Azazello1313 Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Sure it is. "Doesn't bother to regulate" and "Doesn't have the power to regulate" is an important distction, one conservatives here have argued often. the holding is based on the 2nd and 14th amendments, which have been around for a while. they are specifically saying that those old amendments protect this right, and always have. it's not "new law", it's a holding that a relatively recent statute violates those parts of the constitution. until rights are violated, there is no occasion for the supreme court to uphold them. in any case, are you seriously disputing that there are more restrictions on owning guns than there were, say, 150 years ago? that is pretty easily disproven because, 150 years ago, there were barely any restrictions of any kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 And somewhere, swammie is curled up in the fetal position under his desk, sucking his thumb and mumbling incoherently about Al Capone and gangsters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 And billay, you're point-blank wrong. Until 1934 there were really no gun laws to speak of except for Jim Crow laws designed to keep "swarthy individuals" from getting guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Never said I wanted to. I was merely pointing out that what billay said was not true, that in the past the average citizen could own military-grade weaponry. Personally I think automatic weapons are fun to shoot but I wouldn't want one as most are not all that accurate, and waste way too much lead. Some might see that as a period of greater gun rights, and others might see it as an unnecessary free for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 And somewhere, swammie is curled up in the fetal position under his desk, sucking his thumb and mumbling incoherently about Al Capone and gangsters... While I'm on my couch polishing my .45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 While I'm on my couch polishing my .45 You too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Glad it got reversed. No reason why it should have been enacted in the first place, when criminals get guns from straw buyers in other states with regularity. Now Perch, I think you are off the deep end with having access to military-grade weaponry, but hey . . . good luck buying that Bradley! please define "military-grade weaponry" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 (edited) the holding is based on the 2nd and 14th amendments, which have been around for a while. they are specifically saying that those old amendments protect this right, and always have. it's not "new law", it's a holding that a relatively recent statute violates those parts of the constitution. until rights are violated, there is no occasion for the supreme court to uphold them. in any case, are you seriously disputing that there are more restrictions on owning guns than there were, say, 150 years ago? that is pretty easily disproven because, 150 years ago, there were barely any restrictions of any kind. That's not what I said, I said gun rights are at an all time high. Whether or not this ruling constitutes "new law" is debatable, but the fact of the matter is that prior to today, the 2nd Amendment was not applicable to the states (and the Supreme Court has had occasion to say so). So long as the court is following selective incorporation, an Amendment is not incorporated until it is. Heller established that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals and this case incorporated to apply against the states. The 2nd Amendment stands on more sound Constitutional ground today than it ever has before. Edited June 29, 2010 by billay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 And billay, you're point-blank wrong. Until 1934 there were really no gun laws to speak of except for Jim Crow laws designed to keep "swarthy individuals" from getting guns. Again, absence of restriction and establishment of right are not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Again, absence of restriction and establishment of right are not the same thing. ??? Did you know most guys who served in WWI probably brought a machine gun or 3 back with them? I guess I can see your point if you're saying that prior to this ruling the states could have restricted it "legally", but in real-world practice up until the 60's actually nobody paid attention to gun laws at all, basically ever. The only person who'd get in trouble for a gun crime was someone the ATF was trying to get on a liquor charge they couldn't make stick (see US vs. Miller) or some black guy who was packing because the cops didn't want them to be able to defend themselves (again, Jim Crow). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 local editorial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 29, 2010 Author Share Posted June 29, 2010 local editorial i agree that there needs to be rules and regulations associated with owning firearms. but to say its a threat to democracy is a stretch imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 local editorial I think I'd cancel my subscription based on the writings of that dumb ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 i agree that there needs to be rules and regulations associated with owning firearms. but to say its a threat to democracy is a stretch imo. Not only is it a stretch but it is quite asinine. Having guns in the hands of the civilian population was designed to keep the power with the people, especially in the case of a tyrant or despot attempting to take over control of the country. If anything, it means more security for our Republic than not having guns available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Not only is it a stretch but it is quite asinine. Having guns in the hands of the civilian population was designed to keep the power with the people, especially in the case of a tyrant or despot attempting to take over control of the country. If anything, it means more security for our Republic than not having guns available. I don't know man. We've talked about this in a few other threads but I still think if a "tyrant or despot" tried to take over the country, you're fooked whether you have a 12 gauge or not. I'm thinking billay was also referencing the hugh fear mongering that happened by the NRA when Obama was running (lord knows I'd like to have more threads without bringing that name up). But, there was a lot of chicken little "the sky is falling and they are taking all of our guns". Seems like the pendulum is going the other direction with a little momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 local editorial Why don't some of these idiots get that there are some things the minority can and should be able to give the finger to the majority about? Who you marry, what you put into your body, what you do with your body, what you own to protect yourself, what you put in your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 (edited) I don't know man. We've talked about this in a few other threads but I still think if a "tyrant or despot" tried to take over the country, you're fooked whether you have a 12 gauge or not. I'm thinking billay was also referencing the hugh fear mongering that happened by the NRA when Obama was running (lord knows I'd like to have more threads without bringing that name up). But, there was a lot of chicken little "the sky is falling and they are taking all of our guns". Seems like the pendulum is going the other direction with a little momentum. yup iam am still waiting for the Clinton admin to come and git my guns. the NRA told me if i voted for him they would take all my guns. still waiting. Edited June 29, 2010 by Yukon Cornelius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I don't know man. We've talked about this in a few other threads but I still think if a "tyrant or despot" tried to take over the country, you're fooked whether you have a 12 gauge or not. I'm not necessarily going to disagree with you on that point, but it would be a damn site easier for a takeover to happen if all the civilians have is pitchforks and rakes. I'm thinking billay was also referencing the hugh fear mongering that happened by the NRA when Obama was running (lord knows I'd like to have more threads without bringing that name up). But, there was a lot of chicken little "the sky is falling and they are taking all of our guns". Seems like the pendulum is going the other direction with a little momentum. Great, you had to go and drag Obama into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 please define "military-grade weaponry" A howitzer? A nuclear weapon? Cruise missiles? Chemical weaponry? You can own a tank, but you just cant drive it around (cant get it licensed) and there is some regulation that requires anything over a certain bore width to get a permit/permission from the ATF . .(I think, all off the top of my head). A lot of places own tanks, but the bore of the main guns are welded shut and inoperable. IMO the fact that training classes dont exist for this kind of weapon, and an explosion could easily wipe out several houses (if not blocks) IMO that kind of stuff shouldnt necessarily be in the hands of untrained civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 A howitzer? A nuclear weapon? Cruise missiles? Chemical weaponry? You can own a tank, but you just cant drive it around (cant get it licensed) and there is some regulation that requires anything over a certain bore width to get a permit/permission from the ATF . .(I think, all off the top of my head). A lot of places own tanks, but the bore of the main guns are welded shut and inoperable. IMO the fact that training classes dont exist for this kind of weapon, and an explosion could easily wipe out several houses (if not blocks) IMO that kind of stuff shouldnt necessarily be in the hands of untrained civilians. So it is like pronography, you can't define it but you know it when you see it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 So it is like pronography, you can't define it but you know it when you see it? Thought I just did with several examples? I dont have a set regulation written up yet if that is what you mean . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 I question the truth of this statement. There are still a number of firearms that the general public is not allowed to own without special permits and permission. Back when the 2nd amendment was written, anyone could basically own any type of weapon they had the desire and the financial ability to purchase. It was not all that unusual for individuals to own cannon. Today we have a lot of restrictions. I'd like to see you try to own and fire a cannon on your own property without having special permits and see what happens. I'd like to see what would happen to you if you built a range on your own acreage and started firing fully automatic weapons. No, gun rights are not at all time high, they aren't even close. We are starting to head back in the right direction, but are still a long way from having our rights reaffirmed. I know several guys with cannons . . . hope we didn't need a permit for firing them at the last rendezvous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 I guess NY will be next. I would like to see some statistics on who was caught with hand guns since this law. I will bet that laws like these only help the criminal. wouldn't anybody caught with a hand gun during this be a criminal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.