Opinion attached! U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down
Opinion attached! U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down Chicago's 28 Year-Old Gun Ban
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-chicagos.html
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-chicagos.html
0
-
I'm gonna call it a small win, now let the repeal process begin. 0 -
quote:A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Might have to do with incarceration for criminal acts(no rights) .vs free law abiding individual(all rights granted under the constitution).
Gordo, please list some reasons for your restrictions so that they might be discussed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pelican
quote:Originally posted by dthhal
quote:Sorry folks, I'm about as liberal as Attila the Hun. I can say that having been a licened firearms dealer for over 38 years I have met several folks that should not have the right to own a gun. Like the fella that got his ass whipped in a bar fight and wanted to go kill the guy that whupped him. The woman that caught her husband with another woman and wanted to shoot HER. The law allows me. as a dealer, to deny a sale to anyone that I feel is not competent or using good judgement in their reason for wanting to purchase a firearm. I can also say there have been situations when I wish I had refused a sale, like the idiot that bought a 22 rifle, loaded it when he got to his vehicle, and left it in the van with 2 kids, His kid shot and killed his buddy playing with it. I have had two people buy a gun and commit suicide. Sure they had a right to buy the gun but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing they used me as a means to take the easy way out. To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
JMO, Pel
Wanted to, wanted to, wanted to. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Sounds like a liberal, and quacks like a liberal to me. What in creation do you think gives you the power to forsee what anyone will do with a firearm. In my country, its innocent until proven guilty. I dont know where your from. [}:)]
If you like to help someone kill another person just because they are pissedoff, well that's your decision.
Pel
Again, how do you know they would? Are you some sort of Tom Cruise in a Minority Report movie? Arresting people or violating their rights because they said they were "going" to do something.
You are correct, you have the right not to sell to anyone. Now show me your NRA card. Denying people their 1st Amendment rights to free speech, and on top of that then denying them their 2nd Amendment rights by not selling them a gun.
Now before you say they have the right to purchase somewhere else, you are right. They can......So what exactly did you accomplish again?
Oh, ya....the denial of ones rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
[br
[/quote]
Ever been to a jail or prison where they allow inmates possesion of guns?
Got nothing to do with common sense restrictions on gun ownership as you desire.
[/quote]
Of course inmates should be restricted but if the 2A absolutists are consistent then the "all guns for all people all the time" would apply to everyone, wouldn't it? If not, then the door to restrictions is open and now we can discuss the limits and definitions of those restrictions.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Might have to do with incarceration for criminal acts(no rights) .vs free law abiding individual(all rights granted under the constitution).
Gordo, please list some reasons for your restrictions so that they might be discussed.
A simple example of a restriction I support is that felons that used a gun in the commission of their crime(s) should have a lifetime ban on possesion of firearms and any felon should have a time limited ban on possession of firearms until they have shown they are integrated back into society. This should be part of the original sentence and some kind of matrix designed as for the length of time of the restriction.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Might have to do with incarceration for criminal acts(no rights) .vs free law abiding individual(all rights granted under the constitution).
Gordo, please list some reasons for your restrictions so that they might be discussed.
A simple example of a restriction I support is that felons that used a gun in the commission of their crime(s) should have a lifetime ban on possesion of firearms and any felon should have a time limited ban on possession of firearms until they have shown they are integrated back into society. This should be part of the original sentence and some kind of matrix designed as for the length of time of the restriction.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law?0 -
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
Damn majik, you killed them all with one shot. Well said, simple, straight forward.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
RED = prior restraint
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Superficially correct, which is the goal of those who wish to confuse the issued, but it is, alas, factually incorrect.
Speaking of 'prior restraint' of a person in prison is an untenable position when one considers that the entire concept of prison is restraint. These people are being held against their will, and are primarily protected by Amendments 5 and 8. After due process, for example, they can be deprived of life, liberty, and property, but not before (Amendment 5).
Aside - This should focus free-thinking people upon the concept of incorporation of the 2nd through 'Due Process' rather than 'Privileges and Immunities', but it probably will not.
You, and any others that choose to promote this false argument know or should know that denying prisoners access to certain things is specifically Constitutional as shown above. It is not a 2nd Amendment issue, rather it is a criminal justice issue. While it satisfies your personal desire to alter the 2nd Amendment outside the Amendment process outlined in Article 5, it provides cover for the complete abandonment of the 2nd Amendment, as it justifies any contemporaneous legislature or council to impose any restriction they feel is reasonable.
We are either a nation of law as outlined in the Constitution or a nation of laws supported by any fleeting majority. As people we had best figure out which nation we are going to have.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Might have to do with incarceration for criminal acts(no rights) .vs free law abiding individual(all rights granted under the constitution).
Gordo, please list some reasons for your restrictions so that they might be discussed.
A simple example of a restriction I support is that felons that used a gun in the commission of their crime(s) should have a lifetime ban on possesion of firearms and any felon should have a time limited ban on possession of firearms until they have shown they are integrated back into society. This should be part of the original sentence and some kind of matrix designed as for the length of time of the restriction.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them. That's why I would make it part of their sentence.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense. Meaningless point. There will always be lesser offenses to deal with.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law? Obviously you can't keep bad guys from being bad guys but you don't have to make it easy for them and it does give the law another tool to use. If a restricted felon is busted on a traffic stop with a gun he goes back to jail, for instance.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
RED = prior restraint
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Superficially correct, which is the goal of those who wish to confuse the issued, but it is, alas, factually incorrect.
Speaking of 'prior restraint' of a person in prison is an untenable position when one considers that the entire concept of prison is restraint. These people are being held against their will, and are primarily protected by Amendments 5 and 8. After due process, for example, they can be deprived of life, liberty, and property, but not before (Amendment 5).
Aside - This should focus free-thinking people upon the concept of incorporation of the 2nd through 'Due Process' rather than 'Privileges and Immunities', but it probably will not.
You, and any others that choose to promote this false argument know or should know that denying prisoners access to certain things is specifically Constitutional as shown above. It is not a 2nd Amendment issue, rather it is a criminal justice issue. While it satisfies your personal desire to alter the 2nd Amendment outside the Amendment process outlined in Article 5, it provides cover for the complete abandonment of the 2nd Amendment, as it justifies any contemporaneous legislature or council to impose any restriction they feel is reasonable.
We are either a nation of law as outlined in the Constitution or a nation of laws supported by any fleeting majority. As people we had best figure out which nation we are going to have.
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:JamesRK
Advanced Member
USA
15024 Posts
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 12:18:25 PM
In fact what they did was void the Second Amendment.
James posted this on another thread...sums it up PERFECTLY !!!...As for Jim Rau ;
quote:I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
You simply do not get to excuse failure, then use that excuse to trample on my God Given Rights.
Yeah..you and your jack-booted friends are DOING it today...but that will not last forever.
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
HB,
Unless you are 'jack booted' friend, I don't have any 'jack booted' friends.[;)]
Like I said I sincerely wish it could be the way you think it 'should be'. But it has not nor will it ever be that way. But by all means keep up the fight for idealism, you could learn alot from the idealists in power right now. They to will fail as all idealist in history have. The problem is they are taking us all down with them. [V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
Damn majik, you killed them all with one shot. Well said, simple, straight forward.
you even been turkey hunting?[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
Look at how I worded it...
I did not say it should be *required* that one has a background check.
What I said was (basically) that knowingly supplying a weapon that will be used in a crime, should be illegal - it basically makes you an accomplice.
Of course, one never knows with absolute certainty what the weapon will be used for.
If a person has a good reason to believe it will be used in a crime (such as a guy walking into a gun store and yelling that he needs a gun to kill his ex-wife) - then they should still not sell that person a weapon.
IF Person A sells Person B a weapon and Person B uses it to commit a crime, and the government decides to prosecute Person A as an accomplice to that crime, IF Person A ran a background check and it came up clean, THEN Person A should be acquitted (unless there is absolute proof like a camera+audio recording of some guy saying he intends to kill Person C).
Note I am not saying that he should be found guilty if he did not run the background check either. I am just saying it should be the penultimate defense, an example of due diligence.
It would be up to the seller to determine if he wants to run the background check or not - it would be a good CYA- but if you are selling to a longtime friend, someone you trust, someone who there could be no possible argument that you would have reason to believe intended to use the weapon in a crime, etc you could complete the sale without a background check.
Running background checks should be at the discretion of the seller, and if the seller runs one and it comes back clean, it should be assumed unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, that the seller is innocent of any charges, should that weapon be used at a later time to commit a crime.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Please point to the area in the Second Amendment that says a person incarcerated shall have his RKBA infringed, or is that just a common sense, reasonable restriction?
Yes, any reasonable person would recognize that the 2nd was not meant to allow convicted murders to be armed.
Any reasonable person would conclude if you can take someone's life for a crime, you can take their guns away (indeed, if they are dead, they cant bear arms).
Any reasonable person would conclude your right to bear arms doesn't extend to bearing arms while aiming a loaded weapon directly at an innocent passerby.
Reasonable restrictions like the above (inmates can't bear arms) need not be enumerated, if they are reasonable, no one will debate them.
The Problem Is that if people like the pukes in DC and Chicago can read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and think they can infringe as they see fit as the people don't have the right, how do you think they will read the new interpretation that says they can make "reasonable restrictions"?0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.
A pre-conviction inmate has either been adjudicated as a sufficient risk so as to deny bail, or is unable to come up with bail. Therefore, so long as his 8th Amendment protections against excessive bail are being respected, the 5th Amendment requirement for due process has been met.
Just out of curiosity, what is the goal here? Should we desire a fungible Constitution? How does that differ from just making it up as we go along?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
All true and well stated but is not a pre-conviction inmate being deprived of his property (a firearm in this case) prior to due process? A reasonable restriction on the 5A, I contend.
A pre-conviction inmate has either been adjudicated as a sufficient risk so as to deny bail, or is unable to come up with bail. Therefore, so long as his 8th Amendment protections against excessive bail are being respected, the 5th Amendment requirement for due process has been met.
Just out of curiosity, what is the goal here? Should we desire a fungible Constitution? How does that differ from just making it up as we go along?
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
So now we grasp at structural problems based upon the day of the week to point to a 'reasonable' restriction of due process so as to justify your desire to implement permanent and constant 'reasonable' restrictions on the right plainly stated in the 2nd Amendment?
You may desire to preserve and protect your ability to purchase and own a firearm through a reasonable compromise, but this assault on the 2nd Amendment in no way respects or preserves any semblance of a Right.0 -
quote:I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
Words actually DO have meaning...too bad some people are uneducated in the English language.
I could believe the above statement were it to read "I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms."
Never, not by ONE posting, has this member indicated that he has the slightest understanding of what a 'Right' is...and the utter importance, specifically, of the Second Amendment.0 -
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns
Tool.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'should be' bunch are out in full force.[;)]
I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
*yawn* Wrong, as usual.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pelican
Sorry folks, I'm about as liberal as Attila the Hun. I can say that having been a licened firearms dealer for over 38 years I have met several folks that should not have the right to own a gun. Like the fella that got his ass whipped in a bar fight and wanted to go kill the guy that whupped him. The woman that caught her husband with another woman and wanted to shoot HER. The law allows me. as a dealer, to deny a sale to anyone that I feel is not competent or using good judgement in their reason for wanting to purchase a firearm. I can also say there have been situations when I wish I had refused a sale, like the idiot that bought a 22 rifle, loaded it when he got to his vehicle, and left it in the van with 2 kids, His kid shot and killed his buddy playing with it. I have had two people buy a gun and commit suicide. Sure they had a right to buy the gun but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing they used me as a means to take the easy way out. To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
JMO, Pel
Absolutely false!
As a seller, you have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, regardless of what the law allows. Pffft, common sense covers 99% of this.
Once you sell the gun, it is no longer your responsibility. It is a very "liberal" touchy feely belief that we are all responsible for one another. That doesn't jive with freedom and personal; liberty. But the touchy feely is ALWAYS a "good" justification for more overreaching by govt.
quote:To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
No, to say otherwise is insane, not to mention un-American. Freedom carries with it much personal responsibility. I accept that. You do not. You do not even begin to understand true freedom proven by these silly touchy feely words you are spouting. You prefer govt encroachment, false sense of security, and the illusory "safety net" they provide. Grow up!0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Can you not make the distinction between free law abiding citizen and incarcerated convicted criminal?
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Of course inmates should be restricted but if the 2A absolutists are consistent then the "all guns for all people all the time" would apply to everyone, wouldn't it? If not, then the door to restrictions is open and now we can discuss the limits and definitions of those restrictions.
Again, ability to make a very simple dinstinction. Trying to turn something simple into something complicated by splitting hairs is simply mental masturbation.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
Real freedom carries risks. Would you give up some freedom, to avoid the extremely unlikely possiblility that you could receive a beating before being convicted? Of course you would. After all, that has become the number 1 accepted reason for taking freedom in our modern culture, has it not? Freedom for "perceived safety"? I would not. Having irrational fear of unlikely events is illogical. Maybe history has a lesson for us here? Has this happened often, and I am just unaware? Don't be ferfraid jotogordo. Being a grown up isn't so bad.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your RKBA.
Words actually DO have meaning...too bad some people are uneducated in the English language.
I could believe the above statement were it to read "I'm sorry but I'm on my way out so can't go into detail about my goal but in a nutshell it's to preserve and protect my and your PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms."
Never, not by ONE posting, has this member indicated that he has the slightest understanding of what a 'Right' is...and the utter importance, specifically, of the Second Amendment.
It's true words do have meaning. It's too bad you have to resort to making up words that others MIGHT have said to make your arguements. Come back when you've developed some sense of debate ethics. Until then I think you are probably unworthy of further comment.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Can you not make the distinction between free law abiding citizen and incarcerated convicted criminal?
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Of course inmates should be restricted but if the 2A absolutists are consistent then the "all guns for all people all the time" would apply to everyone, wouldn't it? If not, then the door to restrictions is open and now we can discuss the limits and definitions of those restrictions.
Again, ability to make a very simple dinstinction. Trying to turn something simple into something complicated by splitting hairs is simply mental masturbation.
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
A person arrested Saturday evening (possibly wrongly so) may not have his due process until well after the beating and/or assault he suffers at the hands of other inmates until Monday morning or later. He has been deprived of the means to protect himself but we as a society have decided to accept this restriction to the 5A & 2A.
Real freedom carries risks. Would you give up some freedom, to avoid the extremely unlikely possiblility that you could receive a beating before being convicted? Of course you would. After all, that has become the number 1 accepted reason for taking freedom in our modern culture, has it not? Freedom for "perceived safety"? I would not. Having irrational fear of unlikely events is illogical. Maybe history has a lesson for us here? Has this happened often, and I am just unaware? Don't be ferfraid jotogordo. Being a grown up isn't so bad.
Let's make it simple then. Do you believe the 2A means "all arms for all people all the time" or do you believe in some restrictions i.e., for prisoners, insane, children. etc? Simple question, it's one or the other.0 -
You're so right, it couldn't be simpler. All arms, for all free people, all the time. Duh
Go ask your dad. He may explain it to you.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
You're so right, it couldn't be simpler. All arms, for all free people, all the time. Duh
Go ask your dad. He may explain it to you.
I see you added a restriction (infringement).0 -
No, the individual who made a choice to ignore the rights of another individual, added the restriction.
How is this simple concept so difficult to grasp, joto?
Do you have multiple degrees interfering with your common sense? Or worse?0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
No, the individual who made a choice to ignore the rights of another individual, added the restriction.
How is this simple concept so difficult to grasp, joto?
Do you have multiple degrees interfering with your common sense? Or worse?
That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined.
An infringement is an infringement. It's the 2A absolutists that are always saying the amendment means just what it says. It doesn't refer to non-incarcerated people or white people or poor people or old people but just to people. Either you believe that or you don't. What is it? Is the question too tough for you?
edit: I love it when one side of an arguement uses 'common sense' as a basis for their position when almost universally they reject what the other side sees as common sense.0 -
Made up words ?
Please answer one simple question, Gordo;
Does the Second Amendment allow the federal government OR state government the authority to regulate, restrict, or otherwise hinder citizens from buying, carrying,selling or freely using the weapons of their choice ?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
106 comments