GT40s.com
MK-I  MK-II  MK-III  MK-IV  GULF  MIRAGE  J-CAR  LOLA
GT40s.com
Home Forum Gallery Support GT40s.com  
Register FAQ Advertisers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   GT40s.com > >

Notices

The Paddock Enter at your own risk.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3rd October 2017, 04:28 PM   #21
YerDugliness's Avatar
YerDugliness
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Kansas
GT40: 1/24 scale MKII
Posts: 2,261
Re: Guns in America

Yes...THANKS, Howard!

One portion of an important judicial decision seems applicable to me:

"...the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."

This would seem to imply that while we may have the right to bear pistols and shotguns, the private possession of exactly the kind of semi-automatic (and this perp had converted his semi-automatic rifles to automatic) rifle used by the perp in Las Vegas is not protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Admittedly, there is further reading to do, but this seemed quite important to the nature of this discussion due to the type of weapons used.

I think that in the end, it may take a combination of governmental approval of not only the intended purchaser (already in place for retail sales, not so much for private sales or gun shows, etc.) as well as the type of weapon. Who would expect to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a bazooka and the ammo for the bazooka? It ought to be the same for such lethal weapons as "assault rifles"...which was to my understanding the nature of the weapons used at Las Vegas.

We DO have a lot of work to do if we're going to have any power at all over these insane zealots who think that their lives aren't complete until they take the lives of as many as they can kill with them as they blow their own brains out.

Sure do wish we were back in the "...days of innocence" when all a child had to worry about was getting caught chewing gum in school.... .

[Edit--so, now the news is reporting that 42 guns were found to be in this perp's possession between the ones he had at the Hotel and at his home. Why the hell would anyone in their right mind need that many guns? Hell, I don't even have that many guitars or fishing rods....and I think I have too many already!!!]

Cheers?? I'm not sure...

Doug
__________________
YD,E./PNB

Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by YerDugliness; 3rd October 2017 at 05:08 PM. Reason: 42 guns? REALLY? What the hell is up with this gun mania?
YerDugliness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2017, 05:14 PM   #22
Al Wohlstrom's Avatar
Al Wohlstrom
I Have No Life
United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ
GT40: RCR SLC LS7 Ric
Posts: 2,239
Re: Guns in America

Likewise, Hillary Clinton weighed in less than nine hours after the shooting and went deep into the gutter of politics. She mused that the massacre would have been worse if Paddock had a “silencer,” showing she knows as much about firearms as she does running a campaign.

A silencer silences the report of a chambered weapon almost completely if the round is subsonic, which at Las Vegas elevation of 2000 ft is around 1100fps. The rounds fired were in excess of 2500fps so the would be a sonic boom for each round fired. I was going to say HC ought to stick to politics, but that's not working either.
__________________
Al
Buy American!
Al Wohlstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2017, 10:27 PM   #23
Larry L.
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington St.
GT40: none. YET.
Posts: 2,515
Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by YerDugliness View Post
What I will do is suggest you read the first line in the 2nd ammendment. It is all about maintaining a "...well-regulated militia..."...

SCOTUS laid that straw man to rest a year or two back when it decided (in one of the few decisions the court has gotten right over the past few years IMHO) THE PEOPLE in fact DO have an individual right to keep and bear. Evidently it finally dawned on the Justices that The Founders would have INDICATED only militia members had the right to keep and bear if they'd intended that be the case. Instead they wrote; "...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear..."


Quote:
Originally Posted by YerDugliness View Post
You also know that the only way to impact gun-realted deaths at the hands of the likes of the LV shooter (who apparently had in excess of 25 guns in that Hotel suite) is to enact further limits on home-gun ownership. As I read the 2nd ammendment I didn't see anything that ensured carte-blanch rights to own deadly weapons.

Really! What part of "no law infringing" do YOU not understand??? Limiting by law the number and type of firearms an individual may own goes faaar beyond "infringing" on the right TO "keep and bear" whatever number of firearms one may want AS WELL AS the type kept. If The Founders had intended there be limits of any kind placed on the number/type of firearms individuals may own - they'd have indicated such. Instead, they said there shall be NO LAW passed that infringes on the right TO "KEEP" (and bear).



Quote:
Originally Posted by YerDugliness View Post
Now I will challenge you to do as you suggested...compose a lengthy piece of legislation that would eliminate the type of inappropriate gun usage seen in Las Vegas and yet guarantee the right to even limited gun ownership..how would you propose our laws be ammended (or composed) to assure without exception that incidents like occurred in L.V. won't occur?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! You're asking me to do what I've insisted all along CANNOT be done?????!!! Just how would you suggest I go about doing that? My whole point in issuing that challenge was to make clear how impossible it would be TO come up with such a law!



Quote:
Originally Posted by YerDugliness View Post
...keeping in mind that the 2nd Ammendment was all about our country's right to maintain a ARMY to keep foreign countries from invading our country in a war-like manner...

Uh...no. Let's instead "keep in mind" SCOTUS shot down (no pun intended) the whole "militia" argument some time ago...



Last edited by Larry L.; 4th October 2017 at 02:55 AM.
Larry L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 09:47 AM   #24
YerDugliness's Avatar
YerDugliness
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Kansas
GT40: 1/24 scale MKII
Posts: 2,261
Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry L. View Post
Uh...no. Let's instead "keep in mind" SCOTUS shot down (no pun intended) the whole "militia" argument some time ago...


Would that be the Miller decision?

Here's what I found about that:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

Try again, Larry!

Cheers!

Doug
__________________
YD,E./PNB

Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
YerDugliness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 11:36 AM   #25
Larry L.
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington St.
GT40: none. YET.
Posts: 2,515
Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by YerDugliness View Post

Here's what I found about that:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons..."

IOW, one cannot "bear" (carry) an aircraft carrier...a B-52...a tank...an ICBM...an F-16...or what have you.

The Founders knew 'carry weapons' would change/improve/evolve over the years and they didn't want "the people" restricted to the weapons of THEIR day...that's why they used the word "arms" instead of flintlocks & muskets, or whatever.

However, it should be mentioned one could make a cogent argument/case for one's "right" to own the weapons mentioned in my 1st sentence as well given how loosely the courts have applied their "right" to "interpret" on occasion. (E.g.: In its Obamacare decision, SCOTUS "interpreted" the line [paraphrased], "A state must have an EXCHANGE in order to receive subsidies", to mean subsidies WEREN'T tied to having an exchange.)

Bottom line: Heller changes nothing with regard to, "the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms, shall NOT be infringed."

Again, if The Founders had intended there be any restrictions on the right to "keep and bear" - they'd have mentioned them. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is as specific and absolute in its meaning as one can get.
Larry L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 11:40 AM   #26
Howard Jones's Avatar
Howard Jones
Gold Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N Braunfels TX
GT40: GTD
Posts: 3,985
Re: Guns in America

Just in case you want to read what Heller actually said.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Howard Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 11:41 AM   #27
YerDugliness's Avatar
YerDugliness
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Kansas
GT40: 1/24 scale MKII
Posts: 2,261
Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry L. View Post
Again, if The Founders had intended there be any restrictions on the right to "keep and bear" - they'd have mentioned them. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is as specific and absolute in its meaning as one can get.
...and my opinion differs in that we don't know what the founders really intended (other than what we may discover if we read the Federalist Papers).

If you have some sort of proof as to what the FF's intended, please let us know your source.

Other than that, it's just speculation and conjecture...

Cheers, Larry...I really enjoy having these discussions with you, it's illuminating to discover how different political persuasions impact our beliefs and actions!

Doug
__________________
YD,E./PNB

Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
YerDugliness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 03:15 PM   #28
Howard Jones's Avatar
Howard Jones
Gold Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N Braunfels TX
GT40: GTD
Posts: 3,985
Re: Guns in America

Doug, maybe you could read the above of which the excerpt I add is taken.

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) , cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833).

I would add that a LOT of the self defense doctrine contained in the second amendment is intended to provide for the individuals defense from a tyrannical government.
Howard Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 03:19 PM   #29
molleur's Avatar
molleur
Bronze Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
GT40: SL-C LS1/930LSD
Posts: 7,079
Re: Guns in America

Thank you again Howard!
__________________
Happily deplorable!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
molleur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 03:41 PM   #30
Howard Jones's Avatar
Howard Jones
Gold Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N Braunfels TX
GT40: GTD
Posts: 3,985
Re: Guns in America

Excerpt from;

http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcon...6&context=vulr


Another Antifederalist, George Mason, spoke on the relationship between arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most
effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. " Mason suggested that
divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly
including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term. 4'

Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia,
in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal
government some control over the militia. 42 Henry objected to the lack of
any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens; "the great object is
that every man be armed . . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." 43

The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil
against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To
preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the
addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep
and bear arms. "

B. The Federalist View
The Federalists, those supporting the Constitution as drafted, did not
dispute the premise that governmental tyranny was the primary evil that people
had to guard against.'45 Nor did the Federalists dispute the nexus between arms and freedom."

In one of the first Federalist pamphlets, Noah Webster
argued that the proposed Constitution provided adequate guarantees to check the
dangers of any standing army.'47 His reasoning acknowledged checks and
balances, but did not rely on the same. Rather, Webster argued:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any
bands of regular troops than can be, on any pretense, raised in the
United States. '48

Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed
Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and
balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed
population. 49 To the Antifederalist criticism of the standing army as a threat Madison replied:

To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to
near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by
men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common
liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their
affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia
thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of
regular troops . ... Besides the advantage of being armed, which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the
existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a
barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than
any which a simple government of any form can admit of."5

Another leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, voiced a similar view. 51
Hamilton suggested that if the representations of the people, elected under the
proposed Constitution, betrayed their constituents, the people retained the right
to defend their political rights and possessed the means to do so. 152
In summary, both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main
danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on
tyrannical government was an armed population. 53

Federalists and Antifederalists
disagreed, however, on several issues. First, they disagreed as to
whether sufficient checks and balances had been placed on the proposed national
government to control the danger of oppression.' 5' Second, the Antifederalists
believed a bill of rights should be incorporated into the Constitution to guarantee
certain rights. 55 The Federalists argued that such a bill of rights was
unnecessary because the power of the federal government was restricted to the grant of authority provided by the Constitution. 56 There was no need to provide exceptions to powers not granted.157 Further, the Federalists argued
that providing exceptions to powers not granted was dangerous because it could
encourage a claim that powers not expressly stated had been granted.'

Again, both sides not only agreed that the people had a right to be armed, both
sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to
preserving liberty. The framers quite clearly had adopted James Harrington's
political theory that the measure of liberty attained and retained was a direct
function of an armed citizenry's ability to claim and hold those rights from
domestic and foreign enemies.

You asked what the framers thought...................................................

Last edited by Howard Jones; 4th October 2017 at 03:46 PM.
Howard Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 03:45 PM   #31
Big-Foot's Avatar
Big-Foot
Administrator
United States
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kenyon, MN
GT40: Gulf Cart
Posts: 6,545
Re: Guns in America

Keep it civil gentlemen.
As soon as anyone starts belittling someone else this thread gets locked.
__________________
Regards - Randy
-- Youth and talent are no match for old age and treachery!
GT40 RCR40 #45 G50-331-Weber IDAs ((Sold))
My build site:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Big-Foot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 03:51 PM   #32
Scott Calabro's Avatar
Scott Calabro
10 tenths
United States
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southwick, Ma.
GT40: Tornado TS40
Posts: 1,711
Re: Guns in America

FYI, the John Birch Society sells a paperback version of the Federalist Papers for a quite reasonable price
__________________
Tornado Sports Cars USA Rep.
Scott Calabro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 04:05 PM   #33
Howard Jones's Avatar
Howard Jones
Gold Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N Braunfels TX
GT40: GTD
Posts: 3,985
Re: Guns in America

civil..................I promise! The facts sir...........just the facts...............By the way I have a fairly new copy of the federalist papers. I wore out the first one a long time ago.
AND I got mine from Amazon.

The Federalist Papers: The Ideas that Forged the American Constitution: Slip-case Edition: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, R.B. Bernstein: 9781785991424: Amazon.com: Books
Howard Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 04:27 PM   #34
YerDugliness's Avatar
YerDugliness
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Kansas
GT40: 1/24 scale MKII
Posts: 2,261
Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Jones View Post
I would add that a LOT of the self defense doctrine contained in the second amendment is intended to provide for the individuals defense from a tyrannical government.
Thanks for that, Howard...it just reinforces my belief that the limited government of our early status as a country was attempting to keep the colonization efforts displayed elsewhere (like in India) from being successful in America.

What I recall from my high school history classes was that the British did invade the U.S. in the 1800s (the war of 1812) and that the British "battle plan" during those times was to march out in formation and expect the "enemy" (which was IIRC just a rag-tag bunch of farmers, most of whom had guns although some did not) to march out to challenge them in much the same formations. The Brits were just outraged that the early Americans fought from inside the tree lines and didn't just stand there in the open and trade shots.

So...the "militia" of the early settlers was just a bunch of citizens who responded to the intrusive efforts of the British by grabbing a shovel, or a pitchfork, or a gun if they had one, and gathering in a place where they felt they could successfully ambush the British troops who were marching in formation. That hardly sounds like a "militia" to me...I grew up in a military family and so my perception of militia is a governmental entity composed of volunteers as well as those subject to being "drafted" (I'd suppose that might be a kind term for "forced")...never did I think of the early groups of rebellious settlers as a "militia"...not once, not now, never.

This is one "Interpretation" I found that hadn't even dawned on me:

"The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. However, it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means."

So...it is clear that the early settlers wanted to make sure they could keep their guns to help provide food for their families and to defend themselves in their own home. So far, there has been no SCOTUS decision that the right extend outside of the home.

So, what is the purpose of a "concealed weapon permit"...I could see that a court could extend the rather loose definition of "home" to include carrying a weapon in an automobile (as an "extension" of the home...but I'm reaching here), but beyond that the separation between keeping a gun and "bearing" the gun (a euphemism for "firing" the gun?) there isn't much more definition that I've uncovered in my research.

I'd like to believe that the term is further defined somewhere...we are certainly more sophisticated in ALL areas than were the "Founding Fathers", so my position is that a militia must meet our current definition (since, after all, this IS "when" we are living and discussing this issue) rather than just a bunch of bozos carrying guns (that sounds like the KKK to me!---are they a "militia"?)

It just makes sense...we would no longer use the dental or medical tools that were prevalent during the days of the FF's, so there is no more reason to use those "definitions" than there would be to use the same tools of the trade used during those times. Progress is inevitable and we must be able to change and adjust for that inevitable occurrence.

We DO HAVE a militia in this day and age...army, navy, air force, marines, etc...and they NEED to be armed to protect our country and our citizens, but the general public is no longer active in fighting wars (except for the reserves) so there is no need to allow the general public to have the kind of weapons that are not necessary for home defense and sporting events related to hunting (shooting trap, that sort of thing).

The FFs could no more have envisioned the necessity for arming the public in this day and age than they could have envisioned the prevalence of computers, or cars, or any of the multitude of modern conveniences. Their choice of words was wrong if they intended for the average citizen to grab his gun and fight off intruders...which we are all told NOT to do, to leave that to the "militia" (yeah, I saw "Red Dawn" too).

One of the things I really dread seeing return is the process of providing surplus military equipment to the police forces of this country...every time I see them using those items I can't imagine how people in their sights are not feeling like they are the targets of our own "militia" and not a law-enforcement organization dedicated to "protecting and serving".

Should the general public arm themselves to protect themselves against the police? I think we've had THAT discussion before, but it bears further discussion because I doubt that the 2nd amendment would consider a law enforcement organization a "militia". I doubt that the Founding Fathers, if they were alive today, would consider a rag-tag group of "freedom fighters" to be a "militia"...Just MHO, though.

Good discussion, guys!!

Cheers from Doug!!
__________________
YD,E./PNB

Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
YerDugliness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 05:38 PM   #35
Scott Calabro's Avatar
Scott Calabro
10 tenths
United States
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southwick, Ma.
GT40: Tornado TS40
Posts: 1,711
Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Jones View Post
civil..................I promise! The facts sir...........just the facts...............By the way I have a fairly new copy of the federalist papers. I wore out the first one a long time ago.
AND I got mine from Amazon.

The Federalist Papers: The Ideas that Forged the American Constitution: Slip-case Edition: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, R.B. Bernstein: 9781785991424: Amazon.com: Books
But then you don't have the immediate opportunity to join JBS
__________________
Tornado Sports Cars USA Rep.
Scott Calabro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 05:49 PM   #36
Larry L.
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington St.
GT40: none. YET.
Posts: 2,515
Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by YerDugliness View Post

If you have some sort of proof as to what the FF's intended, please let us know your source.

Other than that, it's just speculation and conjecture...


I'VE REPEATEDLY SHOWN YOU the proof of what they intended, Doug! The Founder's own words! Their "intent" couldn't have been MORE clear: 'Congress shall pass NO LAW infringing' on the right of the people to keep and bear. They couldn't have BEEN more clear. What part of their statement is UNCLEAR???

Look up the words "no", "law" and "infringe"/"infringing". Then, if you're STILL confused or in the dark as to The Founders' intent - get back to me! ;-)
Larry L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 06:16 PM   #37
YerDugliness's Avatar
YerDugliness
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Kansas
GT40: 1/24 scale MKII
Posts: 2,261
Re: Guns in America

"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices."

So.....what do you think about that and your belief that there is no opportunity to control gun usage or ownership?

Doug
__________________
YD,E./PNB

Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
YerDugliness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 06:50 PM   #38
Larry L.
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington St.
GT40: none. YET.
Posts: 2,515
Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by YerDugliness View Post

"The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. However, it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means.
Good grief. 'Time to apply the "ruling of the reasonable man" here.

Given the fact that it's logical to assume one is exposed to FAR MORE SELF-DEFENSE RISKS of all kinds when outside one's own home than when inside 'same, it stands to reason we have the right to 'bear' inside OR outside. THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. (And, BTW, if it's only legal to possess/'carry' a gun in one's home...uh...how are all those "militia" folks gunna LEGALLY transport their "arms" to this-or-that battlefield? Aaaaah...now there's the rub, innit!)

AGAIN (sigh): IF THE FOUNDERS HAD INTENDED THERE BE ANY RESTRICTIONS (ETC., ETC.) ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR - THEY WOULD HAVE LISTED THEM!

NOWHERE did The Founders say we had the right to carry IN THE HOME - BUT NOT OUTSIDE IT. NOWHERE did they say we can 'carry' in the open - but NOT concealed. NOWHERE did they say we can 'carry' over HERE...but not over THERE. NOWHERE did they say we can 'carry' THIS kind of firearm...but not THAT kind. NOWHERE did they say we can 'carry' a weapon that holds "X" number of rounds - but no more. THE FOUNDERS PROHIBITED ALL OF THAT AND MORE when they penned the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear (...BEAR...BEAR...BEAR...BEAR) arms (...ARMS...ARMS...ARMS...ARMS) shall not (...NOT...NOT...NOT...NOT) be infringed."

EVERY 'restriction' I listed above (and a trainload more besides) c-l-e-a-r-l-y "infringes". I mean, come ON, people. Anyone with an I.Q. above 50 should be able to recognize the inherent truth in that. All the anti-gunner agenda-driven, legalese infested, smoke and mirrors obfuscation thrown out there in the hope it will persuade people the opposite is true is just that: anti-gunner agenda-driven, legalese infested, smoke and mirrors obfuscation.
Larry L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 07:13 PM   #39
YerDugliness's Avatar
YerDugliness
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Kansas
GT40: 1/24 scale MKII
Posts: 2,261
Re: Guns in America

And more:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9]

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

How long before you accept the fact that the Founding Fathers, when they spoke of "the people", were referencing the population of the United States (which wasn't anywhere near what it is now days, further convincing me that the FF's had no idea what the future would bring and therefore were not drafting this "Hands Off!!!" shot at Great Britain to protect individual rights...they were more interested in "the people" as in the population of the United States!)

In that respect, congress shall "...make no law..." interfering with the greater good of the country (i.e. "the people"). Your literal interpretation is a bit rigid for my sense of right vs wrong, Larry....but you're certainly entitled to your own interpretation and thanks for voicing it here. It's nice to see how the "alt-right" thinks!

Cheers!

Doug
__________________
YD,E./PNB

Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by YerDugliness; 4th October 2017 at 07:24 PM.
YerDugliness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2017, 08:40 PM   #40
Howard Jones's Avatar
Howard Jones
Gold Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N Braunfels TX
GT40: GTD
Posts: 3,985
Re: Guns in America

I quote from ruling in United States v. Cruikshank:

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

I will note:

That we agree that the "right" to bear arms is not conferred on the people by the Congress. It is derived from God as the right of freedom of speech is under the 1st amendment. These two amendments forbid the government (congress) from passing any law that infringes on these rights, and both are protected as a natural rights by the constitution

Here is a link to the ruling:

United States v. Cruikshank (full text) :: 92 U.S. 542 (1875) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

I have read it and I can't for the life of me begin to understand how it has anything to do with the lawful right to bear arms in public. It primarily concerns the illegal preventing of lawful assembly and exercise of black peoples constitutional rights by others (mostly white racists I would suspect). It also, as I have quoted above, did not agree that the racists had a 2nd amendment right to bear arms in public for an unlawful purpose (blocking the black peoples right to assemble).

Here we agree again.

"How long before you accept the fact that the Founding Fathers, when they spoke of "the people", were referencing the population of the United States......"

I am not sure what you are getting at with the rest of this paragraph but wouldn't that first part seam to reinforce the idea that the 2nd amendment is a individual right and not limited to a effort to construct a militia. Oh and by the way the constitution was drafted and passed AFTER we won the revolutionary war. There for I don't see the connection with Britain. I think they had gotten the idea at this point.

Keep looking this dog didn't hunt............with all due civil respect

Last edited by Howard Jones; 4th October 2017 at 08:57 PM.
Howard Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
deaths, die, gun, homicides, year


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:50 PM.