Second Amendment

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. My initial post was a question - thus the question marks. There was nothing to 'prove wrong'. I solicited information which you provided. You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

Show that there are limits on other constitutional rights that are not on the second amendment. You have not shown that there are not.

I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did? Nonetheless all such rights have restrictions such as in cases where they cause harm to others.

You did right here:

You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

You imply by that statement that the 2nd is not restricted enough or like the others, along with the failed crowded theater analogy.

How can you keep anything straight with all of the double talk and reversals?

reply to post by TheFlash


there are not restrictions to free speech

there are laws that deal with libel and slander
after the right of free speech has been exercized illegally.

there are also enough laws to punish illegal activity after
someone misuses the rights in 2A

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

So are you saying that we should wait until people commit mass murders with guns before we pass laws that such things are illegal? And you call me illogical?

I merely said that there are restrictions on rights including the right to bear arms just are there are restrictions on the constitutional right to free speech.

No, I simply said that you cannot restrict the freedoms of a person because they have the potential to commit a crime, you restrict the freedoms of an individual who have committed a crime, and yes you have not been logical yet.

Please name the restrictions on free speech that are preemptive. As you have said over and over again: show me the reliable source.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. My initial post was a question - thus the question marks. There was nothing to 'prove wrong'. I solicited information which you provided. You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

Show that there are limits on other constitutional rights that are not on the second amendment. You have not shown that there are not.

I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did? Nonetheless all such rights have restrictions such as in cases where they cause harm to others.

You did right here:

You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

You imply by that statement that the 2nd is not restricted enough or like the others, along with the failed crowded theater analogy.

How can you keep anything straight with all of the double talk and reversals?

You are reading things into my posts that are not there such as these imaginary 'implications'. Where did I say anything about "more"?

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

My premise that the DC vs. Heller decision did NOT resolve the issue as to whether the ruling in question applied to the states and not just federal enclaves WAS and IS valid and correct. If you believe otherwise then provide proof.

Backpedaling.

I don't know what you are talking about. Clarify.

Every time you get caught out wrong, you change your story to "I didn't mean that." Just man up and admit that you were working with incomoplete information.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

So are you saying that we should wait until people commit mass murders with guns before we pass laws that such things are illegal? And you call me illogical?

I merely said that there are restrictions on rights including the right to bear arms just are there are restrictions on the constitutional right to free speech.

No, I simply said that you cannot restrict the freedoms of a person because they have the potential to commit a crime, you restrict the freedoms of an individual who have committed a crime, and yes you have not been logical yet.

Please name the restrictions on free speech that are preemptive. As you have said over and over again: show me the reliable source.

Your concept of "preemptive restrictions" doesn't make sense to me. All restrictions can be viewed as "preemptive" as they are intended to prevent abuse, not deal with it after the fact.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. My initial post was a question - thus the question marks. There was nothing to 'prove wrong'. I solicited information which you provided. You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

Show that there are limits on other constitutional rights that are not on the second amendment. You have not shown that there are not.

I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did? Nonetheless all such rights have restrictions such as in cases where they cause harm to others.

You did right here:

You have not shown how there should be no limits nor restrictions on the right to bear arms just as there are limits and restrictions on other Constitutional 'rights'.

You imply by that statement that the 2nd is not restricted enough or like the others, along with the failed crowded theater analogy.

How can you keep anything straight with all of the double talk and reversals?

You are reading things into my posts that are not there such as these imaginary 'implications'. Where did I say anything about "more"?

Perhaps instead of of playing "guess what I'm on about" and you working very hard to be as vauge as possible because you think you are being clever so you can't be pinned down. Why don't you list what you want RE gun control, why you want it, and what you think you can achieve.

This undergrad "answering a question with a question" crap is not a clever debate technique, it is plain silly. State a premise, state a source, then we can discuss it.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

My premise that the DC vs. Heller decision did NOT resolve the issue as to whether the ruling in question applied to the states and not just federal enclaves WAS and IS valid and correct. If you believe otherwise then provide proof.

Backpedaling.

I don't know what you are talking about. Clarify.

Every time you get caught out wrong, you change your story to "I didn't mean that." Just man up and admit that you were working with incomoplete information.

You do a lot of 'reading in things' that are not there. You are putting words in my mouth. I will restate - My premise that the DC vs. Heller decision did NOT resolve the issue as to whether the ruling in question applied to the states and not just federal enclaves WAS and IS valid and correct. If you believe otherwise then provide proof.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

So are you saying that we should wait until people commit mass murders with guns before we pass laws that such things are illegal? And you call me illogical?

I merely said that there are restrictions on rights including the right to bear arms just are there are restrictions on the constitutional right to free speech.

No, I simply said that you cannot restrict the freedoms of a person because they have the potential to commit a crime, you restrict the freedoms of an individual who have committed a crime, and yes you have not been logical yet.

Please name the restrictions on free speech that are preemptive. As you have said over and over again: show me the reliable source.

Your concept of "preemptive restrictions" doesn't make sense to me. All restrictions can be viewed as "preemptive" as they are intended to prevent abuse, not deal with it after the fact.

SHow me where some one is forbidden to speak because it might cause a problem, not because it has caught a problem. You want to limit the civil liberties of 300 million people because one or two of them a year MIGHT go on a shooting spree. That is your preemptive restrictions. Show me anywhere where free speech is as restricted as firearms are now, much less if firearms are restricted even more.

Well done! Apparently it has been determined that the 2nd Amendment applies to US states. It only took 7 pages of thread to establish that. For everyone's information I own 7 guns, I've owned many more in the past. It is also worth pointing out that many people here have erroneous ideas about statics, law and other matters which I have endeavored to correct, though obstinacy and close-mindedness may have prevented me from succeeding in that area.

i believe since theflash has already admitted his position was wrong, that the 2nd amendment applies to states (and indeed he was trying to "educate" others of this fact), and that there have been massive contradictions like:

Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations.

"show that there are limits"-navydoc *8 posts by flash later*

I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did?

or:

I await your references to reputable, legal sources proclaiming that the ruling in question applies to all US states and not just to Federal Enclaves.

Well done! Apparently it has been determined that the 2nd Amendment applies to US states. It only took 7 pages of thread to establish that.....It is also worth pointing out that many people here have erroneous ideas about statics, law and other matters which I have endeavored to correct

i believe, and forgive me mods if you disagree (though i would be interested in hearing your rationale), that we have an obvious case of trolling here. i do not say this because i disagree with his position, i say this because it is blatantly obvious.

i also believe this post to be very on topic. i am abandoning the thread for good, and i would advise others to follow suit...something on the sign about not feeding the local wildlife.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

So are you saying that we should wait until people commit mass murders with guns before we pass laws that such things are illegal? And you call me illogical?

I merely said that there are restrictions on rights including the right to bear arms just are there are restrictions on the constitutional right to free speech.

No, I simply said that you cannot restrict the freedoms of a person because they have the potential to commit a crime, you restrict the freedoms of an individual who have committed a crime, and yes you have not been logical yet.

Please name the restrictions on free speech that are preemptive. As you have said over and over again: show me the reliable source.

Your concept of "preemptive restrictions" doesn't make sense to me. All restrictions can be viewed as "preemptive" as they are intended to prevent abuse, not deal with it after the fact.

SHow me where some one is forbidden to speak because it might cause a problem, not because it has caught a problem. You want to limit the civil liberties of 300 million people because one or two of them a year MIGHT go on a shooting spree. That is your preemptive restrictions. Show me anywhere where free speech is as restricted as firearms are now, much less if firearms are restricted even more.

I never said that anyone should be "forbidden to speak". Yet again you attribute things to me that are not mine.

I have so several times so far and that is not entirely true. As for Heller, you keep citing the same opinion piece that it only addressed "federal enclaves" but that phrase appears nowhere in the decision nor anything in the decision says that it was only appicable to "federal enclaves." You keep citing the exact same opinion piece over and over but that does not make it any more true.

In Heller, the SCOTUS addressed the second amendment, which is, like all of the BOR incorporated under the 14th Amendment. First Amendment cases under the SCOTUS do not apply to just "federal enclaves", they apply EVERYWHERE due to incorporation.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Well done! Apparently it has been determined that the 2nd Amendment applies to US states. It only took 7 pages of thread to establish that. For everyone's information I own 7 guns, I've owned many more in the past. It is also worth pointing out that many people here have erroneous ideas about statics, law and other matters which I have endeavored to correct, though obstinacy and close-mindedness may have prevented me from succeeding in that area.

i believe since theflash has already admitted his position was wrong, that the 2nd amendment applies to states (and indeed he was trying to "educate" others of this fact), and that there have been massive contradictions like:

Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations.

"show that there are limits"-navydoc *8 posts by flash later*

I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did?

or:

I await your references to reputable, legal sources proclaiming that the ruling in question applies to all US states and not just to Federal Enclaves.

Well done! Apparently it has been determined that the 2nd Amendment applies to US states. It only took 7 pages of thread to establish that.....It is also worth pointing out that many people here have erroneous ideas about statics, law and other matters which I have endeavored to correct

i believe, and forgive me mods if you disagree (though i would be interested in hearing your rationale), that we have an obvious case of trolling here. i do not say this because i disagree with his position, i say this because it is blatantly obvious.

i also believe this post to be very on topic. i am abandoning the thread for good, and i would advise others to follow suit...something on the sign about not feeding the local wildlife.

You are taking things out of context. As I have already pointed out my initial post was a question - note the question marks in it. It was not an "initial position".

My comment "I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did?" was in response to a remark that someone accused me of wanting "more" restrictions on guns. I never made such a statement - I have said that there are and should be restrictions.

You are mistaken. In this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I cited a number of references to support the fact in addition to the source you mention.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Well done! Apparently it has been determined that the 2nd Amendment applies to US states. It only took 7 pages of thread to establish that. For everyone's information I own 7 guns, I've owned many more in the past. It is also worth pointing out that many people here have erroneous ideas about statics, law and other matters which I have endeavored to correct, though obstinacy and close-mindedness may have prevented me from succeeding in that area.

i believe since theflash has already admitted his position was wrong, that the 2nd amendment applies to states (and indeed he was trying to "educate" others of this fact), and that there have been massive contradictions like:

Whether people like it or not, rights have restrictions and limitations.

"show that there are limits"-navydoc *8 posts by flash later*

I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did?

or:

I await your references to reputable, legal sources proclaiming that the ruling in question applies to all US states and not just to Federal Enclaves.

Well done! Apparently it has been determined that the 2nd Amendment applies to US states. It only took 7 pages of thread to establish that.....It is also worth pointing out that many people here have erroneous ideas about statics, law and other matters which I have endeavored to correct

i believe, and forgive me mods if you disagree (though i would be interested in hearing your rationale), that we have an obvious case of trolling here. i do not say this because i disagree with his position, i say this because it is blatantly obvious.

i also believe this post to be very on topic. i am abandoning the thread for good, and i would advise others to follow suit...something on the sign about not feeding the local wildlife.

You are taking things out of context. As I have already pointed out my initial post was a question - note the question marks in it. It was not an "initial position".

My comment "I never said that there were or should be. What makes you think that I did?" was in response to a remark that someone accused me of wanting "more" restrictions on guns. I never made such a statement - I have said that there are and should be restrictions.

Fair enough. Let's ask you flat out. Do you or do you not think there should be more restrictions on guns than there are now and do you or do you not think we have too much gun control as it is now?

reply to post by NavyDoc


As such matters are regulated at the state level in the USA and I cannot say that I am familiar with the laws in all states I can not give an informed answer to your question.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

As such matters are regulated at the state level in the USA and I cannot say that I am familiar with the laws in all states I can not give an informed answer to your question.

That is a side-step. You have never answered anything directly. If you own guns as you say, you must be familiar with the guns in your state. Start from there.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

As such matters are regulated at the state level in the USA and I cannot say that I am familiar with the laws in all states I can not give an informed answer to your question.

That is a side-step. You have never answered anything directly. If you own guns as you say, you must be familiar with the guns in your state. Start from there.

Not a "side-step" at all. I responded to your question honestly and accurately.

Regarding my state - Do I or do I not think there should be more restrictions on guns than there are now - I do not. As I have already pointed out I have never said I was in favor of more restrictions.

Do I or do I not think we have too much gun control as it is now? I wanted to be clear on what the term "gun control" means prior to answering your question so when I Googled the meaning of the term it came back with "efforts to regulate or control sales of guns." Based on that definition, I do not think that we have too much gun control in my state, no.

***ATTENTION***

This thread has already been under heavy staff scrutiny, due to the amount of T&C infractions.

Be advised that any further violations of the Terms & Conditions, will result in a minimum 72hr posting ban and a review of your account by staff.

We should be able to discuss this like adults and not end up with a bunch of vitriol among other things:



No other warnings will be given.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

We are all possessed of opinions.
It is my opinion that the title of the thread is misleading. I expected a discussion of the 2nd Amendment and, rather, the entire thread dealt with "incorporation" issues, Federal Enclaves and a host of other minutiae that had little or no relevance to the ultimate intent and purpose of the 2nd. The endless focus on minutiae, the constant deflection and reversals, the circumlocution and, in general, the irrelevance of the whole initial espousal to any current events or debates is.....maddening.
It is important in these times to understand that the Bill of Rights, and even the "Rule of Law" are both adversarial and REACTIVE by nature. To attempt any PROACTIVE legislation is to restrict the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, e.g., one must get a permit or license to speak the word "fire" since it is possible that an irresponsible person might say it in a crowded theater. I am 62 and have never yelled fire in a crowded theater and have never thought about doing it. Yet, I have had to pay for a permit to say "fire" in other instances wherein I used the word in "legal" and "legitimate" conversation, I have been taxed for each time I used the word and have had to pay for "training" in the proper use of the word as well as submit to a national data base and registry for possessing the permit to speak the word. Do you not see the insanity, the banality of such foolishness? Do you now understand why I said I felt trapped in an episode of Seinfeld?
Your premise is flawed. Your logic is questionable. I make theses statements because you REFUSE to see this simple concept, you make no effort to address the core concept of your thread and you certainly have not linked it to any actual event that matters.
You will hate this, but one may NOT legislate morality or ethics. Laws prevent nothing, they provide for the punishment of those who do wrong in the eyes of the society in which they live, but they prevent nothing. Never have, never will. Do not waste precious time and lives chasing a Red Herring. Focus on the things that cause crime, not the tools sometimes used to commit those crimes.