[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand your argument but it adds nothing of value to the discussion. And you haven't answered my question as to if all of the 50 states want to ban ALL weapons from coming in for sale.

This sounds good, and with very strict safeguards I'd be for it to an extent. But what you have to watch for is that you'll find EVERYONE is suddenly disqualified one way or another, unless you're part of the 'in group' at the time. This sort of thing is why states pass 'must approve' types of carry permit laws - if you allow the local sheriff to decide based on his convictions, you immediately find only LEOs and politicians may have them.

Credit to Bedlam

I think this is so bang on it deserves repeating...

I do not know any gun owner that is 100% against any and all forms of regulation... what we are against is vaguely written laws that can be interpreted 1000 different ways for either excluding everyone... or banning everything.

Congress is incapable of writing a law with specifics as the meat and potatoes of the law, it all has to be legalese which opens things to interpretation, which opens things to abuse.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, the States did not agree that "arms cannot be limited." Yes, the 10th Amendment applies directly to State laws that limit what weapons can be sold within their given jurisdictions.

Now you're cherry-picking? LOL. Yes, SCOTUS did strike down handgun BANS.

The Court also said this in Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56

Citation

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: neo96

The SECOND amendment Constitutional RIGHT.

People that IGNORE this word: INFRINGE.

So, is there a limit (strictly by the words in the 2A, nothing else), then, on the types of arms one has a right to bear as afforded in 2nd amendment?

No limit implied, or authorized.

As per the phrase shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers forbid the federal state to limit the peoples access to arms.

All right, define "arms."

Considering the era.

They meant 'assault weapons'.

The best technology of the time.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Congress is incapable of writing a law with specifics as the meat and potatoes of the law, it all has to be legalese which opens things to interpretation, which opens things to abuse.

It's not just Congress. In this very thread, we have seen several attempts to reinterpret the Constitution.

As long as that is happening, I will vehemently oppose any and all attempts to infringe one jot or title of the Bill of Rights.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gryphon66

Look I understand your argument and I get it. It's like arguing that stores have the right not to sell certain items, only at the state level.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand your argument but it adds nothing of value to the discussion. And you haven't answered my question as to if all of the 50 states want to ban ALL weapons from coming in for sale.

Well, frankly, who cares what you believe about my statements? Are you the gatekeeper of the thread?

Honestly, I didn't see your question about "all 50 States wanting to ban all weapons coming in for sale" that's why I didn't address it.

My first response is that your proposition is utterly specious and absurd. There is no reason to believe that all of the States would take such an action.

IF they did, I do believe that an AMERICAN CITIZEN would have the right to appeal those laws to the Supreme Court, because in that very unlikely and, again, absolutist argument, such laws would be seen as a WEAPONS BAN which is, of course, unconstitutional as pointed out in Heller.

However, back in the real world. a State's limitations some types of weapons while allowing others, as well as limitations on how such weapons can be bought, does not "infringe" upon the right to bear arms.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, the States did not agree that "arms cannot be limited."

Are you sure you don't need a posted definition of "infringed"?

TheRedneck

It's the Brits fault. They made us not trust the Government. Now we stay arm if they ever try and come back...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, the States did not agree that "arms cannot be limited."

Are you sure you don't need a posted definition of "infringed"?

TheRedneck

I am quite certain. (I see you don't like the portion of Heller which discounts the entirety of your argument thus far.)

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Can you point to any State anywhere that has banned the right to bear arms?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: neo96

The SECOND amendment Constitutional RIGHT.

People that IGNORE this word: INFRINGE.

So, is there a limit (strictly by the words in the 2A, nothing else), then, on the types of arms one has a right to bear as afforded in 2nd amendment?

No limit implied, or authorized.

As per the phrase shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers forbid the federal state to limit the peoples access to arms.

All right, define "arms."

Considering the era.

They meant 'assault weapons'.

The best technology of the time.

You know what they "meant?"

Define arms.

a reply to: Gryphon66

IF they did, I do believe that an AMERICAN CITIZEN would have the right to appeal those laws to the Supreme Court, because in that very unlikely and, again, absolutist argument, such laws would be seen as a WEAPONS BAN which is, of course, unconstitutional as pointed out in Heller.

See now you even understand it and see how absurd your position is and why bringing up the 10th is absurd. Even though I see where you are coming from. Every American citizen have the right to buy and own firearms ANYWHERE according to the 2nd.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

IF they did, I do believe that an AMERICAN CITIZEN would have the right to appeal those laws to the Supreme Court, because in that very unlikely and, again, absolutist argument, such laws would be seen as a WEAPONS BAN which is, of course, unconstitutional as pointed out in Heller.

See now you even understand it and see how absurd your position is and why bringing up the 10th is absurd. Even though I see where you are coming from. Every American citizen have the right to buy and own firearms ANYWHERE according to the 2nd.

LOL ... see now you've resorted to sophomoric tricks like raw straw-man argumentation. That usually means you've lost.

I've said what I've said. No, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says that any American can buy any weapon at any time anywhere they wish. Indeed, such a ridiculous claim is directly obviated by, guess what, the Tenth Amendment.

We're done.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: neo96

The SECOND amendment Constitutional RIGHT.

People that IGNORE this word: INFRINGE.

So, is there a limit (strictly by the words in the 2A, nothing else), then, on the types of arms one has a right to bear as afforded in 2nd amendment?

No limit implied, or authorized.

As per the phrase shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers forbid the federal state to limit the peoples access to arms.

All right, define "arms."

Considering the era.

They meant 'assault weapons'.

The best technology of the time.

You know what they "meant?"

Define arms.

Ya I know what they said.

Meant ?

No.

They sure as snip didn't use harsh words to fight King George or have safe spaces from the tories.

I shouldn't be surprised to find out, that even though I stated, quite clearly, that the Second Amendment GUARANTEES the right of every American to bear arms ... the NRA apologists have desperately tried to twist that into my saying that I think that guns can be banned.

I am reminded once again of the absurdity of arguing with zealots.

a reply to: Gryphon66

"Sophomoric tricks"? As in bringing up the 10th Amendment to tell us that we really don't even have the right to buy any kind of firearms, ignoring the 2nd?

Well since you said we're done that's sad because I have been in agreement with you the whole time in other threads.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: neo96

The SECOND amendment Constitutional RIGHT.

People that IGNORE this word: INFRINGE.

So, is there a limit (strictly by the words in the 2A, nothing else), then, on the types of arms one has a right to bear as afforded in 2nd amendment?

No limit implied, or authorized.

As per the phrase shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers forbid the federal state to limit the peoples access to arms.

All right, define "arms."

Considering the era.

They meant 'assault weapons'.

The best technology of the time.

You know what they "meant?"

Define arms.

Using the definition from an 18th century dictionary, we have.....


So, "to arm" meant to furnish with weapons of defense or offense. But, lets concentrate upon what we are discussing, firearms.

then, more specifically, in the definition of FIREARM, we have a clear indication of what arms means....


1780: A general dictionary of the english language

These are the guns that would be the equivalent of an enemy such as Britain. Namely, the same guns that the British army would be using.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Background checking does not mean anyone taking away your guns - it's literally making you and your family more safe.

Aren't you making a huge assumption right here? Many people don't want background checks precisely because it would eliminate them from being able to get guns. The study referenced in this article (HERE) claims that 8.6% of the US population has a felony on their record. Then you have the adults who are on various govt watchlists (with or without ever being arrested for anything), the sex offender lists, and more.

In a country with 325-350 million people, that's a lot of potentially ineligible people. And that doesn't go into other areas that may restrict gun ownership, like mental health status and being a registered medical marijuana user. Those last 2 are currently being debated in various districts.

For the record, I'm pro-gun but also pro-gun regulations. To me, it's no different than being both pro-car and pro-driver's license.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

"Sophomoric tricks"? As in bringing up the 10th Amendment to tell us that we really don't even have the right to buy any kind of firearms, ignoring the 2nd?

Well since you said we're done that's sad because I have been in agreement with you the whole time in other threads.

We're done in this discussion because we have both presented our arguments and now we're only repeating them.

You disagree with me. That's fine. I disagree with you, apparently, on this issue.

What does that have to do with any other discussion in any other thread? Surely we can disagree without ... whatever.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you point to any State anywhere that has banned the right to bear arms?

I just did... and it was shot down.

You're going to get dizzy twisting sides like that.

TheRedneck