Reply With Quote
You realize he said that people shouldn't be against guns because no one forces you to own one? I don't know how he did it but he mixed up a pro gun argument with an argument for letting the Howard Stern show stay on the air.
True, as they should be.
Absolutely. Semi-automatic is a very broad term that applies to every kind of firearm there is.do you feel that semi-automatic weapons are ok?
IMO, fully-automatic should be legal.
You realize he said that people shouldn't be against guns because no one forces you to own one? I don't know how he did it but he mixed up a pro gun argument with an argument for letting the Howard Stern show stay on the air.
So you never read the original post about that but just jumped on the bandwagon?
The guy nearly got me killed. He intentionally didn't turn in a $30,000 check request for a contractor I had submitted just to with me. The contractor pulled a .357 and I barely talked him out of shooting me in the face.
Yeah, I was ing pissed and when the contractor finally pulled the gun out of my face and left I went in and confronted my boss. I'm a big strong guy (6'5", 250#) and yeah, I picked the little weasel up by the neck and held him against the wall and told him if he ever did that to me again I would kill him.
So ing what?
Yes. To be fair, perhaps it should be the plain meaning as understood by the voting public in 1868. But this is only with respect to how the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states.
To illustrate. The 2nd Amendment right recognized in er should have been interpreted based on the Founders' intent (or the plain meaning as understood by the voting public) in 1791. The 2nd Amendment right incorporated against the states in McDonald should have been interpreted based on the 14th Amendment's framers' intent (or the plain meaning as understood by the voting public) in 1868. In all likelihood, the two interpretations would have been identical. But in theory, they could diverge.
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…
Do you eat meat?
actually fully automatics are legal (Class III). You just have to go thru many steps to get one. Fingerprinting, etc. Also, full autos cost major money, and you have to pay hundreds of dollars "transfer tax" that goes into the government's pockets.
Since you know the difference, I take it that you also know that writing and vs. or references completely different lines of cases. If you want to be taken seriouly, pay attention to details that impact what you say.
Aside from trivial or what Sanford Levinson calls "hard wired" cons utuional provisions like age requirements to be a senator, pretty much every legal scholar and cons utional lawyer would disagree that there is a difference between the cons ution and what judges say it means. In fact, the idea that the text is evolving and means different things at different times was espoused back in McCulloch v Maryland.
I'm also curious why you think P or I is a good vehicle for incorporation. What is a P or I, what makes it difference from a P and I and those rights protected by amendment? What's that substantive meaning?
I don't necessarily disagree that there may be something to the clause, but I also have no problem reading out portions of a do ent over 220 years old, if there's a good reason for doing so. This may be surprising to you, but changes over the course of 2 centuries so neurotically clinging to every provision of the text is not the most prudent way to interpret the cons ution.
I agree that more modern types of weapons are in a gray area. I'm on the fence about this. Maybe they thought we should have all forms of weapons for protection? Do we really know?
Semiautomatic weapons are fine in my book. Automatic, in that gray area.
DarkReign
I am trying to go Vegan but once in a while I enjoy a filet or t-bone or rack of lamb…There is a difference though, I only buy free range where the animals enjoy a happy life, graze on natural foods, no hormones & they are slaughtered in an efficient humane matter…In general these animals are harvested anyway for their hides or wool…It would be shameful to let the meat go to waste…
The point of the argument is should such things even be required, at least I think. The cons ution does give us the "right to bear arms." Arms simply means weapons, and as far as I know, the only reason to limit arms is the likes of insurrection. Not any crime, or assumed quality of the person. Just specific types of crime. Although I fear the idea, I think felons, once they have served their time, should be able to have weapons. If we want to reintegrate people into society, shouldn't they be treated as equals?
yeah I know. Personally, I love all guns, but I have no interest in full-auto. I don't care if they are allowed or not. I enjoy the shooting sports... hitting what I'm aiming at, not spraying lead...
You're still on this? I'll repeat: I OBVIOUSLY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT. It was a typo, and one without any real meaning. Get over it.
(And, by the way, the terms "privileges" and "immunities" were pretty much interchangeable in 1868, so it actually does not make much of a difference whether you use "and" or "or.")
Some shocking quotes from you.
"pretty much every legal scholar and cons utional lawyer would disagree that there is a difference between the cons ution and what judges say it means"
- if that's the case, then it would offend the Cons ution to ever overturn precedent, and legal scholars and cons utional lawyers would have very little to do
"I also have no problem reading out portions of a do ent over 220 years old, if there's a good reason for doing so", "neurotically clinging to every provision of the text"
- a good reason? if there's sufficiently good reason, then amend the Cons ution; every word means something, even if you don't like it
- it's cute that you think " has changed" enough that there is good reason to "read out" the P or I Clause; what's the threat posed by it?
Now. In what way is P or I Clause a good vehicle for incorporation? For one, look at its text and then compare it to the Due Process Clause. How can any substantive rights be incorporated against the states based on a guarantee of procedural protection? Selective incorporation is bunk, an accident of history after the wrongly-decided Slaughterhouse Cases. But you seem to be at peace with that, since a wrongly-decided opinion is sacrosanct because it represents what a judge says the Cons ution means.
Wow, you still don't get it. Whatever privileges or immunities meant in 1868 is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that different interests are protected by the different clauses. You say that it's a typo. The law indicates your typo has meaningful consequences.
I don't know where you're getting this precedent stuff from, but I don't really put much purchase in stare decisis anyway. Plus, you haven't explained how there's a cons utional "meaning" above and beyond how judge interpret it. That and the fact that since McCulloch, a guiding principle of cons utional interpretation is to adapt the do ent to the times.
I'm glad you think my reading is cute. I think it's sad that you don't respond to my argument. You were up in arms about reading portions of the text out. I said no big deal - the do ent is old, and will fall out. There's no threat posed by the clause, but you still haven't given a good reason for why I shouldn't ignore it.
If you're argument is that due process means only procedural due process, then you've never heard of substantive due process. If you're claim is due process should not include substantive due process, you've given no reason why. If you're argument is that P or I should be the vehicle used to incorporate over due process, you've given no reason why one is more preferable than the other.
I'll give you a reason why use of the p or I clause is bad. The clause protects only those p or I incident to us citizenship. Therefore, common law rights would not be incorporated as against the states if not recognized by the us. More importantly this s over foreign detainees who might have their rights violated by state detention because they're not us citizens. Due process is better because it's broader and would avoid this situation.
So, you were serious about "hunting should be illegal"?
Honestly, SC, if thats true, then our continued conversation is only going to get ugly and sarcastic.
Jim Bob (SC) is as redneck as we are. He's just trolling.
HA! I was going to say, I thought I seen him around before...
<----trolled
Bravo, sir!
You stated above that you thought that states shouldn't be able to write any laws that go counter to the 2nd Amendment, correct? That would imply that you're also against laws that ban explosives, missiles, etc.
To take your logic to its conclusion, that would imply that laws banning bombs, missiles, grenades and any other sort of "arms" would also be uncons utional.
What about people with mental handicaps? Do we have the right to deny them weapons?
so then it's a 'no', and you're slightly less sensitive to hurtful message board words as previously thought.
yippee for you.
so you are serious in saying that the citizenry should possess tanks and bazookas?
I agree to a point. Hard to tell what was meant for certain when the 2nd amendment was debated. I haven't read the minutes. Have you? I will assume the intent was known weapon types. Unless you or I can show more than just the words, it's not an argument that has much merit either way.
Wouldn't it be cool to have all that stuff?
When you apply the correct usage of "militia," I would say yes, you can deny them. If they are not "able bodied" militia candidates, then I would say they can be denied the right.
Well, we do allow for that here in Texas. A felon can have a firearm after five years has elapsed from the end of their sentences, whether it be imprisonment or probation. Although, my understanding is that they are still in violation of the federal ban.
I would argue yes, but I fully admit that I'm greatly in the minority.I figure, if a person is rich enough to afford a tank, they're probably going to be looked at quite closely by the government once they purchase it anyways.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
