RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SimplyMichael -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:06:08 PM)
PetDave, Well said! quote: As far as production and the vast gun industry conspiracy... uh, no. First, there are more than enough firearms in the U.S. for every man, woman, and child to have several. Second, while firearms are one of the few products that are still manufactured in the U.S. in any significant quantity, the manufacturers do not have the vast policy-shaping power that some seem to imagine. Remington is out of the handgun business. i think Winchester is only producing ammunition at this point. Ruger is very "pro-safety", and initiated a voluntary 10-round limit on all of their firearms. Smith & Wesson stopped civilian production altogether at one point, although i believe they're back in. Colt has significant production, but tend to focus on high-end stuff. They'll give up their military contracts when Hell freezes over, so they play whatever tune the .gov calls. Kel-Tec, Kahr, and Mossburg are fairly small potatoes. A large volume of handgun production- Glock, Taurus, Sig Sauer, Heckler & Koch, CZ- comes from outside the U.S. Actually, Colt long ago lost the military contract for the M-16/M4/Mwhatever to FN in Belgium. I don't know what the volume of business is for the top 20 manufacturer/importers is but it isn't very large. However, facts such as this will just be ignored by those who want to just BELIEVE whatever they want. The NRA is feared because their members vote, not because of the amount of money they have and to compare them to tobacco or the automotive industry lobbies is ludicroius at best and dishonest at worst.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:08:55 PM)
I find it sad that liberals (of which I am one) so casually dismiss the 2nd and yet object so vociferously to Bush's violations of other amendments. Either you believe in the sanctity of our rights or you don't.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:10:08 PM)
quote: Any law which restricts gun/weapon ownership is unconstitutional and should be repealed forthwith. Just because some jackanapes in Washington voted on a law does not make the law constitutional, just, or right. Or anything US gun owners would honor.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:11:47 PM)
quote: I find it sad that liberals (of which I am one) so casually dismiss the 2nd and yet object so vociferously to Bush's violations of other amendments. Either you believe in the sanctity of our rights or you don't. I'm distrubed because more and more, I sound libertarian - not liberal.

dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:12:49 PM)
quote: "What I'm trying to get at, clumsily, is that we do indeed seem to accept some limits on the literal, absolute language used in the Bill of Rights." Yes, we do,because rights come into conflict, and we have a branch of Government (the judiciary) to settle the issue when rights come into conflict. Which is a far cry from saying the rights simply do not exist anymore, as you seem to be advocating. Seem is the key word in your last sentence. I actually haven't advocated anything in this thread; indeed, I'm still sorting out my thinking on the issue of guns. As part of that thinking, I've raised some questions about (a) exactly what the Second Amendment covers and (b) how literally we take the text of the Bill of Rights. Far cry from advocating, that. quote: "Hasn't the Constitution suffered enough lately?" Whats with the when did you quit beating your wife type question? Can you not frame your argument with out it? Oh dear. Wife beating?! I was hoping the little smiley in my post would indicate that I was joking. quote: You seem to be arguing that we should just throw away a right, because it is out of date. No, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that right is.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:28:31 PM)
quote: What I'm trying to get at, clumsily, is that we do indeed seem to accept some limits on the literal, absolute language used in the Bill of Rights. I don't accept that at all. I reject that notion categorically and absolutely.

dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:33:19 PM)
quote: If I didn't have a basic trust in other Americans, I certainly wouldn't want them armed. But I do. I have found that when it matters, you can pretty much count on the vast majority of Americans to help. Sometimes, they will be able to help only because they are armed. And in those situations, my mind would rest easier if I knew that, as Americans, they would be able to "keep and bear" whatever the fuck it takes. Interesting and much-appreciated food for thought. Thanks, Kirata.

dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:39:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: What I'm trying to get at, clumsily, is that we do indeed seem to accept some limits on the literal, absolute language used in the Bill of Rights. I don't accept that at all. I reject that notion categorically and absolutely. No limits at all? Not even the traditional prohibition on shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater?

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:45:47 PM)
quote: No limits at all? Not even the traditional prohibition on shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater? No. Of course, the owner of theatre came make whatever rules they want limiting speech within their lair. The capitol of the state cannot, nor can the city park.

petdave -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 5:54:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin Seems a lot of the argument as to why people should have a gun is "because its your right" because its written down, and those constitutions make you free Well, the Constitution is what this case is being decided on. The case brought before the Supreme Court charges that the law violates the Second Amendment, and it will be decided on how the Justices interpret the Amendment. That's the long and the short of it... Moral stances, violent crime rates, fear and hype... those are all ancillary, and should not (in theory) impact that decision. The Constitution was meant to be the foundation on which all other laws of the nation are built, and when a law is in conflict with what's in the Constitution, in our legal system, that law is struck down.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: What I'm trying to get at, clumsily, is that we do indeed seem to accept some limits on the literal, absolute language used in the Bill of Rights. I don't accept that at all. I reject that notion categorically and absolutely. No limits at all? Not even the traditional prohibition on shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater? That prohibition is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendement: quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The "fire" hypothetical, as stated by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenk v. United States is as follows: quote: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. In other words, the First Amendment is not a shield against prosecution for otherwise criminal conduct. A literal reading of the Amendment sustains Justice Holmes' thesis. Which is a whole lot of words to say: No, no limits at all.

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:15:31 PM)
Believing a law to be unconstitutional doesn't make it any less a restriction,unless what is being suggested here is that one can decide which laws we adhere to and disregard the rest,and as far as the state can't restrict your right to yell fire in a crowded theater i wouldn't suggest you test that law .You will lose.TracyTaken any amendment that expands the rights of one segment of society by definition restricts someone else's rights .When woman gained the right to vote a mans vote was diminished as far as weight and value of that vote is concerned

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Believing a law to be unconstitutional doesn't make it any less a restriction,unless what is being suggested here is that one can decide which laws we adhere to and disregard the rest,and as far as the state can't restrict your right to yell fire in a crowded theater i wouldn't suggest you test that law .You will lose.TracyTaken any amendment that expands the rights of one segment of society by definition restricts someone else's rights .When woman gained the right to vote a mans vote was diminished as far as weight and value of that vote is concerned "Straw-man" argument. I stated that gun control laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed. If you wish to rebut me, rebut the statements I actually made. Regarding the "fire in a crowded theater" cliche, I have already spoken to that too--as Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated, that hypothetical does not pertain to the First Amendment. Regarding your thesis about the expansion of rights: I do not see where civil liberties are the zero-sum game you make them out to be. Giving women the franchise does not diminish the franchise among males.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:31:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u .TracyTaken any amendment that expands the rights of one segment of society by definition restricts someone else's rights .When woman gained the right to vote a mans vote was diminished as far as weight and value of that vote is concerned How silly. It's not the state's job make sure that everything stays the same - or that some inequality remain should definition be more clearly defined ("by mankind, we mean women too"). Their job is to enforce the LETTER of the law, whatever that means for whomever is effected. That's what the Constitution is about. Failing the Constituion, we are already armed. Good luck to anyone who wants to take our guns. It would be civil war, and as the US military is quite engaged right now, it is a war plain ol' citizens would win. Even if the US military was not ... you really think a good soldier would forcefully disarm his family and neighbors? Sometimes I feel very removed from my own countrymen. It's like we don't even live in the same country.

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:32:34 PM)
It's really simple math if ten people are voting my vote has a certain value (keeping the numbers low to make this easy) if twenty people are now voting what has happened to the value of my vote.Of course that presupposes we all get off our asses and vote

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:33:29 PM)
quote: It's really simple math if ten people are voting my vote has a certain value (keeping the numbers low to make this easy) if twenty people are now voting what has happened to the value of my vote. Not a damn thing.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: It's really simple math if ten people are voting my vote has a certain value (keeping the numbers low to make this easy) if twenty people are now voting what has happened to the value of my vote. Not a damn thing. That's the way it works, no? Not that Constitutional Law need garner popular vote to be in effect.

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:52:40 PM)
YOUR KIDDING RIGHT of course that's the way it works ,and if the will of the people as expressed by their legally elected representatives change the law.And than gun rights proponents previously seen covering themselves in the legal right to those guns will of course give up said guns(being staunch believers in the law and as they keep reminding us law-abiding citizens right)

dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 6:55:47 PM)
quote: The "fire" hypothetical, as stated by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenk v. United States is as follows: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Perhaps I'm misreading the Great Dissenter, but he seems to be saying what I've been saying: that in practice our rights are not absolute, that we accept limits on them for the common good. For example, we accept that "an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force" can coexist with the First Amendment. In that case, the amendment's wording that Congress can pass "no law...abridging the freedom of speech" cannot be taken absolutely or literally.

Real_Trouble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 7:08:21 PM)
A couple of comments: quote: Not that Constitutional Law need garner popular vote to be in effect. Implicitly, it does; ammendments can be added to the constitution with a sufficient majority of votes and states ratifying. The potential to change Constitutional Law exists. The bar is high, of course, but it is not insurmountable, as there have been additional ammendments in the past. Thus, failing to pass an ammendment nullifying a previous ammendment can be seen as a form of popular vote in favor of an ammendment existing, at least to the extent needed to protect it. We could overturn it, but we didn't; that says something. quote: What I'm trying to get at, clumsily, is that we do indeed seem to accept some limits on the literal, absolute language used in the Bill of Rights. I suppose now would be a terrible time to bring up something like Wittgenstein and the problems with interpretation of language based on past meaning / bias / context / etc? Literal readings, other than in mathematics and possibly some forms of physics, are impossible; words have definitions, and language has meaning, but this meaning is contextual, often personalized to some degree, and certainly not uniform. Definitions change, or are unclear, or are mostly clear but still subject to personal impetus in every case. Claiming objective external uniform literal meaning is a very slippery slope to tread. More so, we also lack source material or the ability to "ask the source" (because they are dead) on many Constitutional issues. In short, while literal as might be reasonable (which is not necessarily even close to perfect), there are problems with interpretation and completeness as well. This is why we need a Supreme Court, among other things. Likewise, one of the main functions of the Supreme Court is to settle conflicts between various guaranteed priorities in the constitution. Gun control often can get tangled up in this; I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property, in other versions of the text). However, someone can clearly effectively deprive me of my life with a gun. Likewise, I do have the right to bear arms in some degree, be it either unrestricted or as part of a militia, and so does the guy / girl trying to deprive me of my life. So the question becomes to what extent does each principle apply? Do I have the right to bear arms everywhere, unconditionally, with no restrictions? What does "arms" mean? Can I carry around Anthrax or a nuclear weapon? How about just an RPG? Truck bomb? Chainsaw? Shotgun? There are legitimate vagaries that take very clear and well-reasoned solutions, and those solutions are not necessarily obvious. They should also be based on empirical fact and practicality within the context of our governmental strictures; I think there is not nearly enough discussion on this aspect of the issue.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125