The 2nd Amendment, Gun Control, and Mass Murder

[RobG]

You are bizarre TLC. You don't have the right to own certain small arms now, for example if you are a felon, etc. For example, if you don't fit some criteria for "mentally ill." For example, if you aren't licensed to own a machine gun. You didn't have the right to own "assault weapons" in 1994-2004, problematic definition of "assault weapons" notwithstanding.

This "right" is not guaranteed by the Constitution any more than the right to scream "fire" in a theater is. Rights are generally terminated where they start to infringe on other people's rights to life, liberty, property, etc.

If you can't understand that I can't help you. Don't expect me to try any longer.

 

[TLC]

a convicted felon HAD the right to own certain small arms until he took that right away from himself by breaking the law. still don't get the temporary thing, do you? just like you have no clue what militia means. that's ok. I understand that you have no clue to a lot of things. nothing withstanding.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If you two brothers-in-arms don't stop your trivial quarreling ... Mom's gonna take your BB guns away!

 

[RobG]

a convicted felon HAD the right to own certain small arms until he took that right away from himself by breaking the law. still don't get the temporary thing, do you? just like you have no clue what militia means. that's ok. I understand that you have no clue to a lot of things. nothing withstanding.

At this time I believe it is customary to say "whatever."

rg

 

[Sytes]

This is my position on the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Creation of the 2nd Amendment involved a time where States held each able bodied male as the State militia. The necessity of maintaining each States militia depended on the people to keep and bear arms. In the event the State needed to call upon it's militia, they would be armed AND regulated by the State. This 'Shall not be infringed' by the Federal Gov't. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure the Federal Gov't could not infringe upon the States sovereignty on regulating thier militia - the people to keep and bear arms (edit added for clarification).

Ensuring 'able bodied'* males** are those whom may be armed - requires a need to identify whom are 'able bodied males'. Registration / background checks does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms - in fact, it is in compliance with ensuring a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

* 'able bodied' = mentally sound, free of felony conviction, etc.
** 'males' = laws of equality have been enacted to include females.

The burden of responsibility to ensure a well regulated militia exists for the security of a free state is upon the state. To comply with ensuring able bodied males (and females) exists, it would be necessary to identify those whom a state has armed are not felony criminals / mentally unstable people of that state. Each state holds that responsibility however they choose to go about it. This is NOT a Federal Gov't responsibility. Also, a state holds the responsibility to choose if a Federally convicted felon is respected as equal to a state conviction.
Once a person crosses state lines - interstate activity is upon the Federal Gov't. A person entering another state must ensure s/he is in compliance with that state's requirements.

Sheesh, to involve into a conversation of this sort means I need to get out more... haha!

 

[RobG]

If you two brothers-in-arms don't stop your trivial quarreling ... Mom's gonna take your BB guns away!

The case of Mom vs. Rob established I didn't have the right to a BB gun either

 

[rhomas]

I have to side with TLC on this one, especially since the so called "assault weapons" ban under Clinton was not only temporary( the sunset clause was inserted on purpose to gauge the benefits and effects of the ban), but also in direct contradiction to the Constitution wherein the right to regulate firearms is retained by the individual states. The Second Amendment goes on to stipulate that those rights may not be "infringed" upon by the Federal Government. It's also important to recognize that FDR was instrumental in regulating actual assault weapons in 1934, which is why it's so difficult to own a machine gun. We must also recognize that one of the major emphasizes of the Clinton ban was on the manufacture of high capacity magazines, NOT the sale or possession of those magazines; unlike the proposals made by the current crop of anti-gunners. Feinstein and the current crop of anti-gun people aren't interested in controlling crime, or eliminating mass murder. Their stated goal is as she said "the complete elimination of firearms in this country". Perhaps it's time for a few of you to actually read and comprehend what the implications truly are, instead of following the emotional reactions the media has inflamed.

BTW, how many of us, along with the liberals in this country actually agreed with Bush and the implementation of the Patriot Act at the time, when we feared there was a Muslim terrorist hiding behind every corner? How many still feel that there may still be certain individuals in this country that the provisions of the Patriot Act has uncovered and what it possibly has prevented?????????

Sytes and I evidently were posting simultaneously.

 

[RobG]

Creation of the 2nd Amendment involved a time where States held each able bodied male as the State militia. The necessity of maintaining each States militia depended on the people to keep and bear arms. In the event the State needed to call upon it's militia, they would be armed AND regulated by the State. This 'Shall not be infringed' by the Federal Gov't. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure the Federal Gov't could not infringe upon the States sovereignty on regulating thier militia - the people to keep and bear arms (edit added for clarification).

...etc...

The burden of responsibility to ensure a well regulated militia exists for the security of a free state is upon the state. To comply with ensuring able bodied males (and females) exists, it would be necessary to identify those whom a state has armed are not felony criminals / mentally unstable people of that state. Each state holds that responsibility however they choose to go about it. This is NOT a Federal Gov't responsibility. Also, a state holds the responsibility to choose if a Federally convicted felon is respected as equal to a state conviction.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you are saying. Are you saying that if the states regulate/ban certain arms then it is constitutional, but if the feds do then it is not?

 

[spook12]

rhomas, do you realize that your entire last paragraph is the exact same argument that those wishing to push for more gun restrictions are using.

Lets see it goes something like this....... Give up just a little of your rights,its for the greater good.Just think what could be prevented.Lord knows there is some scary dude with an ''assault weapon'' ''hiding behind every corner''.

For the record I in no way supported the ''Patriot Act'' it was one of the most Unpatriotic Acts ever made on this country.

 

[TLC]

If you two brothers-in-arms don't stop your trivial quarreling ... Mom's gonna take your BB guns away!

SA, that's OK. still would have my icbm's, bazookas, and nukes to play with.

 

[Sytes]

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you are saying. Are you saying that if the states regulate/ban certain arms then it is constitutional, but if the feds do then it is not?

Ensuring 'able bodied'* males** are those whom may be armed - requires a need to identify whom are 'able bodied males'. Registration / background checks does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms - in fact, it is in compliance with ensuring a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

* 'able bodied' = mentally sound, free of felony conviction, etc.
** 'males' = laws of equality have been enacted to include females.

Maybe you missed this portion from the post you quoted.

 

[RobG]

Maybe you missed this portion from the post you quoted.

That still doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that, in your opinion, it is constitutional for the state to ban certain weapons?

 

[Sytes]

That still doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that, in your opinion, it is constitutional for the state to ban certain weapons?

Feel free to quote anything of the sort regarding restricting or banning certain weapons. You have a hard time reading... give it another shot.

edit:
I'll add for the sake of discussion - yes. State and Federal gov't do hold an oligation to restrict certain weapons. I do not want to see a nuclear device in someone's backyard because they feel it is their right to be armed - they should be admitted as mentally screwed in the head for the inability to grasp why this is not acceptable.

 

[RobG]

Feel free to quote anything of the sort regarding restricting or banning certain weapons. You have a hard time reading... give it another shot.

I read fine; no need to be a jerk Sytes. I read your statement as saying that it is constitutional that states can ban certain weapons. Am I representing your opinion correctly?

This is getting beyond my initial (apparently controversial) claim that if something is illegal you don't have the right to own it. However, poking around the NRA site I came across:

What did the landmark Heller decision have to say about banning guns like the AR-15? Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court says that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” The Heller decision interpreted a 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, as standing for the principle that the Second Amendment has historically protected guns “in common use at the time,” rather than “dangerous and unusual weapons.” While some scholars have disagreed with the court’s reasoning, the court went on to suggest that bans on short shotguns, short rifles and machine guns are not unconstitutional because those guns are not among the type of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment right.

Now you can disagree with the SCOTUS, but they are the ones that determine what rights you "in fact" have.

 

[Sytes]

I read fine; no need to be a jerk Sytes. I read your statement as saying that it is constitutional that states can ban certain weapons. Am I representing your opinion correctly?

This is getting beyond my initial (apparently controversial) claim that if something is illegal you don't have the right to own it. However, poking around the NRA site I came across:

What did the landmark Heller decision have to say about banning guns like the AR-15? Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court says that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” The Heller decision interpreted a 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, as standing for the principle that the Second Amendment has historically protected guns “in common use at the time,” rather than “dangerous and unusual weapons.” While some scholars have disagreed with the court’s reasoning, the court went on to suggest that bans on short shotguns, short rifles and machine guns are not unconstitutional because those guns are not among the type of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment right.

Now you can disagree with the SCOTUS, but they are the ones that determine what rights you "in fact" have.

Whether I agree or disagree with SCOTUS is not relevent to your question... You quoted my post and stated/inquired the following:

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you are saying. Are you saying that if the states regulate/ban certain arms then it is constitutional, but if the feds do then it is not?

I said nothing of the sort... and supported having not said anything of the sort by quoting my own post.
Your attempting to throw other content into another's post that did not exist. I merely shared what I did state. Hard to understand why a mind had a hard time wrapping around what I did state or not state...

 

[The Hedgehog]

RobG- do you think there needs to be a ban on more rifles/pistols?

 

[RobG]

RobG- do you think there needs to be a ban on more rifles/pistols?

No.

 

[noharleyyet]

...thread left the rails with the Monty Python allusion.

 

[RobG]

Whether I agree or disagree with SCOTUS is not relevent to your question... You quoted my post and stated/inquired the following:
I said nothing of the sort... and supported having not said anything of the sort by quoting my own post.
Your attempting to throw other content into another's post that did not exist. I merely shared what I did state. Hard to understand why a mind had a hard time wrapping around what I did state or not state...

I was not "attempting to throw other content into another's post." I was trying to understand your thoughts on the matter by asking for clarification. Thanks for doing so.

 

[RobG]

...thread left the rails with the Monty Python allusion.

Yeah, my bad for suggesting if something is illegal to own you've lost your "right" to own it no matter how strongly you feel otherwise. Bizarre that this is controversial, but oh well.