kallend 2,027 #51 April 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteSCOTUS has ruled that the right to free speech is not unlimited. Nor, for that matter, are 2nd Amendment rights unlimited. They have also ruled: United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States So the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. Are you having a hard time understanding the phrase "Kazaa kazza wimple dink"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #52 April 2, 2011 No idea what that phrase means. Do you dispute his statements or conclusion?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #53 April 2, 2011 Quote No idea what that phrase means. Do you dispute his statements or conclusion? Don't know where that came from. It didn't say that when I first posted it.It should say "not unlimited".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #54 April 2, 2011 Quote Quote No idea what that phrase means. Do you dispute his statements or conclusion? Don't know where that came from. It didn't say that when I first posted it.It should say "not unlimited". Bill was trying his hand at humour on date night.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #55 April 2, 2011 Quote Quote No idea what that phrase means. Do you dispute his statements or conclusion? Don't know where that came from. It didn't say that when I first posted it.It should say "not unlimited". Not unlimited. Yep. The right can be taken away. States can require qualifications for concealed carry and prohibit carry into certain areas. Having read all three decisions completely, do you dispute his statements or his conclusion? ps- there's a rally in Chicago for 2A rights. Can I count on you to attend to try to convince the city and state to recognize and respect the eight you stayed you support?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kawisixer01 0 #56 April 3, 2011 So what type of "personal property" are we talking here? There is a big difference between the private property of a store for example, who at large invites the general public on their property, and the private personal property of an individual. This has been hashed out in the courts. I'm in no mood to crawl the web looking for sources, but I have read this numerous times in legal briefs. The first example I could find was an interview with Judge Napalitano who goes into the differences of private property rights when it comes to 2A. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #57 April 4, 2011 QuoteIt should say "not unlimited". Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #58 April 5, 2011 If you really want to blow a gun banner's mind, you can always bring up Dred Scott, and remind them how the roots of gun control are even more racist than the roots of drug prohibition. The decision refused to give full rights and citizenship to "negroes," stating that to do so would allow them "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Even a backwards racist decision clearly held keeping and carrying arms as valuable as freedom of speech, movement, and assembly. QuoteMore especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #59 April 5, 2011 It's not terribly surprising. Supposedly, the very first gun control laws here in what is now the US were in Maryland, and specifically denied Catholics the right to keep arms. If you want to suppress and oppress a group, denying them the right to means of self defense is the most logical first step. I'm not going Godwin "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #60 April 5, 2011 Quote It's not terribly surprising. Supposedly, the very first gun control laws here in what is now the US were in Maryland, and specifically denied Catholics the right to keep arms. If you want to suppress and oppress a group, denying them the right to means of self defense is the most logical first step. I'm not going Godwin Do you have a cite for that? It's a little odd, since Maryland's early settlers included a large number of Catholics."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #61 April 5, 2011 Quote If you really want to blow a gun banner's mind, you can always bring up Dred Scott, and remind them how the roots of gun control are even more racist than the roots of drug prohibition. True. 1. Gun ownership is a CIVIL right. A good number of "gun control laws" were really just attempts to prevent certain types of people from owning a firearm. A) There are numerous examples of Southern States passing laws to prevent the newly free blacks from owning a weapon. * The 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence," to: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." [1] * 1840 North Carolina Supreme Court: That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor [2] B. The NFA of 1934 still allowed the ownership of full auto weapons *if* you could afford the 200 dollar tax (on a 10 dollar item). That 200 dollars equals about 3200 dollars today. So to own a MG you have to pay the equivalent of 3200 in taxes. PLUS you needed a Chief LEO signature, or have a company or a trust. So if you were rich and well connected you could buy a MG still. C. The CGA of 1968 made it so you had to buy from an FFL. Back in the 60's.... What were the chances that the local hardware store in MS would sell a black man a gun for self defense? 2. Almost every gun law is about REMOVING rights. Most of us agree that certain people (insane, felons...etc) should not be allowed the right to a firearm. The difference is how innocent citizens should be treated. We live in a Country that has a legal system that is based on "innocent till PROVEN guilty". Why should that standard NOT apply to ownership of a firearm? 3. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. "No matter his strength or size, depend on me, I equalize!" This quote was often found engraved on the barrels of small revolvers and single shot pistols designed to be carried by women. To recap.... Gun laws are more often about removing rights from a group. In the US we have a standard for removing rights, and that standard is being *proven* guilty. Guns are uniquely suited to allow the physically weaker victim to be on equal footing as the attacker. 1. Thorpe, 6:3428. 2. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250 (1844). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #62 April 5, 2011 Still waiting: Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #63 April 5, 2011 Quote Quote It's not terribly surprising. Supposedly, the very first gun control laws here in what is now the US were in Maryland, and specifically denied Catholics the right to keep arms. If you want to suppress and oppress a group, denying them the right to means of self defense is the most logical first step. I'm not going Godwin Do you have a cite for that? It's a little odd, since Maryland's early settlers included a large number of Catholics. I found THIS, which lists early laws banning blacks from possession, and does ban "Papists" (Catholics) from possession in 1756, during the French and Indian War due to the supposed sympathies of the Catholics toward the French. I was under the impression that it was earlier, and more for simple discrimination than supposed sympathy for the enemy in time of war (which isn't any better justification)"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #64 April 6, 2011 Quote I found THIS, which lists early laws banning blacks from possession, and does ban "Papists" (Catholics) from possession in 1756, during the French and Indian War due to the supposed sympathies of the Catholics toward the French. I was under the impression that it was earlier, and more for simple discrimination than supposed sympathy for the enemy in time of war (which isn't any better justification) Ah, there we go. The very first listed gun control law was racist (specifically against blacks). The very first gun control to affect whites was aimed at another minority, Catholics. But really, we just need one more gun control law to make things wonderful for everybody. Quote To help keep slaves "in their place" the colonial assembly (comprised largely of slave owners) passed Maryland's very first gun control law. Chapter XLIV, Section XXXII of the Acts of 1715 provided: That no negro or other slave within this province shall be permitted to carry any gun, or any other offensive weapon, from off their master's land, without license from their said master; and if any negro or other slave shall presume to do so, he shall be liable to be carried before a justice of the peace, and be whipped, and his gun or other offensive weapon shall be forfeited to him that shall seize the same and carry such negro so offending before a justice of the peace. edit to add: The first gun control law I know of passed after the Revolution was a Georgia law banning handguns. It was declared unconstitutional. (a shock to gun banners everywhere, I'm sure)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #65 April 14, 2011 Still waiting: Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #66 April 15, 2011 Still waiting: Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 April 15, 2011 Do you think US citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons? It's a silly question I know, but it also shows that most people are in agreement with restrictions on "miltary-type weapon". The rest is just arguing over where that restriction should be. Personally I think the restriction should be on weapons that could affect countries outside the US without direct aim. Nuclear and chemical out, anything else should be allowed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #68 April 15, 2011 QuoteIt's a silly question I know, but it also shows that most people are in agreement with restrictions on "miltary-type weapon". The rest is just arguing over where that restriction should be. Read the US v Miller decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #69 April 15, 2011 QuoteDo you think US citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons? COOOL!!!! but the stupid store had a 3 day waiting period But I'm angry NOW ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #70 April 15, 2011 QuoteRead the US v Miller decision. Does it highlight what they consider to be appropriate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 April 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteRead the US v Miller decision. Does it highlight what they consider to be appropriate? If you can show where nuclear devices are a common infantry weapon, you might have a point.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #72 April 15, 2011 he highlighted US vs Miller as: Quote"The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." Hence I asked if the ruling also explained what would be appropriate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 April 15, 2011 Quotehe highlighted US vs Miller as: Quote"The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." Hence I asked if the ruling also explained what would be appropriate. Maybe you should read it and make your own determination? It's not like there isn't a summary of the case on Wikipedia or anything. Miller stated "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." However, the Court was in error - short barrelled shotguns were used in trench warfare in WWI. If defense council had been able to travel to the Court or if Miller had been alive at the time the case was discussed, Miller might have had a much different outcome.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #74 April 15, 2011 >If you can show where nuclear devices are a common infantry weapon, you might >have a point. Looks like Mike found an example where the right to bear arms can be infringed! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #75 April 15, 2011 How the hell else are we supposed to defend ourselves from the Pirates of the Carribean? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
