Reply With Quote
gotta run to the ranch now.
Basically yes.
I trust law enforcement officials with weapons because of the intensive training they go through.
I don't trust miamiheat's dad if someone comes up at me with a knife asking for my wallet. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather give the dude my wallet than to see him get shot by a nervous daddy.
gotta run to the ranch now.
oh good, because we were wondering.
Nothing like a big ol' BOOM to put a grin on me.
Understandable Blake, and I can see your thought process. But I think those cons are outweighed by the pros. Add in the fact that gun ownership is enshrined in the Cons ution and I definitely come out on the "pro-gun" side.
The police may be trained to use guns, but there are stupid cops out there too. If I were to share stories of cops who abused their privileges, would you then argue that we should take guns away from cops as well, because a few bad apples didn't use theirs properly?
Might I also point you to statistics of crime in places like Britain, where violent crime was lower (last I checked anyways), but the INCIDENCE of crimes like break-ins were MUCH higher than the states. By lowering the defensive potential, attackers with a weapon are much more confident in their success, and more willing to carry out their plans.
The thing with some drugs is, the means to produce them require fields of crops.
The thing with making a gun is, you need a bridgeport, a lathe, commercially purchased metal and a design. A one man operation in my basement could outfit the entire Detroit Metro area in 3 years and I would be a billionaire.
God forbid I invest and buy a 6-axis CNC for the stock parts, reduce that time to 1 year.
One remaining problem would be ammo. A brass sheet, lead, one die set, a flute (not the instrument) and the means to aquire sulfur (easy), charcoal (even easier) and saltpeter (potassium nitrate, of which Michigan has the largest supply of in the world).
, the more I think about this...
Nevermind, read about potassium nitrate. It is not easy to make and has absolutely nothing to do with Michigan's volumous salt mines.
Dude, you suck. You and Manny should be lovers. It's OK with me if you pitch.
Look at the time line. We were bouncing posts back and forth like ping-pong. I didn't want to be rude and just disappear. No brag, just fact.
The Court's incorporation jurisprudence is so ed.
If the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, I would like to know what the drafters' understanding of the 2nd Amendment was in 1868. It could be that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment was identical to that of the Framers in 1791. But maybe it was different.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that the P & I Clause provides ample textual support for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, with the incorporated rights being interpreted based on the understanding of the drafters in 1868. (One's rights against the federal government under the Bill of Rights should be understood based on the Framers' intent in 1791.)
What does all this mean here? What do I look like, a historian?
Well, it reads like this within the 14th amendment:
To me, it means cities and sates cannot limit the 2nd amendment.No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Hence, my next sentence: "I'm sympathetic to the argument that the P & I Clause provides ample textual support for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, with the incorporated rights being interpreted based on the understanding of the drafters in 1868."
But that's not how the Court does it. The Court selectively incorporates rights based on the Due Process Clause.
sounds like a meth lab
"I gots to get back to my ranch"
whatever...
Dude"I gots to get back to my ranch"
whatever...
I had an appointment at 5:30 an hour away.
I had to scoot.
Get over your penis envy.
The Bill of Rights is cons utionally guaranteed.
No state can override it. Period. This is not an issue of state's rights. It's an issue of citizen's rights.
Now, what we CAN agree on is what types of weapons are OK to own, and what are not OK.
For instance, there is no need for anyone to own an RPG or Stinger Missile.
what IS OK?
Handguns - personal defense
Shotguns - personal defense, hunting
Rifles - personal defense, hunting
what is NOT OK?
Grenades - No
Rocket/Grenade launchers - No
etc...
Grits For Breakfast is a great blog.
As to his concerns that convicted felons here in Texas could bring challenges to out Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by Felon statutes, it's highly doubtful. The Court in er was clear that the 2nd Amendment only protects weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
I think that also means that er and McDonald aren't going to mean much in terms of assault rifle bans and automatic weapon bans. Both er and McDonald were focused on the issue of handguns, which the Supreme Court has said is the quintessential means of self-defense here in the US (i.e., weapons typically possessed). Given that, it's hard to see how one could argue that more exotic weapons fall under the decisions of these cases.
the worst gun-grabber politicians hate all guns.
I remember about how Ted Kennedy was going around saying that cartridges such as the 30-30 should be banned - they penetrate bullet-proof vests, and thus are "cop killer" ammo. LOL - the 30-30 is an antique cartridge that came out in the 1890's.
Some politicians want all semi-autos ("assault weapons") banned, or scoped rifles ("sniper rifles").
Senator Kennedy:"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating."
The privileges AND immunities clause is in Article IV of the cons ution and has no relevance here. The privileges OR immunities clause really has no substantive meaning here; how do you argue gun ownership is a privilege or immunity when there's an amendment giving the right (ostensibly at least).
The purpose of the 14th amendment was to insure states did not deprive citizens of their cons utional rights. To cabin that understanding to the views of 1868 would vitiate pretty much every substantive protection for individual rights that have come about in the past 150 years.
dude
do you always get this defensive over silly comments?
was this the kind of comment that led to you grabbing (your boss?) by the neck with one hand and lifting him up off the ground?
get over your butthurt.
grenades are not ok because most states prohibit explosive weapons.
do you feel that semi-automatic weapons are ok?
I am just wondering when the U.S. will join civilized countries like France & England & abolish private citizens en lement to own firearms…There is no reason why anyone should have the right to shoot rifles or handguns or keep them in their home or campsite…
Also, hunting is a barbaric act that needs to be abolished…
the drafters of what? the 14th amendment?
I am just wondering when the U.S. will join civilized countries like France & England & abolish private citizens en lement to own firearms…There is no reason why anyone should have the right to shoot rifles or handguns or keep them in their home or campsite…
Also, hunting is a barbaric act that needs to be abolished…
Did I mention that F-150’s & Silverado’s should all be replaced with Prius’s?
Good Lord. I know the difference between the 14th Amendment and Article IV. I was obviously referring to the P or I Clause of the 14th Amendment. Apologies for writing P & I, and thanks for the valuable insight.
There's a difference between what the Cons ution says and what the Supreme Court has said it says. You've clearly drunk the Slaughterhouse Cases and Selective Incorporation kool-aid, which is fine. I happen to think the P or I Clause is the proper vehicle for total incorporation. It was meant to have substantive meaning. (Or are you one of these people who thinks there are cons utional provisions that mean nothing and are there for no reason at all?)
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
