Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12748#msg12748 date=1239232406
As far as gun ownership goes, there's that 2nd amendment Constitution thing, so I'm not too worried about that.
You should be. Your 2A right has already been infringed upon in the name of interstate commerce and public safety and crime prevention.
Tell me, can you conceal a handgun without a special license from your state government? Do you live in a state that allows you to open carry your loaded pistol?
If the answer is no to either question, then maybe you should be worried about that.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 18:45:27
You should be. Your 2A right has already been infringed upon in the name of interstate commerce and public safety and crime prevention.
Tell me, can you conceal a handgun without a special license from your state government? Do you live in a state that allows you to open carry your loaded pistol?
If the answer is no to either question, then maybe you should be worried about that.
I can do both, so I guess that analogy isn't effective either.
But please, point out which part of the 2nd either of those things violate?
Here it is, for your perusal.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 neither of your examples is the right to keep or bear arms prohibited. ALso, the Supreme Court recently struck down a ban in D.C., the first time the've actually ruled on a 2nd Amendment case in decades.
We can start a different thread on the 2nd or Constitutional issues if you like. I'd prefere to stick to the topic at hand.
Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12751#msg12751 date=1239240703
Quote from: _Adam_ link=topic=1253. msg12750#msg12750 date=1239234327
You should be. Your 2A right has already been infringed upon in the name of interstate commerce and public safety and crime prevention.
Tell me, can you conceal a handgun without a special license from your state government? Do you live in a state that allows you to open carry your loaded pistol?
If the answer is no to either question, then maybe you should be worried about that.
I can do both, so I guess that analogy isn't effective either.
But please, point out which part of the 2nd either of those things violate?
Here it is, for your perusal.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 neither of your examples is the right to keep or bear arms prohibited. ALso, the Supreme Court recently struck down a ban in D. C. , the first time the've actually ruled on a 2nd Amendment case in decades.
We can start a different thread on the 2nd or Constitutional issues if you like. I'd prefere to stick to the topic at hand.
No, you can't do both. You can open carry without a permit in AZ, but to conceal you need permission, which is an infringement upon your 2A rights.
I agree, we should stick to the topic at hand. . .
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 20:55:28
No, you can't do both. You can open carry without a permit in AZ, but to conceal you need permission, which is an infringement upon your 2A rights.
I agree, we should stick to the topic at hand. . .
To conceal and enter an establishment, yes you do, to carry in your pocket etc, not so much.
I think I might start another thread, because there's nothing in a concealed carry law that keeps you from owning or carrying a gun. Keep and bear arms. Nope, nothing in my state's laws infringe on that.
Griff61 suggested a new thread for 2nd Amendment. So here it goes: What is infringement of the 2nd Amendment?
"In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias. Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause. The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment's command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations. The Court did say that its decision should not "cast doubt" on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld. In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court's decision."
Is it an infringement to allow a felon to keep and bear arms? Is it an infringement to allow the mentally ill to keep and bear arms? Is an infringement to ban the ownership of grenade launchers to the civilian population?
I would hope one knows the answer to that. Since the Supreme Court has refused to announce a standard of review this for this particular amendment it will continue to come before the Supreme Court for clarification.
Meantime those states that allow concealed weapons will continue to do so. So if you are in Texas and exhibit road rage beware of the person in the next car. He/She just might pull their weapon in self defense!!!!!
Quote from: griff61 link=topic=1253. msg12755#msg12755 date=1239242825
Quote from: _Adam_ link=topic=1253. msg12753#msg12753 date=1239242128
No, you can't do both. You can open carry without a permit in AZ, but to conceal you need permission, which is an infringement upon your 2A rights.
I agree, we should stick to the topic at hand. . .
To conceal and enter an establishment, yes you do, to carry in your pocket etc, not so much.
I think I might start another thread, because there's nothing in a concealed carry law that keeps you from owning or carrying a gun. Keep and bear arms. Nope, nothing in my state's laws infringe on that.
Looks like you have been "out drawn"!
Gun discussion split from the "Universal Healthcare (http://www.pmelforum.com/index.php?topic=1253.0)" topic and merged with Winterfire2008's topic dedicated to the subject.
Quote from: Winterfire2008 on 04-08-2009 -- 21:09:19
Griff61 suggested a new thread for 2nd Amendment. So here it goes: What is infringement of the 2nd Amendment?
"In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias. Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause. The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment's command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations. The Court did say that its decision should not "cast doubt" on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld. In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court's decision."
Is it an infringement to allow a felon to keep and bear arms? Is it an infringement to allow the mentally ill to keep and bear arms? Is an infringement to ban the ownership of grenade launchers to the civilian population?
I would hope one knows the answer to that. Since the Supreme Court has refused to announce a standard of review this for this particular amendment it will continue to come before the Supreme Court for clarification.
Meantime those states that allow concealed weapons will continue to do so. So if you are in Texas and exhibit road rage beware of the person in the next car. He/She just might pull their weapon in self defense!!!!!
The question of civilians with grenade launchers, mines, grenades, nukes and the like was cleared up in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This decision was based on the National Firearms Act of 1934.
As for Texas and road rage laws. There are several states including Georgia and Florida which have adapted the same law. Basically you can fire on someone outside your car if you feel that your life is in danger. Now we must understand that one would have to prove that their life was in danger. I don't think saying that " He approached my car so he must have had intent to harm me", would stand a chance as a viable excuse.
I am a CCW permit holder and consider myself very responsible. The only infringement on the 2nd Amendment that I see is the "Assualt weapons ban." The problem with the ban is that it outlawed semi-auto rifles.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
AWB did not ban semi automatic weapons, only very specific semi automatic weapons and magazines over a certain capacity. P.S. colts fix to the AR-15 ban, change the name a little and remove the bayonet stud.
Quote from: jimmyc on 04-09-2009 -- 07:35:05
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
AWB did not ban semi automatic weapons, only very specific semi automatic weapons and magazines over a certain capacity. P.S. colts fix to the AR-15 ban, change the name a little and remove the bayonet stud.
The fact is that they banned semi automatic rifles and called them "Assualt" rifles. I can understand why its hard to own a class 3 weapon, but a semi auto AR15 is the samething with or without a pistol grip or bayonett.
Quote from: griff61 on 04-08-2009 -- 21:07:05
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 20:55:28
No, you can't do both. You can open carry without a permit in AZ, but to conceal you need permission, which is an infringement upon your 2A rights.
I agree, we should stick to the topic at hand. . .
To conceal and enter an establishment, yes you do, to carry in your pocket etc, not so much.
I think I might start another thread, because there's nothing in a concealed carry law that keeps you from owning or carrying a gun. Keep and bear arms. Nope, nothing in my state's laws infringe on that.
I promise you that if you place your pistol in your pocket, you are now concealing it in the eyes of the law. If you don't have special permission from your state/local government in the form of a CWP, you are breaking the law.
A law-abiding citizen should not need special permission to maintain the element of surprise against those who wish to do him harm. Licenses are an infringement upon your rights.
Also, 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment, so Heller means little to people in the individual states until it is incorporated.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 12:59:15
Quote from: griff61 on 04-08-2009 -- 21:07:05
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 20:55:28
No, you can't do both. You can open carry without a permit in AZ, but to conceal you need permission, which is an infringement upon your 2A rights.
I agree, we should stick to the topic at hand. . .
To conceal and enter an establishment, yes you do, to carry in your pocket etc, not so much.
I think I might start another thread, because there's nothing in a concealed carry law that keeps you from owning or carrying a gun. Keep and bear arms. Nope, nothing in my state's laws infringe on that.
I promise you that if you place your pistol in your pocket, you are now concealing it in the eyes of the law. If you don't have special permission from your state/local government in the form of a CWP, you are breaking the law.
A law-abiding citizen should not need special permission to maintain the element of surprise against those who wish to do him harm. Licenses are an infringement upon your rights.
Also, 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment, so Heller means little to people in the individual states until it is incorporated.
You are welcome to promise all you desire, hoever I am well aware of my rights. Please point out the part of the 2nd that guarantees you a right 'of surprise'.
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 13:30:04
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 12:59:15
Quote from: griff61 on 04-08-2009 -- 21:07:05
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 20:55:28
No, you can't do both. You can open carry without a permit in AZ, but to conceal you need permission, which is an infringement upon your 2A rights.
I agree, we should stick to the topic at hand. . .
To conceal and enter an establishment, yes you do, to carry in your pocket etc, not so much.
I think I might start another thread, because there's nothing in a concealed carry law that keeps you from owning or carrying a gun. Keep and bear arms. Nope, nothing in my state's laws infringe on that.
I promise you that if you place your pistol in your pocket, you are now concealing it in the eyes of the law. If you don't have special permission from your state/local government in the form of a CWP, you are breaking the law.
A law-abiding citizen should not need special permission to maintain the element of surprise against those who wish to do him harm. Licenses are an infringement upon your rights.
Also, 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment, so Heller means little to people in the individual states until it is incorporated.
You are welcome to promise all you desire, hoever I am well aware of my rights. Please point out the part of the 2nd that guarantees you a right 'of surprise'.
Obviously that is not a stated right. The 2A merely asserts that your rights are not to be infringed upon, but they have. And they will continue to do so. As long as there is registration and special licensing, your rights have been infringed upon.
ahh you gotta love Mae West "Is that a pistol in your pocket or you just glad to see me?
So the key here is that concealing the pistol is so you can surprise the criminal? I can hear the criminal now.... "Dang by concealing that gun that shot me my rights were infringed upon!!!!!!!!
I know this will just rile up the pro-gun crowd, but I'm really just curious. . .
How does an amendment that qualifies a right with: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" translate into a right for anyone to carry guns wherever you go? Who here is in a Militia? Who thinks that a Militia is still even necessary in this day and age? I'm not against gun ownership, and own a few, but I never carry one and could live without them. I really think that this amendment was meant for different times. You can spin it however you like, but the Militia was necessary at one time in our history, now it's not. (Unless maybe you're one of those that think the gov't is out to get you and take your guns away like some folks do these days. . . )
Also, talk of law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners being infringed upon. These laws aren't meant for you. It is my opinion that laws are written for the knuckle heads that would otherwise be running around wreaking havoc if they weren't there. Take for instance guys like Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded pistol in the waistband of his sweat pants. The sweet irony of his situation is that he ended up shooting himself, but it could have easily been anyone else in that club. I would prefer not to be in public with those idiots like that myself. So if a concealed weapon law makes it less likely that they will not have one tucked in their waistband, I'm all for it.
Quote from: avg_joe on 04-09-2009 -- 14:30:37
I know this will just rile up the pro-gun crowd, but I'm really just curious. . .
How does an amendment that qualifies a right with: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" translate into a right for anyone to carry guns wherever you go? Who here is in a Militia? Who thinks that a Militia is still even necessary in this day and age? I'm not against gun ownership, and own a few, but I never carry one and could live without them. I really think that this amendment was meant for different times. You can spin it however you like, but the Militia was necessary at one time in our history, now it's not. (Unless maybe you're one of those that think the gov't is out to get you and take your guns away like some folks do these days. . . )
Also, talk of law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners being infringed upon. These laws aren't meant for you. It is my opinion that laws are written for the knuckle heads that would otherwise be running around wreaking havoc if they weren't there. Take for instance guys like Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded pistol in the waistband of his sweat pants. The sweet irony of his situation is that he ended up shooting himself, but it could have easily been anyone else in that club. I would prefer not to be in public with those idiots like that myself. So if a concealed weapon law makes it less likely that they will not have one tucked in their waistband, I'm all for it.
I think that is the crux of the problem. Gun control does nothing to stop criminals. By nature, criminals don't care about the law. Gun control typically only restricts the rights of those willing to follow the letter the law in the first place. With Griff placing his pistol in his pocket he is breaking the law if he doesn't have special permission yet I'd assume that he is otherwise a law-abiding upright citizen that I would [probably] be glad to call a friend.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 13:36:31
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 13:30:04
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 12:59:15
Quote from: griff61 on 04-08-2009 -- 21:07:05
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-08-2009 -- 20:55:28
No, you can't do both. You can open carry without a permit in AZ, but to conceal you need permission, which is an infringement upon your 2A rights.
I agree, we should stick to the topic at hand. . .
To conceal and enter an establishment, yes you do, to carry in your pocket etc, not so much.
I think I might start another thread, because there's nothing in a concealed carry law that keeps you from owning or carrying a gun. Keep and bear arms. Nope, nothing in my state's laws infringe on that.
I promise you that if you place your pistol in your pocket, you are now concealing it in the eyes of the law. If you don't have special permission from your state/local government in the form of a CWP, you are breaking the law.
A law-abiding citizen should not need special permission to maintain the element of surprise against those who wish to do him harm. Licenses are an infringement upon your rights.
Also, 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment, so Heller means little to people in the individual states until it is incorporated.
You are welcome to promise all you desire, hoever I am well aware of my rights. Please point out the part of the 2nd that guarantees you a right 'of surprise'.
Obviously that is not a stated right. The 2A merely asserts that your rights are not to be infringed upon, but they have. And they will continue to do so. As long as there is registration and special licensing, your rights have been infringed upon.
Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.
Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?
Quote from: _Adam_ link=topic=1257. msg12782#msg12782 date=1239306378
Quote from: avg_joe link=topic=1257. msg12780#msg12780 date=1239305437
I know this will just rile up the pro-gun crowd, but I'm really just curious. . .
How does an amendment that qualifies a right with: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" translate into a right for anyone to carry guns wherever you go? Who here is in a Militia? Who thinks that a Militia is still even necessary in this day and age? I'm not against gun ownership, and own a few, but I never carry one and could live without them. I really think that this amendment was meant for different times. You can spin it however you like, but the Militia was necessary at one time in our history, now it's not. (Unless maybe you're one of those that think the gov't is out to get you and take your guns away like some folks do these days. . . )
Also, talk of law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners being infringed upon. These laws aren't meant for you. It is my opinion that laws are written for the knuckle heads that would otherwise be running around wreaking havoc if they weren't there. Take for instance guys like Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded pistol in the waistband of his sweat pants. The sweet irony of his situation is that he ended up shooting himself, but it could have easily been anyone else in that club. I would prefer not to be in public with those idiots like that myself. So if a concealed weapon law makes it less likely that they will not have one tucked in their waistband, I'm all for it.
I think that is the crux of the problem. Gun control does nothing to stop criminals. By nature, criminals don't care about the law. Gun control typically only restricts the rights of those willing to follow the letter the law in the first place. With Griff placing his pistol in his pocket he is breaking the law if he doesn't have special permission yet I'd assume that he is otherwise a law-abiding upright citizen that I would [probably] be glad to call a friend.
I know criminals are gonna break the law anyway, I'm really just referring to the all jackasses out there. . .
Quote from: avg_joe on 04-09-2009 -- 14:59:25
I know criminals are gonna break the law anyway, I'm really just referring to the all jackasses out there. . .
We'll never have a shortage of those. I think it was Einstein who said... "There are two things I am sure of, the infinite universe, and human stupidity. I am not so sure about the first."
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:47:43
Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.
Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?
In Portland, Oregon, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun within the city limits unless you are granted special permission. That permission is granted when a citizen pays a fee and passes a background check. What if that citizen cannot afford the fee, does he/she no longer have 2A rights? If a poll tax is unconstitutional, so should fees for registration and fees for concealed weapons permits.
Recently, Heller established an individual right, which has been my "nice" opinion all along. Here is the kicker, the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights, and the states can still infringe upon them. California and New York seem to enjoy stomping on your 2nd amendment rights.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 18:37:36
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:47:43
Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.
Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?
In Portland, Oregon, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun within the city limits unless you are granted special permission. That permission is granted when a citizen pays a fee and passes a background check. What if that citizen cannot afford the fee, does he/she no longer have 2A rights? If a poll tax is unconstitutional, so should fees for registration and fees for concealed weapons permits.
Recently, Heller established an individual right, which has been my "nice" opinion all along. Here is the kicker, the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights, and the states can still infringe upon them. California and New York seem to enjoy stomping on your 2nd amendment rights.
If the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated, then the States are pretty much free to regulate as they see fit. That's the law. It isn't even, legally, an abuse of power. Whether it sucks or not isn't really a legal issue.
My question was,
Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun? your example restricts ownership of a single type of weapon, maybe it will be struck down, but it doesn't ban all gun ownership, not even handguns.
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 19:48:04
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 18:37:36
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:47:43
Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.
Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?
In Portland, Oregon, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun within the city limits unless you are granted special permission. That permission is granted when a citizen pays a fee and passes a background check. What if that citizen cannot afford the fee, does he/she no longer have 2A rights? If a poll tax is unconstitutional, so should fees for registration and fees for concealed weapons permits.
Recently, Heller established an individual right, which has been my "nice" opinion all along. Here is the kicker, the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights, and the states can still infringe upon them. California and New York seem to enjoy stomping on your 2nd amendment rights.
If the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated, then the States are pretty much free to regulate as they see fit. That's the law. It isn't even, legally, an abuse of power. Whether it sucks or not isn't really a legal issue.
My question was, Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun? your example restricts ownership of a single type of weapon, maybe it will be struck down, but it doesn't ban all gun ownership, not even handguns.
I gave you a specific example of an infringement happening in Portland Oregon. In Portland city limits, if you have a loaded firearm, your right to bare arms has been infringed.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:03:13
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 19:48:04
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 18:37:36
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:47:43
Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.
Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?
In Portland, Oregon, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun within the city limits unless you are granted special permission. That permission is granted when a citizen pays a fee and passes a background check. What if that citizen cannot afford the fee, does he/she no longer have 2A rights? If a poll tax is unconstitutional, so should fees for registration and fees for concealed weapons permits.
Recently, Heller established an individual right, which has been my "nice" opinion all along. Here is the kicker, the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights, and the states can still infringe upon them. California and New York seem to enjoy stomping on your 2nd amendment rights.
If the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated, then the States are pretty much free to regulate as they see fit. That's the law. It isn't even, legally, an abuse of power. Whether it sucks or not isn't really a legal issue.
My question was, Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun? your example restricts ownership of a single type of weapon, maybe it will be struck down, but it doesn't ban all gun ownership, not even handguns.
I gave you a specific example of an infringement happening in Portland Oregon. In Portland city limits, if you have a loaded firearm, your right to bare arms has been infringed.
The 2nd applies to the Feds, not the States, a fact you pointed out yourself. Therefore, your example is invalid.
If you'd like to split hairs, it isn't an infringement if only for the fact that it doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun, it only restricts carrying a loaded handgun, so you can carry it unloaded all day long.
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:47:43
The 2nd applies to the Feds, not the States, a fact you pointed out yourself. Therefore, your example is invalid.
If you'd like to split hairs, it isn't an infringement if only for the fact that it doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun, it only restricts carrying a loaded handgun, so you can carry it unloaded all day long.
I am tired of this conversation. If you want to play sematics, do it with someone else. Thank you for the spirited debate.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:48:26
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:47:43
The 2nd applies to the Feds, not the States, a fact you pointed out yourself. Therefore, your example is invalid.
If you'd like to split hairs, it isn't an infringement if only for the fact that it doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun, it only restricts carrying a loaded handgun, so you can carry it unloaded all day long.
I am tired of this conversation. If you want to play sematics, do it with someone else. Thank you for the spirited debate.
You, yourself pointed out that "the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights" which part of that is my semantics?
In other words, my statement would be, how can the state be guilty of infringement, if there is no law that prohibits it?
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 22:24:24
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-09-2009 -- 20:48:26
Quote from: griff61 on 04-09-2009 -- 14:47:43
The 2nd applies to the Feds, not the States, a fact you pointed out yourself. Therefore, your example is invalid.
If you'd like to split hairs, it isn't an infringement if only for the fact that it doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun, it only restricts carrying a loaded handgun, so you can carry it unloaded all day long.
I am tired of this conversation. If you want to play sematics, do it with someone else. Thank you for the spirited debate.
You, yourself pointed out that "the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights" which part of that is my semantics?
In other words, my statement would be, how can the state be guilty of infringement, if there is no law that prohibits it?
And I also told you that many states have provisions in their constitution that further articulate a right to keep and bare arms yet those very states infringe upon the rights of the citizens.
I think the primary difference between us is that you see what you believe and I believe what I see.
The Constitution & Bill of Rights grants nothing. It is a statement of specific issues the federal goverment is to keep thier nose out of. The federal goverment is supposed to be set up to promote commerce and harmony amongst these united states.
Unfortunatly it is rapidly mutating in to what our founders feared it would become.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:21:05
And I also told you that many states have provisions in their constitution that further articulate a right to keep and bare arms yet those very states infringe upon the rights of the citizens.
I think the primary difference between us is that you see what you believe and I believe what I see.
I was only addressing the example you gave of Portland, Oregon. Does its State Constitution address this, because if it does, you didn't mention it.
Quote from: griff61 on 04-10-2009 -- 12:48:12
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-10-2009 -- 12:21:05
And I also told you that many states have provisions in their constitution that further articulate a right to keep and bare arms yet those very states infringe upon the rights of the citizens.
I think the primary difference between us is that you see what you believe and I believe what I see.
I was only addressing the example you gave of Portland, Oregon. Does its State Constitution address this, because if it does, you didn't mention it.
You are right, I didn't and I should have. There are only a few states that do not have a provision concerning arms in their respective constitution.
It is the duty of the individual states to enact laws that govern whether there should be gun control, how gun licenses and weapon permits should be issued, and what kind of guns should be legal. It's is the Federal Government responsibility to ensure it is constitutional.
Doesn't it strike people that there hasn't been many challenges to the 2nd amendment. The latest one in 2008 was the first in decades and really only addressed the issue that banning hand guns in Washington DC was unconstitutional.
There is a suburb of Atlanta that has an ordinance that states everyone 21 yrs old and up must own a firearm. I like that local gun law
Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-10-2009 -- 21:51:39
There is a suburb of Atlanta that has an ordinance that states everyone 21 yrs old and up must own a firearm. I like that local gun law
Kennesaw actually only requires the head of a household to own a firearm with the exception of "those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm"
There's no penalty for violating the ordinance.
I always thought everybody in Georgia owned a gun in the first place, lol
I think my biggest gripe with the system currently in place is that the Brinks armored truck driver can carry a weapon to protect his employer's cash yet in all but two states it is illegal for me to carry a weapon to protect myself and my family.
We get nut jobs who go on killing sprees and government response is gun control. Gun control is treating the symptom and not the cause.
Assault weapons are used in a minuscule proportion of crimes yet we banned them in 1994 for crime reduction and it didn't work.
The problem is poverty and a predisposition to violence. Solve those two, and gun related crimes will virtually cease to exist.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 11:24:31
The problem is poverty and a predisposition to violence. Solve those two, and gun related crimes will virtually cease to exist.
That sounds very socialist...lol
Quote from: griff61 on 04-11-2009 -- 11:55:58
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 11:24:31
The problem is poverty and a predisposition to violence. Solve those two, and gun related crimes will virtually cease to exist.
That sounds very socialist...lol
Not to me. Socialism taken to its extremes tends to create more poverty.
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 23:41:05
Quote from: griff61 on 04-11-2009 -- 11:55:58
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 11:24:31
The problem is poverty and a predisposition to violence. Solve those two, and gun related crimes will virtually cease to exist.
That sounds very socialist...lol
Not to me. Socialism taken to its extremes tends to create more poverty.
So how would you cure poverty? Perhaps a little forced labor?
Quote from: griff61 on 04-12-2009 -- 01:02:14
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 23:41:05
Quote from: griff61 on 04-11-2009 -- 11:55:58
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-11-2009 -- 11:24:31
The problem is poverty and a predisposition to violence. Solve those two, and gun related crimes will virtually cease to exist.
That sounds very socialist...lol
Not to me. Socialism taken to its extremes tends to create more poverty.
So how would you cure poverty? Perhaps a little forced labor?
I make no claim to have a solution to poverty. Although I happen to think that education would be a fine start. I happily pay taxes that directly support education from primary to secondary levels.
I was just making the assertion that gun control is treatment of symptoms and does nothing to address the cause of the problem in the first place.
We have already made it illegal to murder, we've made it illegal to use a deadly weapon, and we have established laws that create "gun free" zones. So when the Virgina Tech shooter walked on the campus and murdered so many innocents, he broke three laws already. Who here really thinks that requiring the magazines he used to have 10 or less rounds would actually deter him from having committed the crime in the first place? What if there was a semi-automatic ban, could he have not killed with a revolver? What if he were unable to get a gun in the first place, would he not use a knife, a vehicle, or fire? If an individual is hellbent on killing someone, they will find an avenue to do so.
Those who wish to ban guns completely attempt to scare the masses completely by saying that automatic weapons are readily available on a street corner near you, but that is simply not the case. Sure, you can get a clone semi-automatic version in most of the states, but thanks to the lawmakers in the late 60's, fully auto weapons are rare and costly and damned hard for the average joe to get. We are talking $20K plus passing the background checks and getting local LE to sign off on clearance forms.
There is no cure for poverty. There is no solution for poverty. There is no solution to lazy people. There is no solution for greed either. For this very reason communism will always fail. For this very reason socialism will limp along as a broken system of government. These problems have had 1000's of "solutions" thrown at them over the centuries and yet they still exist. It is called life. Some people are worthless bottom feeders and some actually try to make there life worth something.
Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-12-2009 -- 09:01:27
There is no cure for poverty. There is no solution for poverty. There is no solution to lazy people. There is no solution for greed either. For this very reason communism will always fail. For this very reason socialism will limp along as a broken system of government. These problems have had 1000's of "solutions" thrown at them over the centuries and yet they still exist. It is called life. Some people are worthless bottom feeders and some actually try to make there life worth something.
Poverty is not synonymous with lazy, I doubt we'd last too many days in the life of a Congolese farmer.
Communism (Marxist) has never occurred because of greed and simply it's disregard for the simple human need for reward. Essentially because people are people.
The counter to greed (and corruption) is oversight regulation.
Socialism works quite well when the overarching method of wealth creation is capitalistic. As it is on Canada, Britain, France and to a lesser extent Germany.
When practiced as it is in Cuba, socialism simply prevents any kind of entrepreneurship or invention and essentially hold the advancement of the nation in place.
The usual 'solution' thrown at poverty is to ignore it.
In fact, if you take a close look at monay of the social problems we have in the US (and many other countries), the root cause is poverty.
Poverty is the shortage of common things such as food, clothing, shelter and safe drinking water, all of which determine our quality of life.
In the context of religious vows, poverty may be understood as a means of self-denial in order to place oneself at the service of others.
OMG am I experiencing "poverty" because I denied myself that lovely little pistol that is extreme short supply which of course every American wants and needs because it so makes life worth living!!!!
Quote from: griff61 on 04-12-2009 -- 11:20:14
Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-12-2009 -- 09:01:27
There is no cure for poverty. There is no solution for poverty. There is no solution to lazy people. There is no solution for greed either. For this very reason communism will always fail. For this very reason socialism will limp along as a broken system of government. These problems have had 1000's of "solutions" thrown at them over the centuries and yet they still exist. It is called life. Some people are worthless bottom feeders and some actually try to make there life worth something.
Poverty is not synonymous with lazy, I doubt we'd last too many days in the life of a Congolese farmer.
Communism (Marxist) has never occurred because of greed and simply it's disregard for the simple human need for reward. Essentially because people are people.
The counter to greed (and corruption) is oversight regulation.
Socialism works quite well when the overarching method of wealth creation is capitalistic. As it is on Canada, Britain, France and to a lesser extent Germany.
When practiced as it is in Cuba, socialism simply prevents any kind of entrepreneurship or invention and essentially hold the advancement of the nation in place.
The usual 'solution' thrown at poverty is to ignore it.
In fact, if you take a close look at monay of the social problems we have in the US (and many other countries), the root cause is poverty.
Umm, never said "Poverty is synonymous with lazy". Nor did I imply that lazy is synonymous with greed. It is obvious that you read what you want to read in my post. Maybe that's why you think socialism is good too. You only see what you want to see and not the facts, ie my last post.
Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-12-2009 -- 18:44:01
Quote from: griff61 on 04-12-2009 -- 11:20:14
Quote from: flew-da-coup on 04-12-2009 -- 09:01:27
There is no cure for poverty. There is no solution for poverty. There is no solution to lazy people. There is no solution for greed either. For this very reason communism will always fail. For this very reason socialism will limp along as a broken system of government. These problems have had 1000's of "solutions" thrown at them over the centuries and yet they still exist. It is called life. Some people are worthless bottom feeders and some actually try to make there life worth something.
Poverty is not synonymous with lazy, I doubt we'd last too many days in the life of a Congolese farmer.
Communism (Marxist) has never occurred because of greed and simply it's disregard for the simple human need for reward. Essentially because people are people.
The counter to greed (and corruption) is oversight regulation.
Socialism works quite well when the overarching method of wealth creation is capitalistic. As it is on Canada, Britain, France and to a lesser extent Germany.
When practiced as it is in Cuba, socialism simply prevents any kind of entrepreneurship or invention and essentially hold the advancement of the nation in place.
The usual 'solution' thrown at poverty is to ignore it.
In fact, if you take a close look at monay of the social problems we have in the US (and many other countries), the root cause is poverty.
Umm, never said "Poverty is synonymous with lazy". Nor did I imply that lazy is synonymous with greed. It is obvious that you read what you want to read in my post. Maybe that's why you think socialism is good too. You only see what you want to see and not the facts, ie my last post.
What is it that you were implying? Why is there no 'cure' for poverty? Perhaps you should re-think about how you arrange your statements.
If the shoe fits...
For what it is worth, the 9th circuit court incorporated the 2nd against the states via the 14th. The case is Nordyke V King and can be read here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-20-2009 -- 18:05:42
For what it is worth, the 9th circuit court incorporated the 2nd against the states via the 14th. The case is Nordyke V King and can be read here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf
Kind of makes you want someone to appeal it so it finally settles the question in the big house (SCOTUS).
Quote from: griff61 on 04-21-2009 -- 12:23:33
Quote from: _Adam_ on 04-20-2009 -- 18:05:42
For what it is worth, the 9th circuit court incorporated the 2nd against the states via the 14th. The case is Nordyke V King and can be read here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf
Kind of makes you want someone to appeal it so it finally settles the question in the big house (SCOTUS).
I would venture to guess that the gun control crowd may not want to appeal the ruling to the SCOTUS. Especially after being stung with Heller.
I don't usually get into the more aggressive debates. I used to, but when I get upset, my heart starts racing. So everyone be nice to me..(ha ha).
I've travelled extensively in north India and Haiti, two of the poorer places on the planet. I remember a good friend in Haiti (he is Haitian born, grew up in exile in NY city, got an engineering degree from Letourneau and moved back to Haiti to help make a difference. The website for where he works, by the way, is www.RadioLumiere.org (great organization). As we drove along through Port-Au-Prince one time, I remember him telling me, "..they don't know they're poor..", an observation I would never have thought of. Combine that with my other financial trivia that the poorest of the poor in the U.S. The poorest of the poor in the U.S. are statistically among the top 20% of the richest people in the world. Middle class Americans are among the top 5% of the richest people in the world. Matter of fact, if I recall correctly, the statistical violent crime rate in Port-Au-Prince is lower than many U.S. cities of similar size.
All that being said, I would say that poverty can not and should not be used as an excuse for violent crime. Violent crime is a moral problem, not at all a financial one. I would certainly agree that drug addictions play into high levels of violent crime (and don't even get me started about that one). When I was a teenager growing up in the 70's, I have numerous recollections of having pot smoke blown in my face on purpose because I didn't want anything to do with it.
There is nothing wrong with being poor. Some of the poorest cultures in the world are the happiest. Money is neither good nor evil, and poverty is neither good nor evil.
There, I've stirred the pot enough for today.