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

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
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.

And, how many times has the definition of a felony been changed? A crime that was once a misdemeanor being upgraded to felony status. So, by the stroke of a pen, someone's constitutional right can be stripped if they just change what a felony is to include more and more people.

Nice, and unconstitutional.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You and I agree on most things. Just surprised that you feel this way. I understand about the states' rights as per 10th. But the 2nd makes it clear. Every citizen has the right to buy from anywhere. And you yourself agreed that if a state bans all types of firearms from coming in for sale it would be an issue.

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

Because you said we were done. I guess I misinterpreted that.

But anyway cheers.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If I can not buy certain firearms then my right to bear arms has been limited.

"in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on"

Cite

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

I haven't twisted anything. The same cannot be said of this line of argumentation from you.

Why the coy reaction? It's not a complicated question.

What State has banned the right to bear arms?

I can't believe I'm taking the bait, but here goes...

Free men don't ask permission to bear arms.

Where does government, both Federal and State, derive its authority from? The people.

A free person owns their body, correct? A person who doesn't own themselves is a slave. A free person has an absolute right to defend their property, including their own body. Therefore, a free person has an inherent, absolute right to self-defense, by whatever means they choose.

The only restrictions on a right are the equal rights of others. The only time rights can be abridged is when there is a clear, demonstrable public interest in doing so, or when the person attempting to exercise that right clearly cannot shoulder the responsibilities of doing so, i.e. the mentally incompetent or criminals.

Too many don't know what the difference between a right or privilege is.

Too many also don't realize that the Constitution merely enumerates rights, it doesn't grant them. It really is just a piece of worthless paper. It's the people who will actually stand up and fight for their rights that matter. Rights are inherent in the individual and inalienable.

I thought Heller was cute, the Supreme Court, a construct of the Constitution created by the consent of the governed, deciding how the people who created the Court get to exercise their Constitutionally enumerated rights... Circular logic at its finest.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

If I can not buy certain firearms then my right to bear arms has been limited.

"in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on"

Cite

No, your right to bear arms has not been limited. Your ability to purchase certain arms has been.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Well, there's an interesting take on the argument at least.

Yes, if the Constitution is meaningless, then the discussion of rights and responsibilities under same is meaningless.

However, you'd have a hard time proving that the Constitution is meaningless. Care to give that a go?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

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.

For the record it's either or.

Not trying to have it both ways.

The second says nada,zilch about driving.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is, by definition, a limit on my right to bear arms.

Im not going to campaign for the legalization of the Thompson....but it sure would be nice to be able to legally own one.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, your right to bear arms has not been limited. Your ability to purchase certain arms has been.

Gold medal mental gymnast.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Well, there's an interesting take on the argument at least.

Yes, if the Constitution is meaningless, then the discussion of rights and responsibilities under same is meaningless.

However, you'd have a hard time proving that the Constitution is meaningless. Care to give that a go?

Rights are inherent. They can be violated, but not given or taken away.

The Constitution can be completely repealed and replaced tomorrow. That doesn't make the rights enumerated within go away. Ink on paper did not create them. The Articles of Confederation were replaced, the Constitution can be as well.

Ultimately, the only interpretation of the Constitution that matters is mine. As anyone who attempts to take my arms will find out. Rights are only for those willing to fight and die for them.

Keep thinking some bureaucrat in a suit or black robe is out to protect your best interests...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Im not going to campaign for the legalization of the Thompson....but it sure would be nice to be able to legally own one.

I do.

I want the second restored to how the founding fathers intended.

Machine gun smile

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is, by definition, a limit on my right to bear arms.

Im not going to campaign for the legalization of the Thompson....but it sure would be nice to be able to legally own one.

A State limiting sales of weapons is only a limit by YOUR definition ... not the Constitution's, the Supreme Court's or any State government.

So you can't own one type of weapon, but you can (and presumably do) own firearms, right?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, your right to bear arms has not been limited. Your ability to purchase certain arms has been.

Gold medal mental gymnast.

Gold medal red herring.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

If I can not buy certain firearms then my right to bear arms has been limited.

"in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on"

Cite

No, your right to bear arms has not been limited. Your ability to purchase certain arms has been.

OK now we are just going in circles.

But one last time... How can I own and or bear something if I can not buy it??? And if I can not own said item then my ability to bear said item has been limited/infringed.

Point out to me where in the Constitution itself the Supreme Court has been granted the power to decide who has what rights...

I'll wait...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

No, your right to bear arms has not been limited. Your ability to purchase certain arms has been.

So lets say the Government makes this pea shooting musket and then says this is the only legal arms a person can own, does that meet your logic for the right to bare arms?

As soon as the federal government self imposes gun regulation on themselves I'm all for entertaining the same. Until then. No.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, at least you have validated my concern over trusting our government to not ban guns outright if given the chance. I should thank you for that.

Let me, just for clarity, try to enumerate your position:

• The 2nd Amendment prohibits any ban on arms, but it allows regulation.
  
• The word "infringed" only means "not completely removed." Someone call Merriam-Webster?
  
• The exclusion in the 10th Amendment only applies to Amendments 1 and 3 - 9.
  
• Chicago never banned firearms, but the Supreme Court struck down the ban that didn't exist.
  
• States can, despite that ruling, ban whatever firearms they want by simply making them illegal.
  
• Making something illegal does not infringe upon the right to have it.

Did I miss anything?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope.

Can I go out and buy a new M4 ?

Nope.

No, your right to bear arms has not been limited.

Think before speaking.