Conservative Court of Appeals supports Federal gun infringement

[GhostWriter16]

Or AK's, high capacity magazines, automatic pistols, cannons, heavy machine guns or hand grenades.
___________________________
Hahahaha well regulated is right there in the most holy of the commandments Dommy. Are you finally going to concede that states do have the right to regulate firearms as related to them through Jeffersonjesus in the good parchment?

The "Well regulated militia" part is completely distinct from the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and to bear arms."

Note, however, that even if that weren't what it said, I'd still support it.

I don't really object on principle to automatic weapons not being allowed in cities, if we're not talking about the constitution. I can understand why a machine gun or the like wouldn't be allowed there since its pretty much impossible to pinpoint one at a specific target in a crowded urban area. On that the only counter-argument I'd use is the constitution, but otherwise IN URBAN AREAS I can understand the need for that restriction.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't really object on principle to automatic weapons not being allowed in cities, if we're not talking about the constitution. I can understand why a machine gun or the like wouldn't be allowed there since its pretty much impossible to pinpoint one at a specific target in a crowded urban area. On that the only counter-argument I'd use is the constitution, but otherwise IN URBAN AREAS I can understand the need for that restriction.

All gun control is still unconstitutional, and worse, it is evil.

All gun control is evil.

On guns, however, it says the right "Shall not be infringed." Thus, neither the Federal government or the states have any jurisdiction over it, or rather, they shouldn't.

I think that actual "Rights" are God-given, not government given

.....

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, there's a discrepancy there I'm not going to hide from it.

I've said before that "Arms" means "Small arms" so there's no right to own a nuke, tank, exc.

In a city, some of those same principles would also apply to machine-guns. Its simply impossible to really use those to protect life, liberty, and property in a city, without accidentally killing an innocent person (That crime happens to be common in cities is entirely besides the point, and should be ignored.)

I stand by "Neither the Federal or State" governments should have any jurisdiction over purchase of arms (Note: actual arms, not "Tanks" or "Nukes" or whatever concoction can be come up with, "Small arms" which is in fact up to bazooka, grenade launcher, and the like). However, at the city level I can understand why certain, automatic weaponry wouldn't be allowed. I don't feel the need to worry about it right now, since even semi-automatic weapons are heavily restricted in cities when I don't feel like they should be, but if we were ever going to make a constitutional amendment that codified the right to bear arms as being absolute and irrevokable at a Federal and State level, I'd be OK with a provision allowing cities to ban fully automatics.

I don't really care one way or another on it, I don't really think you CAN use a machine gun safely in the middle of a city so if they weren't allowed I wouldn't object too strongly. But if they were allowed I wouldn't object too strongly either.

I think any Federal or State level gun control is bad because its an attempt to disarm the populace. If the military can be trusted with weapons, surely anyone else can?

 

[dutchfire]

I've said before that "Arms" means "Small arms"

It's not size that matters, it is what you do with it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just stop using nonsense words like "evil" every time something smells of government.

If you want to be taken seriously that is.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The "Well regulated militia" part is completely distinct from the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and to bear arms."

So now we're cherry picking apart sentences of the various ammendments when it's obvious you can't defend the ammendment in it's entirety...

 

[Goodfella]

Old enough to fight in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan, but not old enough to have a gun?

You're old enough to kill, but not for votin'
You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin'?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So now we're cherry picking apart sentences of the various ammendments when it's obvious you can't defend the ammendment in it's entirety...

Well, it's only fair to treat the constitution as one would treat the Bible.

 

[dutchfire]

I like to refer to the US constitution as the Newer Testament.

 

[Berzerker]

Seems to me that someone who can't be trusted with something as simple as drinking shouldn't be trusted with implements specifically designed to kill.

does that mean the only people who can be trusted with guns are people who abstain from booze, or consume booze without getting drunk, or get drunk but remain trustworthy?

 

[JollyRoger]

Where is the word "small" in the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Evie]

does that mean the only people who can be trusted with guns are people who abstain from booze, or consume booze without getting drunk, or get drunk but remain trustworthy?

It means either 18 is old enough to be responsible, or it's not. If not, then don't let them have guns. If it is, let them drink.

Personally I think if you're going to have freedom to bear arms (stupid as that concept is), then in all fairness it should be 18, not 21, and drinking at 18 too.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree that both should be at 18, or whatever arbitrary age is chosen for age of majority, it should be the same. Either at 18 you are an adult or you aren't.

And I personally oppose any efforts to raise this age. Lowering it could be debated I suppose, but I am against raising it because it makes people be treated as children for far longer than necessary IMO.

 

[bhsup]

You guys realize that you don't OWN those firearms you use while in the military, right? They're not yours, and more often than not are probably locked up in an armory than in your possession, unless you're deployed.

Your dad can take you out in the back field and let you squeeze off rounds with a pistol before you're 21, without you owning a pistol.

SO in short, trying to link the age for military service to the age for civilian gun ownership is really apples and armadillos. Ditto btw alcohol. What makes military service so special that the age for it should be the age for every other coming of age power people gain?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I see no reason to assume that the "right to bear arms" should be limited to small arms.


It seems to me that a plain reading of the 2nd Amendment would forbid any law limiting anyone's right to bear any arms at the Federal level. I don't see why it ought to be incorporated against states or localities. A well regulated militia requires some weapons regulations at more local levels. Such regulations existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed, had already existed for a long time, and continued to exist long afterwards.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That "plain reading" was summarily rejected by the US Supreme Court for over 200 years until concerted efforts were made by a series of ultraconservative presidents to appoint reactionaries to that body.

 

[JollyRoger]

You guys realize that you don't OWN those firearms you use while in the military, right? They're not yours, and more often than not are probably locked up in an armory than in your possession, unless you're deployed.

Your dad can take you out in the back field and let you squeeze off rounds with a pistol before you're 21, without you owning a pistol.

SO in short, trying to link the age for military service to the age for civilian gun ownership is really apples and armadillos. Ditto btw alcohol. What makes military service so special that the age for it should be the age for every other coming of age power people gain?

The military thing wouldn't be so bad if you weren't compelled to register for the draft until you were old enough to drink and own a handgun.

 

[GamezRule]

Ban all guns. It's an evil thing to do. We only have government because some evil people in Sumeria declared the right to rule over others and the people foolishly accepted. Therefore government should prove it's evilness and ban all guns.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You guys realize that you don't OWN those firearms you use while in the military, right? They're not yours, and more often than not are probably locked up in an armory than in your possession, unless you're deployed.

Your dad can take you out in the back field and let you squeeze off rounds with a pistol before you're 21, without you owning a pistol.

SO in short, trying to link the age for military service to the age for civilian gun ownership is really apples and armadillos. Ditto btw alcohol. What makes military service so special that the age for it should be the age for every other coming of age power people gain?

Because you are either an adult or you aren't. If you aren't an adult, the state sending you overseas to fight and die for it should be a human rights violation. It is surely a human rights violation to send children overseas to die, is it not?

I see no reason to assume that the "right to bear arms" should be limited to small arms.


It seems to me that a plain reading of the 2nd Amendment would forbid any law limiting anyone's right to bear any arms at the Federal level. I don't see why it ought to be incorporated against states or localities. A well regulated militia requires some weapons regulations at more local levels. Such regulations existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed, had already existed for a long time, and continued to exist long afterwards.

Federal level? Oh, simply due to the constitution's silence on the issue, the FEDERAL government cannot ban guns, tanks, nukes, or anything else. The FEDERAL government can't do something unless the constitution specifically gives them such authority.

However, individual rights trump state's rights particularly when they are actually in the Constitution (I'm pretty sure the 14th amendment specifically says the states have to obey the Bill of Rights as well) and I'm pretty sure that back at the time the constitution was written that there was a different word for non-small arms. As such, presumably, the states could theoretically ban bigger weapons (And they probably would) but not the Federal government.

As far as I'm concerned every state should be allowed to own its own nukes, just in case.

 

[El_Machinae]

God invented nuclear explosions well before he invented the Tree of Knowledge. If God didn't want us having nukes, he could have made the stars out of coal.