Well let me correct the President cause its obvious he had no clue what the second amendment was about.
The right to bear arms wasnt for hunting or sports purposes. It was for people to have arms in case its govt turned on the people, thus giving them the ability to fight back. So if a ak47 is needed to fight back then so be it.
Kind of surprised you being a lawyer would post this. I sure hope this isnt you agreeing with the worst President in our history.
You are kind of surprised I posted a quote from Reagan that is relevant to the discussion today? You understand that there are differing viewpoints than your own.
The basis behind the 2nd Amendment is far from clear. A contextual reading would lead one to the idea that the framers wanted no restrictions on guns, yet that seems to run afoul with the framers own beliefs (citizens for purposes of voting and representation were white male property owners). Does that mean that slaves would have had a 2nd Amedment right to own weapons?
It just isn't all that clear.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
Well let me correct the President cause its obvious he had no clue what the second amendment was about.
The right to bear arms wasnt for hunting or sports purposes. It was for people to have arms in case its govt turned on the people, thus giving them the ability to fight back. So if a ak47 is needed to fight back then so be it.
Kind of surprised you being a lawyer would post this. I sure hope this isnt you agreeing with the worst President in our history.
You are kind of surprised I posted a quote from Reagan that is relevant to the discussion today? You understand that there are differing viewpoints than your own.
The basis behind the 2nd Amendment is far from clear. A contextual reading would lead one to the idea that the framers wanted no restrictions on guns, yet that seems to run afoul with the framers own beliefs (citizens for purposes of voting and representation were white male property owners). Does that mean that slaves would have had a 2nd Amedment right to own weapons?
The explicit purpose that the Second Amendment was written was so that
civilians that comprised the militia and alarm list would be armed with
military-capable arms to depose would-be tyrants.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense.
The 2nd Amendment quite clearly implies that the intention was to arm citizens with contemporary arms of military utility.
0
The explicit purpose that the Second Amendment was written was so that
civilians that comprised the militia and alarm list would be armed with
military-capable arms to depose would-be tyrants.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense.
The 2nd Amendment quite clearly implies that the intention was to arm citizens with contemporary arms of military utility.
The explicit purpose that the Second Amendment was written was so that civilians that comprised the militia and alarm list would be armed with military-capable arms to depose would-be tyrants.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense.
The 2nd Amendment quite clearly implies that the intention was to arm citizens with contemporary arms of military utility.
Aren't you the one that talks about herring and red strawmen? You are creating and answering an argument that isn't being made.
We all believe in restrictions on gun ownership (which does not seem contemplated by the 2nd Amedment). The question is always in what is necessary and reasonable.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
The explicit purpose that the Second Amendment was written was so that civilians that comprised the militia and alarm list would be armed with military-capable arms to depose would-be tyrants.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense.
The 2nd Amendment quite clearly implies that the intention was to arm citizens with contemporary arms of military utility.
Aren't you the one that talks about herring and red strawmen? You are creating and answering an argument that isn't being made.
We all believe in restrictions on gun ownership (which does not seem contemplated by the 2nd Amedment). The question is always in what is necessary and reasonable.
We don't do rights in America based on what you or anyone else thinks is "reasonable." Since what your stating is a political term that is arbitrary and frankly silly.
Are you kidding? There is a legion of cases decided what is an UNREASONABLE search of seizure. The 4th amendment.
The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say any and every arms ever created or imagined. Even the wackiest of right-wingers don't think there is no ability regulate arms at all.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Whatever you think "reasonable" is, I don't.
We don't do rights in America based on what you or anyone else thinks is "reasonable." Since what your stating is a political term that is arbitrary and frankly silly.
Are you kidding? There is a legion of cases decided what is an UNREASONABLE search of seizure. The 4th amendment.
The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say any and every arms ever created or imagined. Even the wackiest of right-wingers don't think there is no ability regulate arms at all.
You are kind of surprised I posted a quote from Reagan that is relevant to the discussion today? You understand that there are differing viewpoints than your own.
The basis behind the 2nd Amendment is far from clear. A contextual reading would lead one to the idea that the framers wanted no restrictions on guns, yet that seems to run afoul with the framers own beliefs (citizens for purposes of voting and representation were white male property owners). Does that mean that slaves would have had a 2nd Amedment right to own weapons?
It just isn't all that clear.
am not a lawyer nor as smart as you, but you are clearly reaching and using your lawyer skills on the topic
My opinion doesnt matter. What matters is the opinion of all the people. Majority of the people is what matters, not what any 1 person wants to read what the second amendment means.
Like Ronnie, why should what he says matter, when he clearly doesnt even know the difference between a ak47 and a machine gun. Its like comparing apples to oranges
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
You are kind of surprised I posted a quote from Reagan that is relevant to the discussion today? You understand that there are differing viewpoints than your own.
The basis behind the 2nd Amendment is far from clear. A contextual reading would lead one to the idea that the framers wanted no restrictions on guns, yet that seems to run afoul with the framers own beliefs (citizens for purposes of voting and representation were white male property owners). Does that mean that slaves would have had a 2nd Amedment right to own weapons?
It just isn't all that clear.
am not a lawyer nor as smart as you, but you are clearly reaching and using your lawyer skills on the topic
My opinion doesnt matter. What matters is the opinion of all the people. Majority of the people is what matters, not what any 1 person wants to read what the second amendment means.
Like Ronnie, why should what he says matter, when he clearly doesnt even know the difference between a ak47 and a machine gun. Its like comparing apples to oranges
Who cares what Ronald Reagan said about gun control. It is pretty clear that aside from the first 10 presidents. Especially every modern president seeks to grow the government and corner the monopoly of force.
0
Who cares what Ronald Reagan said about gun control. It is pretty clear that aside from the first 10 presidents. Especially every modern president seeks to grow the government and corner the monopoly of force.
am not a lawyer nor as smart as you, but you are clearly reaching and using your lawyer skills on the topic
My opinion doesnt matter. What matters is the opinion of all the people. Majority of the people is what matters, not what any 1 person wants to read what the second amendment means.
Like Ronnie, why should what he says matter, when he clearly doesnt even know the difference between a ak47 and a machine gun. Its like comparing apples to oranges
Of course your opinion matters. As with anything, it is difficult to ascertain what the majority of people actually want. I think it is pretty clear that the majority of people support some form of gun restrictions. What exactly those are is always difficult to answer. I don't think it is a stretch to say that most people don't want criminals or the mentally ill carrying assault weapons around schools. Yet, the 2nd Amendment does not forbid that, which is my point. It is intellectually dishonest to rely upon the 2nd Amendment as the basis for not having restrictions when society actually wants some measure of restrictions.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
am not a lawyer nor as smart as you, but you are clearly reaching and using your lawyer skills on the topic
My opinion doesnt matter. What matters is the opinion of all the people. Majority of the people is what matters, not what any 1 person wants to read what the second amendment means.
Like Ronnie, why should what he says matter, when he clearly doesnt even know the difference between a ak47 and a machine gun. Its like comparing apples to oranges
Of course your opinion matters. As with anything, it is difficult to ascertain what the majority of people actually want. I think it is pretty clear that the majority of people support some form of gun restrictions. What exactly those are is always difficult to answer. I don't think it is a stretch to say that most people don't want criminals or the mentally ill carrying assault weapons around schools. Yet, the 2nd Amendment does not forbid that, which is my point. It is intellectually dishonest to rely upon the 2nd Amendment as the basis for not having restrictions when society actually wants some measure of restrictions.
Who cares what Ronald Reagan said about gun control. It is pretty clear that aside from the first 10 presidents. Especially every modern president seeks to grow the government and corner the monopoly of force.
Spoken like the true conspiracy theorist.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Who cares what Ronald Reagan said about gun control. It is pretty clear that aside from the first 10 presidents. Especially every modern president seeks to grow the government and corner the monopoly of force.
am not a lawyer nor as smart as you, but you are clearly reaching and using your lawyer skills on the topic
My opinion doesnt matter. What matters is the opinion of all the people. Majority of the people is what matters, not what any 1 person wants to read what the second amendment means.
Like Ronnie, why should what he says matter, when he clearly doesnt even know the difference between a ak47 and a machine gun. Its like comparing apples to oranges
The original version of the ak47 was a sub-machine gun.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
am not a lawyer nor as smart as you, but you are clearly reaching and using your lawyer skills on the topic
My opinion doesnt matter. What matters is the opinion of all the people. Majority of the people is what matters, not what any 1 person wants to read what the second amendment means.
Like Ronnie, why should what he says matter, when he clearly doesnt even know the difference between a ak47 and a machine gun. Its like comparing apples to oranges
The original version of the ak47 was a sub-machine gun.
Who cares what Ronald Reagan said about gun control. It is pretty clear that aside from the first 10 presidents. Especially every modern president seeks to grow the government and corner the monopoly of force.
yeah reagan was a big-government guy big time...
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Who cares what Ronald Reagan said about gun control. It is pretty clear that aside from the first 10 presidents. Especially every modern president seeks to grow the government and corner the monopoly of force.
Aren't you the one that talks about herring and red strawmen? You are creating and answering an argument that isn't being made.
We all believe in restrictions on gun ownership (which does not seem contemplated by the 2nd Amedment). The question is always in what is necessary and reasonable.
Um, I just watched 5 Democrats stand at a 75 minute press conference and say that people don't need "military style assault weapons"
I responded to that point.
Clearly.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Aren't you the one that talks about herring and red strawmen? You are creating and answering an argument that isn't being made.
We all believe in restrictions on gun ownership (which does not seem contemplated by the 2nd Amedment). The question is always in what is necessary and reasonable.
Um, I just watched 5 Democrats stand at a 75 minute press conference and say that people don't need "military style assault weapons"
At our nation's inception we held our liberties in the highest regard, our leaders actually cared about the Constitution even if they stretched it. IE barberry Pirates, Louisiana Purchase.
Now I think our leaders do not even give a fleeting thought to the people of this country and our liberties. I think a great ruling class has erected itself where statesmen once stood. I think that our leaders are inclined to enrich themselves before the enrich the people of this country. I think that this is evident in every aspect of our government from our foreign policy down to interstate commerce.
0
I don't think that is a conspiracy.
I think it is a fact.
At our nation's inception we held our liberties in the highest regard, our leaders actually cared about the Constitution even if they stretched it. IE barberry Pirates, Louisiana Purchase.
Now I think our leaders do not even give a fleeting thought to the people of this country and our liberties. I think a great ruling class has erected itself where statesmen once stood. I think that our leaders are inclined to enrich themselves before the enrich the people of this country. I think that this is evident in every aspect of our government from our foreign policy down to interstate commerce.
Are you kidding? There is a legion of cases decided what is an UNREASONABLE search of seizure. The 4th amendment.
The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say any and every arms ever created or imagined. Even the wackiest of right-wingers don't think there is no ability regulate arms at all.
I think you should go about conflating the 4th Amendment which states "unreasonable searches" and the 2nd Amendment which does not.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
Are you kidding? There is a legion of cases decided what is an UNREASONABLE search of seizure. The 4th amendment.
The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say any and every arms ever created or imagined. Even the wackiest of right-wingers don't think there is no ability regulate arms at all.
I think you should go about conflating the 4th Amendment which states "unreasonable searches" and the 2nd Amendment which does not.
Anyway, given that "military style assault weapons" aren't really used in crimes in America (in 2011 750 people shot by rifles in a county of 315 million), it is quite clear those proposing to ban them have no interest in reducing crimes or homicides.
0
Anyway, given that "military style assault weapons" aren't really used in crimes in America (in 2011 750 people shot by rifles in a county of 315 million), it is quite clear those proposing to ban them have no interest in reducing crimes or homicides.
Gun-related homicides and serious injuries from gun assaults in Virginia have been trending downward for at least six years, and a new survey suggests the state’s booming gun sales have not triggered an increase in the proportion of people slain by a gun or who use a firearm to commit suicide.
Figures from Virginia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show firearm-related homicides declined in four of the seven years from 2005 through 2011 — the latest reporting year available — from 357 killings to 242, for an overall decrease of 32 percent.
When state population increases are factored in, gun-related homicides fell 37 percent, from 4.72 deaths per 100,000 in 2005 to 2.99 in 2011.
Injuries from gun-related assaults in Virginia that required hospitalization have declined four of those same seven years from 392 injuries to 283, a drop of 28 percent, according to Virginia Department of Health records.
What’s more, “the increased availability of guns does not seem to correlate with an increase in the proportion of suicides and homicides by gun,” said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who in an analysis compared state vital records data on homicides and suicides with Virginia gun dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Gun-related homicides and serious injuries from gun assaults in Virginia have been trending downward for at least six years, and a new survey suggests the state’s booming gun sales have not triggered an increase in the proportion of people slain by a gun or who use a firearm to commit suicide.
Figures from Virginia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show firearm-related homicides declined in four of the seven years from 2005 through 2011 — the latest reporting year available — from 357 killings to 242, for an overall decrease of 32 percent.
When state population increases are factored in, gun-related homicides fell 37 percent, from 4.72 deaths per 100,000 in 2005 to 2.99 in 2011.
Injuries from gun-related assaults in Virginia that required hospitalization have declined four of those same seven years from 392 injuries to 283, a drop of 28 percent, according to Virginia Department of Health records.
What’s more, “the increased availability of guns does not seem to correlate with an increase in the proportion of suicides and homicides by gun,” said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who in an analysis compared state vital records data on homicides and suicides with Virginia gun dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
I actually agree that gun control advocates need to articulate a concise and clear definition of assault weapon if they are seeking to have any sort of restriction.
As to the second point, and you know this, necessity absolutely figures into the equation of restrictions on fundmental rights under intermediate or strict scrutiny.
DJ this is an absolute perfect point. Furthermore, any action taken by officials should be without any ambiguity. There are two reasons and two alone that a politician like Fienstein or Obama would continue to use obscure terms. 1)either they are ignorant and misinformed, or 02) they need to provide misinformtion or intentionally ommit information to gain public support. 1 aint it. As much as I dislike Obama and as much as I despise Feinstein, I would not call them ignorant or misinfomed. They, as are all successful politicians are fantastic at gaining party support no matter what the absolute truth may be.
Instead they are intentionally obtuse or misinform due to obsessive hunger to have power. At this point they have told their lie so many times it has been accepted as truth. If that were not the case, they would be seeking a handgun ban instead of targeting an object that is responsible for a minute amount of gun deaths. If passed however, it does relay one thing. It allows them to look into the eyes of law abiding citizens and say "look what I did to you today, and there's more of that to come tomorrow".
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I actually agree that gun control advocates need to articulate a concise and clear definition of assault weapon if they are seeking to have any sort of restriction.
As to the second point, and you know this, necessity absolutely figures into the equation of restrictions on fundmental rights under intermediate or strict scrutiny.
DJ this is an absolute perfect point. Furthermore, any action taken by officials should be without any ambiguity. There are two reasons and two alone that a politician like Fienstein or Obama would continue to use obscure terms. 1)either they are ignorant and misinformed, or 02) they need to provide misinformtion or intentionally ommit information to gain public support. 1 aint it. As much as I dislike Obama and as much as I despise Feinstein, I would not call them ignorant or misinfomed. They, as are all successful politicians are fantastic at gaining party support no matter what the absolute truth may be.
Instead they are intentionally obtuse or misinform due to obsessive hunger to have power. At this point they have told their lie so many times it has been accepted as truth. If that were not the case, they would be seeking a handgun ban instead of targeting an object that is responsible for a minute amount of gun deaths. If passed however, it does relay one thing. It allows them to look into the eyes of law abiding citizens and say "look what I did to you today, and there's more of that to come tomorrow".
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
