Anti-gun people...
- Thread starter NoleSoup4U
- Start date
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
I believe if you have served your time, and, paid your debt, your rights should be restored.....
After parole of course....
The SCOTUS has already defined arms as weapons commonly used for lawful purpose. Would you consider Anthrax as a weapon commonly used for lawful purpose?
It just shows that you accept literal interpretations when it suits you and when it doesn't you don't. Like most of the gun fellatists.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
No, not really. I am not a strict constructionist. I admit that freely.
I agree. But your "after parole" stipulation will just mean we hand out long parole terms. Lifetime parole for shoplifting if you are black sounds like a good way to keep blacks from getting guns or voting. OK, OK, maybe shoplifting isn't severe enough but we'll find something. Because a week in jail followed by lifetime parole doesn't sound too awful. It's only a week in jail, after all, not years.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Not "pure" speculation, but certainly speculation. "Logical consequence" hits closer to the mark.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Not in this day and age.... Think about it.... This isn't the 60's or 70's anymore.... that would never fly.....
No it means that I can read the decision from DC V Heller and understand that when they define arms as weapons commonly used for lawful purpose they aren't talking about Anthrax and nuclear weapons because I'm not effin stupid.
So 5 of 9 draw an arbitrary line for now and thats it? ok....for now....until the line moves again....Its arbitrary and a purely political issue. Further, the court acknowledged you could have some restrictions including the mentally ill, however you define it. You could fit a big chunk of gun owners under that category.
You've said some really stupid stuff on here but claiming it is an arbitrary political line keeping us from possessing anthrax has to be at the top of the list.
I didn't take what he said that way but rather that a 5-4 definition may not stand the test of personnel change on SCOTUS.
Thats not what I said. I said 5 justices drew an arbitrary line as to what is and isn't an arm. They did. The point is, they made an interpretation.
Yeah pretty sure the idiot keeps call for the private ownership of anthrax.
Pretty sure you can't read and interpret English. Where did I call for it? I asked a question.
Anti-gun people are such a miniscule percentage of Americans why do people even care what they think?
It's done all the time. Laws are passed because of deaths many times. Things are recalled because of deaths.
I don't know. Have nuclear weapons ever been used for an unlawful purpose? There seems to be a trap in there.
Well if you want to pretend to be an idiot and skip over the commonly used part I could see where you could see where you could come up with that.
Not only are they commonly used lawfully, I think they are 100% used lawfully. Its a grammar joke, you must be channeling your inner Mika Brzezinski this morning.
Or we might get a SCOTUS that decides the the "infringement" part of 2A only applies to muzzleloaders. After all, those were the "arms" the founding fathers had in mind.
If the measure is what reasonable people consider and actually use as "arms" in real life, then does my AK47 really fit? I mean I don't really want to give it up because it's a neat gadget. But if we are going to be reasonable about what qualifies as arms, then it's really over the line by that measure.
OTOH, if the idea of people bearing arms means they should be as well equipped as the armed threats they may face - whether we are talking about Indians, crooks or rogue police - then we need to look at what kind of heat those threats are packing. Does, for example, the militarization of the police justify a similar level of militarization by the law-abiding private citizen? Personally, I think we should dodge that one and demilitarize our police. But that's just me.
I don't think 2A informs us on which of those interpretations (or any other) is "right." Which is why I say that the current ruling shouldn't be taken as necessarily right or likely to last long. It's the law for now. But for how long?
Link to those numbers?
Just for the heck of it, I googled DC murders. 105 in 2014. Hard to believe removing DC from the list would make that much difference.
I do agree the firearms control laws within those cities are silly.
I just don't understand why its spoken of in extremes. I don't advocate taking away all guns, I advocate for reasonable restrictions; Waiting periods, background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, etc. I don't care if people hunt deer, etc.
I just don't understand why its spoken of in extremes. I don't advocate taking away all guns, I advocate for reasonable restrictions; Waiting periods, background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, etc. I don't care if people hunt deer, etc.
Well, I don't really approve of killing Bambi's mother, either. But I agree with the rest of what you said there.
I'm never really worried about anyone taking away guns, there isn't anyone who could physically enforce or do that and if there was they would soon run out people. I don't really anticipate anyone wanting to stand up to 100 million gun owners.
The whole discussion is fairy tale stuff.
And they would also decide that the 1st amendment only apply to quill and parchment too. No more internet for you.
Well they did include the press. Many people think that refers to reporters, but it's really a reference to the machinery of printing.
Maybe. Not that we'd do away with the internet. That would be up to our corporate masters.
But if we can decide that the evolution of arms has produced weapons that no longer serve the original purposes of 2A, then could we also decide that some modern forms of propaganda no longer serve the original purposes of 1A?
So, for example, if we decide that the purpose of guaranteeing the right to have guns is not well-served by people carrying assault rifles, then should assault rifles be protected? And, likewise, if the purpose of guaranteeing freedom of the press is not served by Fox spewing lies and propaganda, should Fox qualify as "press"?
I think you can make both of those arguments.
These are not questions that should be dismissed with the knee-jerk dogmatism of Tea Party constitution thumpers.
Similar threads
