login
Question for gun owners (Page 5)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-11-13 7:25 PM in reply to: #4497272 |
Elite  6387    |  Subject: RE: Question for gun ownersjmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 5:47 PM TriRSquared - 2012-11-13 3:36 PM Ok--maybe I misunderstood Brock's post. I thought he was saying that the SCOTUS rejected the portion of the 2A that connected the right to bear arms with being part of a well-regulated militia. I understand that they've limited the types of guns that are covered under the 2A. So what about the "well-regulated militia" part? I see lots and lots people with guns, but I don't see many militias. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 4:13 PM Brock Samson - 2012-11-13 2:29 PM Can you expand on this a little? I’m also confused about the “well-regulated militia” portion of the 2A—specifically the fact that it seems to be universally ignored. Are you saying that the SCOTUS essentially rendered that part of the 2A invalid? ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-10 7:05 PM MadMathemagician - 2012-11-10 5:07 PM gearboy - 2012-11-10 2:28 PM cedar creek - 2012-11-10 2:26 PMOne, because I can. Two, they are fun to shoot. I was trained in the Army to use one and in Law Enforcement before I retired. I have no fear that I might go crazy somewhere with it. This last one may sound paranoid but I would rather have it and not ever need it, than to need it and not have it. I will protect my family in the event that they may need protecting. Again kinda nutty sounding but...... If our society goes into chaos, I will be glad to have it. I've always found the "because I can" rationale weak. I CAN poop in a bucket in my kitchen, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The second reason - "because it's fun" seems a lot more sensible. I do a lot of fun things that are also potentially deadly. So I train and take safety precautions....which I would hope would be the same general rules followed by gun owners. At least the friends I know who shoot do so.
That analogy just plain outright stinks. An assault rife is a pejorative of the anti gun crowd. A rifle, or any gun for that matter, is simply a tool. How one chooses to use that tool is indicative of the individual. Whether a gun is an automatic ( which is highly regulated), semi-automatic, or single shot, they all can be used for negative purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, and I have lingering effects of what's called chemo brain, the second amendment says we still have the right to bear arms. Until that is changed no one needs to justify owning any type of gun.
/Libertarian rant.... On that note, would a Libertarian not agree that every citizen has a right to carry around a bazooka? some rocket-propelled grenades?? perhaps some anti-aircraft missiles??? We have the right to bear arms...who determines what arms I can bear? Seems to me the 2nd amendment would be just fine with the above-mentioned weaponry being perfectly legal. It seems a lot of folks who like to use the "right to bear arms" line aren't super-crazy about the "well-regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment either. just sayin'. That's because the U.S. Supreme Court answered that portion of the 2nd Amendment in the 30's, and also the anti-gun, pro-gun control section that urges that the "well regulated militia" portion of the Amendment is the controlling lenaguage miss the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this analysis almost universally. So you may think that clause of the 2nd Amnedment means you can own a bazooka but it has never been interpreted by any courts to so mean. It's simply not the law, and therefore a red herring. No they put limitations on the rights. Just like they did with the "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" analogy with the 1A. They have ruled before, and recently, that the 2A is an individual right, separate from being in a militia. Some may love to hang their hat that they read it as something else, but I don't go by how they read it. I go by how the SCOTUS has ruled it time and again. It is an INDIVIDUAL right. No different that all the other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It isn't protecting your right to be in a militia, it is protecting your right to bear arms. |
| 2012-11-13 9:35 PM in reply to: #4497304 |
Champion 7821   Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Question for gun owners powerman - 2012-11-13 7:25 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 5:47 PM TriRSquared - 2012-11-13 3:36 PM Ok--maybe I misunderstood Brock's post. I thought he was saying that the SCOTUS rejected the portion of the 2A that connected the right to bear arms with being part of a well-regulated militia. I understand that they've limited the types of guns that are covered under the 2A. So what about the "well-regulated militia" part? I see lots and lots people with guns, but I don't see many militias. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 4:13 PM Brock Samson - 2012-11-13 2:29 PM Can you expand on this a little? I’m also confused about the “well-regulated militia” portion of the 2A—specifically the fact that it seems to be universally ignored. Are you saying that the SCOTUS essentially rendered that part of the 2A invalid? ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-10 7:05 PM MadMathemagician - 2012-11-10 5:07 PM gearboy - 2012-11-10 2:28 PM cedar creek - 2012-11-10 2:26 PMOne, because I can. Two, they are fun to shoot. I was trained in the Army to use one and in Law Enforcement before I retired. I have no fear that I might go crazy somewhere with it. This last one may sound paranoid but I would rather have it and not ever need it, than to need it and not have it. I will protect my family in the event that they may need protecting. Again kinda nutty sounding but...... If our society goes into chaos, I will be glad to have it. I've always found the "because I can" rationale weak. I CAN poop in a bucket in my kitchen, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The second reason - "because it's fun" seems a lot more sensible. I do a lot of fun things that are also potentially deadly. So I train and take safety precautions....which I would hope would be the same general rules followed by gun owners. At least the friends I know who shoot do so.
That analogy just plain outright stinks. An assault rife is a pejorative of the anti gun crowd. A rifle, or any gun for that matter, is simply a tool. How one chooses to use that tool is indicative of the individual. Whether a gun is an automatic ( which is highly regulated), semi-automatic, or single shot, they all can be used for negative purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, and I have lingering effects of what's called chemo brain, the second amendment says we still have the right to bear arms. Until that is changed no one needs to justify owning any type of gun.
/Libertarian rant.... On that note, would a Libertarian not agree that every citizen has a right to carry around a bazooka? some rocket-propelled grenades?? perhaps some anti-aircraft missiles??? We have the right to bear arms...who determines what arms I can bear? Seems to me the 2nd amendment would be just fine with the above-mentioned weaponry being perfectly legal. It seems a lot of folks who like to use the "right to bear arms" line aren't super-crazy about the "well-regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment either. just sayin'. That's because the U.S. Supreme Court answered that portion of the 2nd Amendment in the 30's, and also the anti-gun, pro-gun control section that urges that the "well regulated militia" portion of the Amendment is the controlling lenaguage miss the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this analysis almost universally. So you may think that clause of the 2nd Amnedment means you can own a bazooka but it has never been interpreted by any courts to so mean. It's simply not the law, and therefore a red herring. No they put limitations on the rights. Just like they did with the "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" analogy with the 1A. They have ruled before, and recently, that the 2A is an individual right, separate from being in a militia. Some may love to hang their hat that they read it as something else, but I don't go by how they read it. I go by how the SCOTUS has ruled it time and again. It is an INDIVIDUAL right. No different that all the other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It isn't protecting your right to be in a militia, it is protecting your right to bear arms. As usual, thanks for the explanation. |
| 2012-11-14 7:32 AM in reply to: #4497272 |
Expert 839 Central Mass | Subject: RE: Question for gun owners jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 4:47 PM TriRSquared - 2012-11-13 3:36 PM Ok--maybe I misunderstood Brock's post. I thought he was saying that the SCOTUS rejected the portion of the 2A that connected the right to bear arms with being part of a well-regulated militia. I understand that they've limited the types of guns that are covered under the 2A. So what about the "well-regulated militia" part? I see lots and lots people with guns, but I don't see many militias. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 4:13 PM Brock Samson - 2012-11-13 2:29 PM Can you expand on this a little? I’m also confused about the “well-regulated militia” portion of the 2A—specifically the fact that it seems to be universally ignored. Are you saying that the SCOTUS essentially rendered that part of the 2A invalid? ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-10 7:05 PM MadMathemagician - 2012-11-10 5:07 PM gearboy - 2012-11-10 2:28 PM cedar creek - 2012-11-10 2:26 PMOne, because I can. Two, they are fun to shoot. I was trained in the Army to use one and in Law Enforcement before I retired. I have no fear that I might go crazy somewhere with it. This last one may sound paranoid but I would rather have it and not ever need it, than to need it and not have it. I will protect my family in the event that they may need protecting. Again kinda nutty sounding but...... If our society goes into chaos, I will be glad to have it. I've always found the "because I can" rationale weak. I CAN poop in a bucket in my kitchen, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The second reason - "because it's fun" seems a lot more sensible. I do a lot of fun things that are also potentially deadly. So I train and take safety precautions....which I would hope would be the same general rules followed by gun owners. At least the friends I know who shoot do so.
That analogy just plain outright stinks. An assault rife is a pejorative of the anti gun crowd. A rifle, or any gun for that matter, is simply a tool. How one chooses to use that tool is indicative of the individual. Whether a gun is an automatic ( which is highly regulated), semi-automatic, or single shot, they all can be used for negative purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, and I have lingering effects of what's called chemo brain, the second amendment says we still have the right to bear arms. Until that is changed no one needs to justify owning any type of gun.
/Libertarian rant.... On that note, would a Libertarian not agree that every citizen has a right to carry around a bazooka? some rocket-propelled grenades?? perhaps some anti-aircraft missiles??? We have the right to bear arms...who determines what arms I can bear? Seems to me the 2nd amendment would be just fine with the above-mentioned weaponry being perfectly legal. It seems a lot of folks who like to use the "right to bear arms" line aren't super-crazy about the "well-regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment either. just sayin'. That's because the U.S. Supreme Court answered that portion of the 2nd Amendment in the 30's, and also the anti-gun, pro-gun control section that urges that the "well regulated militia" portion of the Amendment is the controlling lenaguage miss the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this analysis almost universally. So you may think that clause of the 2nd Amnedment means you can own a bazooka but it has never been interpreted by any courts to so mean. It's simply not the law, and therefore a red herring. No they put limitations on the rights. Just like they did with the "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" analogy with the 1A. It also could have been argued that "to bear arms" in the 18th century meant form a militia, a collective right, not the right for individuals to own firearms. But the last 150 years of case law has rendered that moot. |
| 2012-11-14 7:51 AM in reply to: #4497440 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Question for gun owners jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 10:35 PM powerman - 2012-11-13 7:25 PM As usual, thanks for the explanation.jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 5:47 PM TriRSquared - 2012-11-13 3:36 PM Ok--maybe I misunderstood Brock's post. I thought he was saying that the SCOTUS rejected the portion of the 2A that connected the right to bear arms with being part of a well-regulated militia. I understand that they've limited the types of guns that are covered under the 2A. So what about the "well-regulated militia" part? I see lots and lots people with guns, but I don't see many militias. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-13 4:13 PM Brock Samson - 2012-11-13 2:29 PM Can you expand on this a little? I’m also confused about the “well-regulated militia” portion of the 2A—specifically the fact that it seems to be universally ignored. Are you saying that the SCOTUS essentially rendered that part of the 2A invalid? ChineseDemocracy - 2012-11-10 7:05 PM MadMathemagician - 2012-11-10 5:07 PM gearboy - 2012-11-10 2:28 PM cedar creek - 2012-11-10 2:26 PMOne, because I can. Two, they are fun to shoot. I was trained in the Army to use one and in Law Enforcement before I retired. I have no fear that I might go crazy somewhere with it. This last one may sound paranoid but I would rather have it and not ever need it, than to need it and not have it. I will protect my family in the event that they may need protecting. Again kinda nutty sounding but...... If our society goes into chaos, I will be glad to have it. I've always found the "because I can" rationale weak. I CAN poop in a bucket in my kitchen, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The second reason - "because it's fun" seems a lot more sensible. I do a lot of fun things that are also potentially deadly. So I train and take safety precautions....which I would hope would be the same general rules followed by gun owners. At least the friends I know who shoot do so.
That analogy just plain outright stinks. An assault rife is a pejorative of the anti gun crowd. A rifle, or any gun for that matter, is simply a tool. How one chooses to use that tool is indicative of the individual. Whether a gun is an automatic ( which is highly regulated), semi-automatic, or single shot, they all can be used for negative purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, and I have lingering effects of what's called chemo brain, the second amendment says we still have the right to bear arms. Until that is changed no one needs to justify owning any type of gun.
/Libertarian rant.... On that note, would a Libertarian not agree that every citizen has a right to carry around a bazooka? some rocket-propelled grenades?? perhaps some anti-aircraft missiles??? We have the right to bear arms...who determines what arms I can bear? Seems to me the 2nd amendment would be just fine with the above-mentioned weaponry being perfectly legal. It seems a lot of folks who like to use the "right to bear arms" line aren't super-crazy about the "well-regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment either. just sayin'. That's because the U.S. Supreme Court answered that portion of the 2nd Amendment in the 30's, and also the anti-gun, pro-gun control section that urges that the "well regulated militia" portion of the Amendment is the controlling lenaguage miss the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this analysis almost universally. So you may think that clause of the 2nd Amnedment means you can own a bazooka but it has never been interpreted by any courts to so mean. It's simply not the law, and therefore a red herring. No they put limitations on the rights. Just like they did with the "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" analogy with the 1A. They have ruled before, and recently, that the 2A is an individual right, separate from being in a militia. Some may love to hang their hat that they read it as something else, but I don't go by how they read it. I go by how the SCOTUS has ruled it time and again. It is an INDIVIDUAL right. No different that all the other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It isn't protecting your right to be in a militia, it is protecting your right to bear arms. Yup, that's what I was trying to say. The two big cases if anyone is interested are, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008), United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939). Interestingly Miller has been used by both pro-gun control and anti-gun control for the argument that the Second Amendment speaks toward gun possession for military/militia service. Even in Heller, the dissent argues that Miller supports their possition, while the majority in Heller also relies on Miller. The Heller decision was split pretty much as you would anticipate on the issue, with the typical "liberal"/"conservative" camps of the US S. Ct. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK