All the gun legislation going down in flames!!!

[Annisman*]

Incorruptible supports the constitution, that's good in my book.

 

[thraashman]

Incorruptible supports the constitution, that's good in my book.

That might be the most incorrect statement I've ever seen posted in P&N and we've had some off the wall shit said in here.

 

[OutHouse]

Let me know when your intolerable, fascist state comes to fruition....you're really working hard on it.

Protecting the constitution is fascist? If you say so skippy.

 

[LunarRay]

Gotcha. I was referring to her being subject to the same loss of rights that she inflicts on others. No more no less.

She is not in a position to deny Rights as an individual Senator. She seems to be representing the State's majority position.

It would appear that we have evolved quite a bit from the conditions that existed when the 2nd was being considered. I think the language of the 2nd pointed to a need to enable the population to be armed for a particular reason that does not seem to be relevant today.

The major elements proposed in this gun control thingy appear reasonable from a 'Compelling State Need'.
Hunters tend to use the type of weapon that is more or less designed for the kind of hunting they endeavor to enjoy. Not many use Assault Weapons. I suspect an assault weapon might be a tad bit beyond the fair play most hunters strive for.
I can't imagine any law abiding citizen balking at a suitability check prior to buying a weapon... At least from the pov of their family and neighbors being a bit more secure.

I'm not sure how the kids in Conn could have prevented the nut who killed them from that event by gun ownership. Nor do I see how anything but the magazine limit might have mitigated some of the death numbers.

I'm not in favor of a Dodge City shootout scenario becoming the norm. If someone wants my wallet and I had a gun on me I'd still not pull it and shoot the robber... I don't think. But, I would like to see if there is a reasonable way to eliminate the nutty from doing nutty things. But like drinking and driving, someone someday will get hurt as a result but I see no way to eliminate that except by creating some sort of means to preclude a drunk from driving.... even if it costs the tea drinker a bit more to purchase their car.

 

[HeXploiT]

Sorry but you people should be ASHAMED of yourselves!. #$&$!# GUN lovers!
Gunlovers unite!
What is it 320,000 people killed every years to automatic weapons and now this BOMBING?!!!
It not our FIRSt but our SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS so because it's SECOND we all get TWO guns! Hope i Trolledthefukoutta allovya as this is how sick to DEATH I am of forum politics.
whattheheck am i talking about?!?
Damn I was laughing so hard as I was writing this.

 

[Agent11]

She is not in a position to deny Rights as an individual Senator. She seems to be representing the State's majority position.

It would appear that we have evolved quite a bit from the conditions that existed when the 2nd was being considered. I think the language of the 2nd pointed to a need to enable the population to be armed for a particular reason that does not seem to be relevant today.

The major elements proposed in this gun control thingy appear reasonable from a 'Compelling State Need'.
Hunters tend to use the type of weapon that is more or less designed for the kind of hunting they endeavor to enjoy. Not many use Assault Weapons. I suspect an assault weapon might be a tad bit beyond the fair play most hunters strive for.
I can't imagine any law abiding citizen balking at a suitability check prior to buying a weapon... At least from the pov of their family and neighbors being a bit more secure.

I'm not sure how the kids in Conn could have prevented the nut who killed them from that event by gun ownership. Nor do I see how anything but the magazine limit might have mitigated some of the death numbers.

I'm not in favor of a Dodge City shootout scenario becoming the norm. If someone wants my wallet and I had a gun on me I'd still not pull it and shoot the robber... I don't think. But, I would like to see if there is a reasonable way to eliminate the nutty from doing nutty things. But like drinking and driving, someone someday will get hurt as a result but I see no way to eliminate that except by creating some sort of means to preclude a drunk from driving.... even if it costs the tea drinker a bit more to purchase their car.

The reason we have to the right to bear arms is the same as it was then. To protect person, property, and rights.

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democrats on this issue, and every time I get lulled into thinking they have dropped it they decide to attempt a full frontal assault on my 2nd amendment rights.

When was the last time the republicans openly attacked one of your constitutional rights?

I may disagree with them on many issues, and I may dislike many of them personally but I will vote Republican as long as the Democrats pursue this agenda.

 

[compuwiz1]

They are disgusting piece's of shit for having a different opinion other then yours? You should run for congress.

They are wannabe infringers on American rights and liberties. Glad to see some Americans still have some constitution in them.

 

[ivwshane]

The reason we have to the right to bear arms is the same as it was then. To protect person, property, and rights.

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democrats on this issue, and every time I get lulled into thinking they have dropped it they decide to attempt a full frontal assault on my 2nd amendment rights.

When was the last time the republicans openly attacked one of your constitutional rights?

I may disagree with them on many issues, and I may dislike many of them personally but I will vote Republican as long as the Democrats pursue this agenda.

Lol single issue voters, no wonder Washington is broken.

 

[monovillage]

Sorry but you people should be ASHAMED of yourselves!. #$&$!# GUN lovers!
Gunlovers unite!
What is it 320,000 people killed every years to automatic weapons and now this BOMBING?!!!
It not our FIRSt but our SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS so because it's SECOND we all get TWO guns! Hope i Trolledthefukoutta allovya as this is how sick to DEATH I am of forum politics.
whattheheck am i talking about?!?
Damn I was laughing so hard as I was writing this.

Better living through chemistry?

 

[Agent11]

Lol single issue voters, no wonder Washington is broken.

This may be hard for you to grasp, but I weigh the parties according to their issues value to me.

And the 2nd amendment tips the scale. We are talking about making items I and people I associate with own illegal, for no good reason.

It is telling for me that Obama decided to literally blow all of his political capital on this. I did not see it coming.

I voted for Obama. I argued with my friends and supported him.

There are and were more important things for the president to push for.

 

[SirPorl29]

Lol single issue voters, no wonder Washington is broken.

As opposed to supporting a party like they are your favorite sports team? I would say the my party is better than your party nonsense that seems so prevalent these days is more of a reason why Washington is broken. This goes for both Ford and GM, I mean Dems and R's.

 

[schneiderguy]

Hunters tend to use the type of weapon that is more or less designed for the kind of hunting they endeavor to enjoy. Not many use Assault Weapons. I suspect an assault weapon might be a tad bit beyond the fair play most hunters strive for.

You should really educate yourself about firearms before you post in threads about firearms. You just sound silly to anyone with half a clue about what an "assault weapon" is.

"Assault weapons" fire the exact same rounds that "hunting rifles do". There's nothing that makes an "assault weapon" easier to hunt with than a regular "hunting rifle".

 

[cubby1223]

Only 4% of respondants to a new Gallup poll named gun control a top issue: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx

Gun control is universally loathed in our country. Loathed by Republicans, most Independents, and even some Democrats like myself. It's a political third-rail, and got shut down quickly in the Senate.

Kind of. 4% of respondents named gun control as the top issue.

I don't know, the write-up is confusing. The poll question is about what singularly is most important, rather than a ranking amongst all the options to determine their proper order of significance.

 

[LunarRay]

The reason we have to the right to bear arms is the same as it was then. To protect person, property, and rights.

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democrats on this issue, and every time I get lulled into thinking they have dropped it they decide to attempt a full frontal assault on my 2nd amendment rights.

When was the last time the republicans openly attacked one of your constitutional rights?

I may disagree with them on many issues, and I may dislike many of them personally but I will vote Republican as long as the Democrats pursue this agenda.

Well... , if you read the commentary of the various State legislators regarding ratification many views were expressed. Madison, Hamilton and Jay also had their take on how to express that amendment in a manner that did not limit it in future events and to enable limits should they be appropriate. Even Scalia sees limits...

The Republican side seems to have a view on the other Rights that conflict with my view. IOW, Rights should be as broadly granted as can be achieved. They should not be limited by what God says or any other authority aside from the broad interpretation of Constitutional Rights...

So... Yes, I can identify many issues I find abhorrent to my take on Rights as viewed by the Republican side.

I figure it is reasonable to conclude that normal folks have the right to 'bare' any weapon they can 'bare'... Abnormal folks should not have that right... (felons, mental issue, and other documented conditions that place the rest of us in jeopardy). I have difficulty with the magazine quantity issue, however. As I see it, it falls under a compelling state need that has to be at least rational... I've seen folks who can re-insert a clip as fast as to be of no real issue versus the large capacity... I don't see the difference and ergo can't really identify with that issue.

Congress passed this version and it differs from what was ratified... and it does make a difference as I read it.

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.

The words and grammar as ratified...

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.

As ratified, it would seem to deal only with a militia and that is what I meant by, 'not relevant today'. I don't think a tyrannical event could occur today... or an invasion that would necessitate the population to gather up their arms and repel it... Not with a standing army, navy and the rest including the National Guard.

 

[LunarRay]

You should really educate yourself about firearms before you post in threads about firearms. You just sound silly to anyone with half a clue about what an "assault weapon" is.

"Assault weapons" fire the exact same rounds that "hunting rifles do". There's nothing that makes an "assault weapon" easier to hunt with than a regular "hunting rifle".

If you read what I wrote you'd find I said something like ... not many hunters use assault weapons... they use, generally, what meets the task at hand and generally that tends to be bolt action weapons and shot guns and pistols - generally large bore.

I did not say that there is a difference tween a round from an assault weapon and a 'normal' hunting rifle... well, there is in the twist ratio, barrel length and how the tumble of the round is affected by the coefficient of friction with the air by the assault weapon, I presume.

I figure you have a half of a clue regarding the issue so must, therefore, be like the rest of the folks who post in threads. I feel comfortable posting in this thread as I also have half a clue in the usage of the language.

 

[ivwshane]

As opposed to supporting a party like they are your favorite sports team? I would say the my party is better than your party nonsense that seems so prevalent these days is more of a reason why Washington is broken. This goes for both Ford and GM, I mean Dems and R's.

I don't have a party because anyone that subscribes to only one particular ideology is an idiot.

 

[corwin]

I figure you have a half of a clue regarding the issue so must, therefore, be like the rest of the folks who post in threads. I feel comfortable posting in this thread as I also have half a clue in the usage of the language.

No you really don't have half a clue because this:

I did not say that there is a difference tween a round from an assault weapon and a 'normal' hunting rifle... well, there is in the twist ratio, barrel length and how the tumble of the round is affected by the coefficient of friction with the air by the assault weapon, I presume.

Is pure bullshit

And aside from all of that what part of the second mentions anything about "hunting"? When has it EVER been in any way tied to "hunting"?

 

[LunarRay]

No you really don't have half a clue because this:

Is pure bullshit

And aside from all of that what part of the second mentions anything about "hunting"? When has it EVER been in any way tied to "hunting"?

I said something like... The commentary during the State debates on ratification spoke to many specifics. Among which and one that was argued to be included ... strongly... was hunting while in season.

You see... When the Courts look to see what is meant by the words or absence of words in the Constitution they consider how the formulation occurred. Often, the Federalist (papers) is used to get into the mind set of Madison and the other framers but also the debates in the States during ratification. So... even though the 2nd may not mention hunting hunting was a consideration along with the Indian issue and tyranny and repelling of invasions... Those specifics are absent but were expected to be the basis for gun ownership permissibility. At the same time, 'scary' weapons were to be omitted... like Head Axes... Scalia mentions that aspect during an out of court discussion dealing with weapons that can be 'regulated or denied' along with possibly hand held rocket launchers.

Edit:
A strict reading of the 2nd as ratified would suggest that only to create a militia are weapons allowed to be had... And we've seen that is not the case.

 

[corwin]

I said something like... The commentary during the State debates on ratification spoke to many specifics. Among which and one that was argued to be included ... strongly... was hunting while in season.

You see... When the Courts look to see what is meant by the words or absence of words in the Constitution they consider how the formulation occurred. Often, the Federalist (papers) is used to get into the mind set of Madison and the other framers but also the debates in the States during ratification. So... even though the 2nd may not mention hunting hunting was a consideration along with the Indian issue and tyranny and repelling of invasions... Those specifics are absent but were expected to be the basis for gun ownership permissibility. At the same time, 'scary' weapons were to be omitted... like Head Axes... Scalia mentions that aspect during an out of court discussion dealing with weapons that can be 'regulated or denied' along with possibly hand held rocket launchers.

So it may have been a peripheral consideration among many, but by no means the reason for it and has little basis in the argument in general...that I can get behind

 

[LunarRay]

So it may have been a peripheral consideration among many, but by no means the reason for it and has little basis in the argument in general...that I can get behind

We all have our take on what is or is not Constitutional. The Court has theirs and that is all that matters, I suppose.

See my edit above.

 

[corwin]

We all have our take on what is or is not Constitutional. The Court has theirs and that is all that matters, I suppose.

See my edit above.

If by "strict reading" you mean ignoring the writing style of the time then yes you could see it that way, however the court is the final say and they have reviewed and taken in context the way they wrote then to make their conclusions..."hunting" was not really a major factor in why it was written at all.

But yes we all do have our own opinions, I welcome yours too

 

[Incorruptible]

Incorruptible supports the constitution, that's good in my book.

Thank You! I have always supported and defended the Constitution on here but many times it isn't easy

 

[LunarRay]

If by "strict reading" you mean ignoring the writing style of the time then yes you could see it that way, however the court is the final say and they have reviewed and taken in context the way they wrote then to make their conclusions..."hunting" was not really a major factor in why it was written at all.

But yes we all do have our own opinions, I welcome yours too

Thank you for the welcome...

I'd suggest that the typical decision made by the Court (USSC) contains their rationalization in support of their conclusion... or opinion. In Heller, as I recall, is found how the court reached their opinion. I think that that case will or does render the Sullivan Act (1911 New York) a bit un Constitutional.

These Lawyers are very very careful to use language that does not create issues in other areas of law that would present argument vehicles that other lawyers can use to say, "... This court found in 'xyz' that this or that was the basis for the determination that the word (as an example) 'Shall' means 'May' as in the case of Extradition as found in the Constitution.


I personally feel that the Court should adopt the position supported by Society at the time the case is being decided... Amending is a process that invokes a sort of disparity... It takes what.. 38 States to ratify and my last take on that showed that the more liberal States contain many more people... California, New York, Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc... than does Wyoming, Utah, etc... I rather like the Court to be a bit pro active in that regard.

 

[corwin]

I personally feel that the Court should adopt the position supported by Society at the time the case is being decided... Amending is a process that invokes a sort of disparity... It takes what.. 38 States to ratify and my last take on that showed that the more liberal States contain many more people... California, New York, Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc... than does Wyoming, Utah, etc... I rather like the Court to be a bit pro active in that regard.

So instead of making a decision on how something should be read they should just swing with the breeze on any particular day? That's not the way the courts should work...and just because a the states with the largest population tend to lean liberal doesn't mean everyone there is liberal, equalized over the entire nation it's fairly even so there is still a basis to keep the amendment process the way it is.

 

[LunarRay]

So instead of making a decision on how something should be read they should just swing with the breeze on any particular day? That's not the way the courts should work...and just because a the states with the largest population tend to lean liberal doesn't mean everyone there is liberal, equalized over the entire nation it's fairly even so there is still a basis to keep the amendment process the way it is.

Well.... Plessy (spelling?) was thought to be decided correctly by many but by unanimous decision The Warren Court gave us what seems the right way to 'swing in the breeze'... Separate is not equal!

So, as I see it... it depends on how strong the wind blows and in what direction. The Court should reflect consistent holding but not when that holding flies in the face of a more important consideration that has developed over time.

Edit

It is not only the population but how the Governors and Legislators will vote on an issue... We just saw the Senate vote down a bill that was mildly controlling on the gun issue... That don't reflect what the will of the people is... if you believe the polls...