If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals: the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to carry a concealed weapon in public. Rational, erudite, dispassionate, level-headed, civil and cogent discussion to the right   (denverpost.com) divider line 177
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2380 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Feb 2013 at 8:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 03:39:59 PM
So he has a resident permit from Washington, a non-resident permit from Florida.  Just dont go to Colorado then.  If he was such a 2nd Amendment person, then he'd be a 10th person too, as in the State of Colorado has the right to make it's own laws covering that. Instead of trying to get the courts to force it.  If he had a resident permit form florida then reciprocity would kick in and he'd be covered and good to carry in Colorado. The troll can go away, or establish residency and run for office to change that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-23 03:46:27 PM
lokis_mentor:  If he was such a 2nd Amendment person, then he'd be a 10th person too, as in the State of Colorado has the right to make it's own laws covering that.

I don't think right wing logic works that way.
 
2013-02-23 03:47:37 PM
It's amazing how many 2nd and 10th people hated the 14th until considering the 2nd and 10th.
 
2013-02-23 03:59:44 PM
The 2nd says nothing about your ability to carry.  Simply your ability to own.
 
2013-02-23 04:01:58 PM

vpb: lokis_mentor:  If he was such a 2nd Amendment person, then he'd be a 10th person too, as in the State of Colorado has the right to make it's own laws covering that.

I don't think right wing logic works that way.


Considering he's a self professed liberal & a civil rights activist, I don't think his does either.
 
2013-02-23 04:04:05 PM

GAT_00: The 2nd says nothing about your ability to carry.  Simply your ability to own.


The history certainly supports restrictions on the casual carrying of them.
 
2013-02-23 04:23:04 PM

vygramul: GAT_00: The 2nd says nothing about your ability to carry.  Simply your ability to own.

The history certainly supports restrictions on the casual carrying of them.


History is full of interesting restrictions on rights that turned out not to be okay.

GAT_00: The 2nd says nothing about your ability to carry.  Simply your ability to own.


Bear arms. Hmm. . . you're right, nothing about carrying, just bearing. If only there was a book we could use to look up definitions of words.

Seriously dude, you come off from some weird angles on a lot of things, and that's cool. But your statement there defines you as either igorant or a liar.
 
2013-02-23 04:25:38 PM

Boojum2k: History is full of interesting restrictions on rights that turned out not to be okay.


True enough, but if we're going to be originalists, the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders.  I have little problem referring to the Founders when trying to interpret the laws they passed.
 
2013-02-23 04:27:43 PM

vygramul: the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders


You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-02-23 04:36:12 PM

Boojum2k: Bear arms. Hmm. . . you're right, nothing about carrying, just bearing. If only there was a book we could use to look up definitions of words.

Seriously dude, you come off from some weird angles on a lot of things, and that's cool. But your statement there defines you as either igorant or a liar.


Oh look, the first member of the unlimited gun rights brigade is here.  Tell me this: if you were intended to always have unlimited access, why does the amendment not say that?  It says you have the right to own guns for a militia.  It does not say you have unlimited rights.  If it was intended to be that, it would be worded like the 1st Amendment.  Why doesn't it say something like: Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to gun ownership?  Straight up, right up front.  Instead, it is secondary to that clause that people like you pretend doesn't exist while you beat about the perfection of the Founders: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

For people who claim to be upholding the purity of the Founders, you're certainty selective about which words matter.
 
2013-02-23 04:37:24 PM

Boojum2k: vygramul: the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders

You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.


Is Antonin Scalia a sufficient citation?
 
2013-02-23 04:39:39 PM

GAT_00: Boojum2k: Bear arms. Hmm. . . you're right, nothing about carrying, just bearing. If only there was a book we could use to look up definitions of words.

Seriously dude, you come off from some weird angles on a lot of things, and that's cool. But your statement there defines you as either igorant or a liar.

Oh look, the first member of the unlimited gun rights brigade is here.  Tell me this: if you were intended to always have unlimited access, why does the amendment not say that?  It says you have the right to own guns for a militia.  It does not say you have unlimited rights.  If it was intended to be that, it would be worded like the 1st Amendment.  Why doesn't it say something like: Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to gun ownership?  Straight up, right up front.  Instead, it is secondary to that clause that people like you pretend doesn't exist while you beat about the perfection of the Founders: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

For people who claim to be upholding the purity of the Founders, you're certainty selective about which words matter.


Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.
 
2013-02-23 04:42:15 PM

Boojum2k: Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.


Ah yes, the standard NRA defense: no, YOU'RE wrong, and because I said so!
 
2013-02-23 04:48:07 PM

GAT_00: Boojum2k: Bear arms. Hmm. . . you're right, nothing about carrying, just bearing. If only there was a book we could use to look up definitions of words.

Seriously dude, you come off from some weird angles on a lot of things, and that's cool. But your statement there defines you as either igorant or a liar.

Oh look, the first member of the unlimited gun rights brigade is here.  Tell me this: if you were intended to always have unlimited access, why does the amendment not say that?  It says you have the right to own guns for a militia.  It does not say you have unlimited rights.  If it was intended to be that, it would be worded like the 1st Amendment.  Why doesn't it say something like: Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to gun ownership?  Straight up, right up front.  Instead, it is secondary to that clause that people like you pretend doesn't exist while you beat about the perfection of the Founders: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

For people who claim to be upholding the purity of the Founders, you're certainty selective about which words matter.


You mean taking my kids camping and having them run around in t-shirts covered in threats isn't regulation enough for you??
 
2013-02-23 04:49:01 PM

GAT_00: Boojum2k: Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.

Ah yes, the standard NRA defense: no, YOU'RE wrong, and because I said so!


Out of curiosity, what the hell do you think bear means? I mean, you're batshiat crazy enough to think it means "giving birth to" but no really, in this context it means carry.
Funny though that you complain about me supposedly doing something you always do. Always.
 
2013-02-23 04:50:08 PM

vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders

You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Antonin Scalia a sufficient citation?


You think Scalia is a Founder? Oookkayyy. . . *backing away slowly*
 
2013-02-23 04:50:54 PM

Boojum2k: GAT_00: Boojum2k: Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.

Ah yes, the standard NRA defense: no, YOU'RE wrong, and because I said so!

Out of curiosity, what the hell do you think bear means? I mean, you're batshiat crazy enough to think it means "giving birth to" but no really, in this context it means carry.
Funny though that you complain about me supposedly doing something you always do. Always.


"Well regulated"

Yes, those words do matter.
 
2013-02-23 04:54:52 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Boojum2k: GAT_00: Boojum2k: Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.

Ah yes, the standard NRA defense: no, YOU'RE wrong, and because I said so!

Out of curiosity, what the hell do you think bear means? I mean, you're batshiat crazy enough to think it means "giving birth to" but no really, in this context it means carry.
Funny though that you complain about me supposedly doing something you always do. Always.

"Well regulated"

Yes, those words do matter.


Yep, and I approve of background checks and simple legal requirements for concealed-carry, but if you're not a felon you should meet those requirements.

And GAT was still hilariously wrong in his comment. As you say, words matter.
 
2013-02-23 04:55:28 PM

Boojum2k: GAT_00: Boojum2k: Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.

Ah yes, the standard NRA defense: no, YOU'RE wrong, and because I said so!

Out of curiosity, what the hell do you think bear means? I mean, you're batshiat crazy enough to think it means "giving birth to" but no really, in this context it means carry.
Funny though that you complain about me supposedly doing something you always do. Always.


I like how quoting the Constitution makes me 'batshiat crazy,' coming from someone who claims that we must uphold the purity of the Founders every word.  Well, the ones you like anyway.
 
2013-02-23 05:00:30 PM

GAT_00: Boojum2k: GAT_00: Boojum2k: Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.

Ah yes, the standard NRA defense: no, YOU'RE wrong, and because I said so!

Out of curiosity, what the hell do you think bear means? I mean, you're batshiat crazy enough to think it means "giving birth to" but no really, in this context it means carry.
Funny though that you complain about me supposedly doing something you always do. Always.

I like how quoting the Constitution makes me 'batshiat crazy,' coming from someone who claims that we must uphold the purity of the Founders every word.  Well, the ones you like anyway.


Dude, what? Put down the crack pipe and read what you said and my response. You said there was no right to carry in the 2nd amendment. I pointed out the big grizzly bear that proved you wrong. Suck it up, you made a mistake and stated what you wished it said rather than the actual wording. Then you leap to incorrect conclusions about my beliefs, randomly babble insanity, and generally act like a pissed off monkey flinging poo. Is that the best you can do? Try "Well, okay, I was wrong about the 2nd amendment and carry rights, but it still allows for reasonable regulation." That's it, that's all it takes to make a rational response.
 
2013-02-23 05:01:24 PM

Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders

You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Antonin Scalia a sufficient citation?

You think Scalia is a Founder? Oookkayyy. . . *backing away slowly*


I'm sorry - usually, when asking for a citation, citing a scholarly work that discusses the history is considered ok.  So when Scalia explicitly says that there were concealed-carry restrictions, I would have thought that would be enough.  I didn't realize you wanted the actual  § .
 
2013-02-23 05:04:08 PM

vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders

You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Antonin Scalia a sufficient citation?

You think Scalia is a Founder? Oookkayyy. . . *backing away slowly*

I'm sorry - usually, when asking for a citation, citing a scholarly work that discusses the history is considered ok.  So when Scalia explicitly says that there were concealed-carry restrictions, I would have thought that would be enough.  I didn't realize you wanted the actual  § .


You said Founder, please provide a cite from an actual Founder who expressed the legal opinion you claim.
 
2013-02-23 05:08:48 PM

Boojum2k: You said there was no right to carry in the 2nd amendment


It says you have the right to own a gun and to use it in defense of your country in a militia.  Nothing more.  Those are the actual words in the text.  Anything more is just your chosen interpretation.

vygramul: I'm sorry - usually, when asking for a citation, citing a scholarly work that discusses the history is considered ok. So when Scalia explicitly says that there were concealed-carry restrictions, I would have thought that would be enough. I didn't realize you wanted the actual § .


Your words are not pure enough for him.
 
2013-02-23 05:12:45 PM

GAT_00: Boojum2k: You said there was no right to carry in the 2nd amendment

It says you have the right to own a gun and to use it in defense of your country in a militia.  Nothing more.  Those are the actual words in the text.  Anything more is just your chosen interpretation.

vygramul: I'm sorry - usually, when asking for a citation, citing a scholarly work that discusses the history is considered ok. So when Scalia explicitly says that there were concealed-carry restrictions, I would have thought that would be enough. I didn't realize you wanted the actual § .

Your words are not pure enough for him.


Right to keep and bear arms. No matter how much it embarrasses you, those words are still there.
 
2013-02-23 05:12:46 PM

Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders

You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Antonin Scalia a sufficient citation?

You think Scalia is a Founder? Oookkayyy. . . *backing away slowly*

I'm sorry - usually, when asking for a citation, citing a scholarly work that discusses the history is considered ok.  So when Scalia explicitly says that there were concealed-carry restrictions, I would have thought that would be enough.  I didn't realize you wanted the actual  § .

You said Founder, please provide a cite from an actual Founder who expressed the legal opinion you claim.


Read what I said again.  I said restrictions on the carrying of firearms were contemporary with the Founders.  I did not say a Founder expressed a legal opinion (which is an odd way for you to demand it - presumably you know that not all the Founders were judges).
 
2013-02-23 05:15:20 PM

Boojum2k: Right to keep and bear arms. No matter how much it embarrasses you, those words are still there.


I feel like I'm getting yelled at by the guy on the corner who says the CIA is hiding the aliens.  Just an absolute nutjob who demands ideology purity, but only to his interpretation.
 
2013-02-23 05:17:39 PM

vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders

You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Antonin Scalia a sufficient citation?

You think Scalia is a Founder? Oookkayyy. . . *backing away slowly*

I'm sorry - usually, when asking for a citation, citing a scholarly work that discusses the history is considered ok.  So when Scalia explicitly says that there were concealed-carry restrictions, I would have thought that would be enough.  I didn't realize you wanted the actual  § .

You said Founder, please provide a cite from an actual Founder who expressed the legal opinion you claim.

Read what I said again.  I said restrictions on the carrying of firearms were contemporary with the Founders.  I did not say a Founder expressed a legal opinion (which is an odd way for you to demand it - presumably you know that not all the Founders were judges).


You're right, I made the demand too specific and that wasn't your original point. Do you happen to have a cite for a Founder-era legal opinion on restrictions on carry, either concealed or open?
 
2013-02-23 05:19:59 PM

GAT_00: Boojum2k: Right to keep and bear arms. No matter how much it embarrasses you, those words are still there.

I feel like I'm getting yelled at by the guy on the corner who says the CIA is hiding the aliens.  Just an absolute nutjob who demands ideology purity, but only to his interpretation.


I'll agree with you on that one, you do come off as a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy nut who cannot admit a simple mistake, and keeps adding crazier shiat just to avoid realizing his original thesis was a mistake.

/bear arms=carry them
 
2013-02-23 05:21:31 PM

Boojum2k: The My Little Pony Killer: Boojum2k: GAT_00: Boojum2k: Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.

Ah yes, the standard NRA defense: no, YOU'RE wrong, and because I said so!

Out of curiosity, what the hell do you think bear means? I mean, you're batshiat crazy enough to think it means "giving birth to" but no really, in this context it means carry.
Funny though that you complain about me supposedly doing something you always do. Always.

"Well regulated"

Yes, those words do matter.

Yep, and I approve of background checks and simple legal requirements for concealed-carry, but if you're not a felon you should meet those requirements.

And GAT was still hilariously wrong in his comment. As you say, words matter.


Do you honestly believe that a well-regulated militia carries their firearms around wherever they go?
 
2013-02-23 05:26:29 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Boojum2k: The My Little Pony Killer: Boojum2k: GAT_00: Boojum2k: Typical. You got called out for bullshiatting, and you responded with more. Look, you were wrong before, just own it.

Ah yes, the standard NRA defense: no, YOU'RE wrong, and because I said so!

Out of curiosity, what the hell do you think bear means? I mean, you're batshiat crazy enough to think it means "giving birth to" but no really, in this context it means carry.
Funny though that you complain about me supposedly doing something you always do. Always.

"Well regulated"

Yes, those words do matter.

Yep, and I approve of background checks and simple legal requirements for concealed-carry, but if you're not a felon you should meet those requirements.

And GAT was still hilariously wrong in his comment. As you say, words matter.

Do you honestly believe that a well-regulated militia carries their firearms around wherever they go?


Everywhere? Oh hell no.

I believe in a woman's right to choose, that doesn't mean I think every woman should have am abortion, just for shiats and grins. I believe in the right to free speech, I wouldn't want GAT to shut up, just maybe stop knee-jerking and think a bit. I believe people in love should be able to get married, but they shouldn't be forced into it.

It's a right, not a requirement or an absolute.
 
2013-02-23 05:36:10 PM
I missed fun threads like this, but need to go prep for a Pathfinder game I'm running. I'll check back later for that citation and more of GAT's strawmen, evasion, and ironically hypocritical insults.
 
2013-02-23 05:37:01 PM

Boojum2k: I wouldn't want GAT to shut up


Says the lunatic who is screaming about not meeting the purity of his definition.
 
2013-02-23 05:43:29 PM
As with anything, there are limits. If a state doesn't want you to be able to carry around your second penis, that's it's decision to do so, so long as it doesn't go above and beyond what the Constitution prescribes.
 
2013-02-23 06:18:27 PM

Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: Boojum2k: vygramul: the restriction to carry was a contemporary restriction with the Founders

You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Antonin Scalia a sufficient citation?

You think Scalia is a Founder? Oookkayyy. . . *backing away slowly*

I'm sorry - usually, when asking for a citation, citing a scholarly work that discusses the history is considered ok.  So when Scalia explicitly says that there were concealed-carry restrictions, I would have thought that would be enough.  I didn't realize you wanted the actual  § .

You said Founder, please provide a cite from an actual Founder who expressed the legal opinion you claim.

Read what I said again.  I said restrictions on the carrying of firearms were contemporary with the Founders.  I did not say a Founder expressed a legal opinion (which is an odd way for you to demand it - presumably you know that not all the Founders were judges).

You're right, I made the demand too specific and that wasn't your original point. Do you happen to have a cite for a Founder-era legal opinion on restrictions on carry, either concealed or open?


1813 is the first state-wide ban on concealed-carry - KY, although they didn't enshrine the limit on concealment in their constitution until 1850.  I'm trying to find a primary source citation for you for the 1813 law.
 
2013-02-23 06:24:35 PM

vygramul: 1813 is the first state-wide ban on concealed-carry - KY, although they didn't enshrine the limit on concealment in their constitution until 1850. I'm trying to find a primary source citation for you for the 1813 law.


Why would you bother when he'll probably just tell you your source is invalid for misuse of the word is or something insane like that.
 
2013-02-23 06:29:22 PM

vygramul: 1813 is the first state-wide ban on concealed-carry - KY, although they didn't enshrine the limit on concealment in their constitution until 1850.


I'll look that up, it's a start. I can do research, just not blindly searching through Google for such a broad category. Thanks, at least you have a background and source for your statement!

/Unlike GAT, who is apparently barely literate. Or s it a delusion, where he only see the words he wants, regardless of what is actually written?
 
2013-02-23 06:41:18 PM

GAT_00: vygramul: 1813 is the first state-wide ban on concealed-carry - KY, although they didn't enshrine the limit on concealment in their constitution until 1850. I'm trying to find a primary source citation for you for the 1813 law.

Why would you bother when he'll probably just tell you your source is invalid for misuse of the word is or something insane like that.


Actually, for my own edification.  I like researching the second amendment, and find the law to be one with remarkably mixed history, and if you like cherry-picking, you can make just about any argument.  Generally, though, I hate to disappoint, but the intent appears to be closer to general ownership than restriction, and to some degree, the 14th amendment only made it more complex.  However, it is pretty clear that most people saw it as a restriction on Congress and not states for a long time.  My position on the history tends not to please either side.

That's all aside from what I think the Right Answer is as far as where we, as a society, should be on gun control.
 
2013-02-23 06:53:58 PM

lokis_mentor: So he has a resident permit from Washington, a non-resident permit from Florida.  Just dont go to Colorado then.  If he was such a 2nd Amendment person, then he'd be a 10th person too, as in the State of Colorado has the right to make it's own laws covering that. Instead of trying to get the courts to force it.  If he had a resident permit form florida then reciprocity would kick in and he'd be covered and good to carry in Colorado. The troll can go away, or establish residency and run for office to change that.


Agreed

vpb: lokis_mentor:  If he was such a 2nd Amendment person, then he'd be a 10th person too, as in the State of Colorado has the right to make it's own laws covering that.

I don't think right wing logic works that way.


You may be looking to far to the right.
 
2013-02-23 06:54:55 PM

GAT_00: The 2nd says nothing about your ability to carry.  Simply your ability to own.


bear arms?
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.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree. The bear arms part would have to mean "carry", right?

That being said, all concealed carry should be illegal.
All carry permits should be clear and visible.
BRIGHT PINK shoulder holsters exposed at all times.
Death penalty for any concealed weapons.

/why would these freedom lovers want to HIDE that they are packing heat?? LOLOLOL
 
2013-02-23 06:56:24 PM
Too, even...


/preview is my friend, preview is my friend , preview is my friend , preview is my friend , preview is my friend , preview is my friend , preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my friend , preview is my friend , preview is my friend , preview is my friend , preview is my friend , preview is my friend ...
 
2013-02-23 07:00:20 PM

vygramul: GAT_00: vygramul: 1813 is the first state-wide ban on concealed-carry - KY, although they didn't enshrine the limit on concealment in their constitution until 1850. I'm trying to find a primary source citation for you for the 1813 law.

Why would you bother when he'll probably just tell you your source is invalid for misuse of the word is or something insane like that.

Actually, for my own edification.  I like researching the second amendment, and find the law to be one with remarkably mixed history, and if you like cherry-picking, you can make just about any argument.  Generally, though, I hate to disappoint, but the intent appears to be closer to general ownership than restriction, and to some degree, the 14th amendment only made it more complex.  However, it is pretty clear that most people saw it as a restriction on Congress and not states for a long time.  My position on the history tends not to please either side.

That's all aside from what I think the Right Answer is as far as where we, as a society, should be on gun control.


There's plenty of evidence on either side, but past evidence is not the end all be all.  Our society was designed to change.  After all, in frontier days you had a legitimate reason to need a gun on you at all times to ward off potential wild animal attacks.  But to think we should build gun laws because of that is stupid.  Just because you used to do something doesn't mean it's right.

And it's clear the rules didn't apply to states, because state gun laws are haphazard.  Most states only had may issue laws for years.  The whole concealed carry thing is a completely modern, NRA-driven trend.  Hell, the NRA isn't even consistent, since someone found a while back that they used to oppose anything other than may issue laws because they wanted to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.  Once that became impossible, they switched to demanding more and more towards open carry.  Draw your own conclusion about that.
 
2013-02-23 07:01:17 PM
The ruling was very specific dealing with interstate issues.

And really, it wasnt a bad ruling.

You live in Washington. You are not a Colorado citizen. Do not expect a foreign state to take care of your ass.
 
2013-02-23 07:01:46 PM

The My Little Pony Killer:
Do you honestly believe that a well-regulated militia carries their firearms around wherever they go?



2008 Columbia vs. Miller, the Supreme Court said the Well Regulated Militia was a declaration of the Reason for the individual right to bear arms, not the limited to the militia.

They also said that the right to bear arms was not unlimited, that there was a difference between common use weapons and military, and there was no right to have a concealed weapon.Link
 
2013-02-23 07:02:43 PM

namatad: I am going to have to respectfully disagree. The bear arms part would have to mean "carry", right?


It says you have the right to arms for your militia.  It doesn't say you have the right to carry them concealed, nor would it make any sense to guarantee that right, because militias would use rifles.

It is utterly illogical to look at the 2nd and say it means you have the right to carry a hidden handgun on you while walking through the city.  That isn't even close to the designed law.
 
2013-02-23 07:14:20 PM

GAT_00: namatad: I am going to have to respectfully disagree. The bear arms part would have to mean "carry", right?

It says you have the right to arms for your militia.  It doesn't say you have the right to carry them concealed, nor would it make any sense to guarantee that right, because militias would use rifles.

It is utterly illogical to look at the 2nd and say it means you have the right to carry a hidden handgun on you while walking through the city.  That isn't even close to the designed law.



"2008 Columbia vs. Miller, the Supreme Court said the Well Regulated Militia was a declaration of the Reason for the individual right to bear arms, not limited to the militia.

They also said that the right to bear arms was not unlimited, that there was a difference between common use weapons and military, and there was no right to have a concealed weapon "


I completely agree that concealed is completely insane. That all guns should only be carried in plain sight. Why would they hide them? Are they afraid that public opinion would turn against them if people knew that they were carrying?


In the end, what the constitution says and what was intended has no bearing on the law. The only thing that actually "counts" is how The Court rules on laws versus their interpretation of the constitution at that point in time.

Why havent the left spent more time trying to amend the constitution? How would that amendment work, to allow some ownership, esp for hunting? To allow municipalities to decide locally?

My guess is that the only way to amend the 2nd amendment would be with a hybrid amendment which allowed Smallville KY citizens to own guns and Chicago could ban everything, up to and including pea shooters.

/in the end, the bans had zero effect on crime. sigh. maybe we should legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution and take the profit out of the gangs as a starting point.
/still, I struggle with my more lefty friends on trying to get them to change the constitution, rather than stick with the currently failed old chestnut of interpretation. Interpretation seems to be a dead end. Not that amendment would get anywhere either.
/insanity
 
2013-02-23 07:17:12 PM
Haha, you started using capitalization!
 
2013-02-23 07:28:11 PM

namatad: GAT_00: namatad: I am going to have to respectfully disagree. The bear arms part would have to mean "carry", right?

It says you have the right to arms for your militia.  It doesn't say you have the right to carry them concealed, nor would it make any sense to guarantee that right, because militias would use rifles.

It is utterly illogical to look at the 2nd and say it means you have the right to carry a hidden handgun on you while walking through the city.  That isn't even close to the designed law.


"2008 Columbia vs. Miller, the Supreme Court said the Well Regulated Militia was a declaration of the Reason for the individual right to bear arms, not limited to the militia.

They also said that the right to bear arms was not unlimited, that there was a difference between common use weapons and military, and there was no right to have a concealed weapon "


I completely agree that concealed is completely insane. That all guns should only be carried in plain sight. Why would they hide them? Are they afraid that public opinion would turn against them if people knew that they were carrying?


In the end, what the constitution says and what was intended has no bearing on the law. The only thing that actually "counts" is how The Court rules on laws versus their interpretation of the constitution at that point in time.

Why havent the left spent more time trying to amend the constitution? How would that amendment work, to allow some ownership, esp for hunting? To allow municipalities to decide locally?

My guess is that the only way to amend the 2nd amendment would be with a hybrid amendment which allowed Smallville KY citizens to own guns and Chicago could ban everything, up to and including pea shooters.

/in the end, the bans had zero effect on crime. sigh. maybe we should legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution and take the profit out of the gangs as a starting point.
/still, I struggle with my more lefty friends on trying to get them to change the constitution, ra ...




As a lefty myself, I believe in regulation, not ban of many things. But Prohibition actually did break the rising cycle of alcoholism in the United States.
 
2013-02-23 07:41:54 PM

Boojum2k: You'll have to provide an actual cite for that, as noted the 2nd amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms.


Listen, if your camp gets to dump an entire clause from the damn thing, we get to drop one word.
 
2013-02-23 07:42:38 PM

Darth_Lukecash: As a lefty myself, I believe in regulation, not ban of many things. But Prohibition actually did break the rising cycle of alcoholism in the United States.


um
I thought that the temperance movement had basically won and that drinking was way way way down before the 18th amendment.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141656/drinking-rate-edges-slightly-year- hi gh.aspx
tried to find earlier data .....
 
2013-02-23 07:43:17 PM
You can't see this.
patdollard.com
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report