" individual protection only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. Again, allow me to repeat the words of the 2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Again, the states can opt for either a "liberal" or "conservative" definition of the 2A. This position by the SCOTUS is exactly why the permission OR prohibition of OC, for example, has not been challenged in the courts! This is exactly why some gun laws vary state to state. It is the political infrastructure, not the courts, where the fight for, or against, OC must take place.
You can have any opinion you wish, even if such an opinion is based on meager attempts to compound discussion of the 2A with other amendments.
I do strongly suggest however, based on the responses I have read, a review of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in regard to our Constitutional Convention and Bill of Rights is necessary. You may then gain a fuller understanding of "original meaning" as to our Constitution in general, and our Bill of Rights in particular.
Opinion must to Knowledge.
Im not a very good student. Never was, never will be. Im too damn independent they say.
First off, i'll listen, read, or watch anything anyone wants to put forth. Lots of times I might get enough information to further my search. Such as the stuff our police members post up. I dont agree with all of what they say, but I do believe them when they say it. The only problem is I dont like it. So, based on what they say about laws and rights, I further my search. I dont blame the people who post stuff on here for my dislike, actually im glad they post it.
To conclude the rant part of my "opinion", i'll have to say that no matter what people say, its useful for anyone who seeks to gain knowledge.
Something I realy want people to understand is my debate against everything I oppose.
When we debate " What the 2nd amendment means", I look for the origional message. I simply look for the quote archives that our founding fathers wrote! Those are the only definitions that mean anything to me.
First off, i'll listen, read, or watch anything anyone wants to put forth. Lots of times I might get enough information to further my search. Such as the stuff our police members post up. I dont agree with all of what they say, but I do believe them when they say it. The only problem is I dont like it. So, based on what they say about laws and rights, I further my search. I dont blame the people who post stuff on here for my dislike, actually im glad they post it.
To conclude the rant part of my "opinion", i'll have to say that no matter what people say, its useful for anyone who seeks to gain knowledge.
Something I realy want people to understand is my debate against everything I oppose.
When we debate " What the 2nd amendment means", I look for the origional message. I simply look for the quote archives that our founding fathers wrote! Those are the only definitions that mean anything to me.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
The 2nd is not about shooting, it is about keeping and bearing. The 1st is about speech, not how it effect others. The "action" in the 2nd is keeping and bearing, not use. The "action" in the 1st is speech, in an of itself an action. Again, we have limits on both, and everyone in this thread has agreed that limits are necessary. The only remaining question is "how much"?
Like I said, we all see restrictions as necessary.
I agree that is the ONLY topic that is not a waste of time. lol
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
I take it that is from APatriot? I have him blocked. Did he really start his post with "students"?
Twice....
Have you ever met those people that are embarassing themselves and don't know it? You kind of feel bad for them but know that you really cant help them?
:sign0101:
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
I don't see how. Neither one specfically allows for restrictions. Both are about actions. Neither specifically allows that action to be be restircted, yet we all agree there must be restrictions.
"your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"
Think about this quote when considering Bithabus's argument. Speech is only restricted in instances where it can effect another person's rights. It's not possible to keep arms in a manner that would effect another person's rights. Bearing an arm at someone might effect another person's rights, but that's why we have laws against brandishing.
When someone is convicted of a crime, they have forfeited certain rights. This is not a restriction on their 2A rights, it is a forfeiture of those rights. That forfeiture of rights is part of their punishment.
As for grenades, or nukes, or whatever else... Yes, I do think people should be allowed to own whatever they want. "Arms" includes everything from pointy sticks to nukes and things that haven't even been dreamed up yet. So now you can't say everyone in this thread believes in "reasonable restrictions".
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Although that is debatable, let's assume that is true. WHere does the 1st allow for that? it does not. We, as reasonable people, decided that those restrictions are OK. It appears we all agree that certain restirctions regarding the 2nd are OK, too.
Yep, restrictions on your "right" to "bear".
Where does the 2nd say a persons rights can be forfeited? If I am convicted of a crime, pay my debt and am released, what other rights do I forfeit? Where does the bill of rights, or anywhere in the consitution, say I can have CERTAIN rights infringed?
As for grenades, or nukes, or whatever else... Yes, I do think people should be allowed to own whatever they want. "Arms" includes everything from pointy sticks to nukes and things that haven't even been dreamed up yet. So now you can't say everyone in this thread believes in "reasonable restrictions".
As I pointed out above, you have already agreed on restictions. Those convicted of a crime are one. Do you think that a 12 year old should be allowed to carry a handgun to school? How about a person who has been diagnosed with a severe mental disease?
That is where the fallacy in this thread lies. Some people want to imply that the 2nd cannot be restricted AT ALL. Then those same folks will tell you when it should be restricted. Some admit the conflict, others try to hide it by calling it something else. Like a forfeiture.
"your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"
Think about this quote when considering Bithabus's argument. Speech is only restricted in instances where it can effect another person's rights. It's not possible to keep arms in a manner that would effect another person's rights. Bearing an arm at someone might effect another person's rights, but that's why we have laws against brandishing.
When someone is convicted of a crime, they have forfeited certain rights. This is not a restriction on their 2A rights, it is a forfeiture of those rights. That forfeiture of rights is part of their punishment.
As for grenades, or nukes, or whatever else... Yes, I do think people should be allowed to own whatever they want. "Arms" includes everything from pointy sticks to nukes and things that haven't even been dreamed up yet. So now you can't say everyone in this thread believes in "reasonable restrictions".
Agree, agree, agreed! Restrictions should be applied to those who abuse their rights by committing crimes.
TXI know this, but he wont admit it. He also understands that " With a view to prevent crime" should be focused toward actually preventing crime.
He also know that restricting someone such as myself is in no way preventing crime. Disarming the honest public is a conversation he could not argue because he knows its wrong.
For some reason he wont come out and say it, but I dont think he supports restricting honest people right no more than we do.
Abusing your right is kinda like drinking beer. Enjoy it, but dont let it negatively affect others by keeping good judgement.
