Gun control debate (merged)

[bnhunt]

I agree and the ones that do decide to use their right to carry ... that doesn’t make them any less or any more scared . You choose not to use your constitutional right , they do . It really is that simple .

Perceived constitutional right.

 

[bnhunt]

That’s what I always find odd . The ones of us that choose to use our rights don’t care if others do or not , it’s the ones that choose not to use theirs that think we also shouldn’t use ours .

I think we have very different interpretations of what that "right" is.

 

[McDad]

I think we have very different interpretations of what that "right" is.

What is your interpretation?

 

[hog88]

Perceived constitutional right.

There is nothing "perceived" about the 2nd amendment.

 

[McDad]

There is nothing "perceived" about the 2nd amendment.

Perhaps he thinks it allows you to transplant a bear's front leg onto your shoulders?

Or wear shirts without sleeves?

 

[hndog609]

There is nothing "perceived" about the 2nd amendment.

(sigh) And to think I just went to the trouble to compliment him on saying something that actually held up under scrutiny only a few posts ago.

 

[bnhunt]

There is nothing "perceived" about the 2nd amendment.

The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others

"Its text and context don’t ensure an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and number of weapons by anyone."

 

[0nelilreb]

Perceived constitutional right.

Guaranteed constitutional right .

 

[0nelilreb]

The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others

"Its text and context don’t ensure an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and number of weapons by anyone."

It does guarantee the right to bear arms .... period .

 

[joevol33]

The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others

"Its text and context don’t ensure an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and number of weapons by anyone."

So free speech doesn't necessarily give a person the right to just say anything by this logic. Right?

 

[0nelilreb]

I think we have very different interpretations of what that "right" is.

How does your interpretation stack up against SCOTUS ?

 

[hog88]

The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others

"Its text and context don’t ensure an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and number of weapons by anyone."

The author fails to take into account who constituted states militias in those days so try again.

 

[LouderVol]

I live in a normal American city and have also lived in other cities like Knoxville and Memphis and NEVER felt the need to carry a gun one single time to feel safe, but I'm the one scared of everything. Okay. Lol.

I live in Atlanta. Never felt the need for a gun. Doesnt mean other people should be denied their rights.

 

[LouderVol]

Hahaha! You know nothing about me, but I know it's only natural for people on the right to generalize (i.e. all Mexicans are rapists and murderers, etc.) than actually make a cogent argument.

Really. What about you generalizing gun owners ever since you showed up in this thread? You have yet to make a real argument for it and have just depended on generalities.

 

[hog88]

I live in Atlanta. Never felt the need for a gun. Doesnt mean other people should be denied their rights.

I don't go to church so I don't think others should be able to go.

 

[McDad]

So free speech doesn't necessarily give a person the right to just say anything by this logic. Right?

To follow Garrett Epp's thinking fully and applying it to other "Rights", you must begin with individual states are responsible for free speech. Free speech is maintained and allowed to be directed toward the State in which one resides.

Amendments 1-9 are targeting the individual. For example, quartering soldiers is not giving protection to the state; it is protecting the individual. Later amendments deal with state and federal level protections. And this is where the argument disintegrates for those with Garrett's opinion.

 

[0nelilreb]

The author fails to take into account who constituted states militias in those days so try again.

The author ( law professor and former Wapo reporter ) has the same problem that all the rest of the gun grabbers have , that little ( , ) . They just can’t find away around it .

 

[McDad]

How does your interpretation stack up against SCOTUS ?

Poorly

 

[LouderVol]

I don't go to church so I don't think others should be able to go.

I dont vote, so others shouldnt be able to endanger me with their wild voting ways.

That's three rights down, what other rights do people not participate in that we can remove?

 

[McDad]

I dont vote, so others shouldnt be able to endanger me with their wild voting ways.

That's three rights down, what other rights do people not participate in that we can remove?

My wife is quiet and doesnt like to speak in public, especially with controversial subjects. Others shouldnt be allowed.

Free speech is gone

 

[hndog609]

The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others

"Its text and context don’t ensure an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and number of weapons by anyone."

Basically a straw man argument. Firearms in general and "weapons" (a much broader definition) in particular are extremely regulated. This is a Looth argument (not a compliment) you're trying to posit here. The right to possess and carry those firearms that meet the criteria of being in common use for lawful purpose is fully and long established and entirely congruent with the 2A.

 

[hog88]

My wife is quiet and doesnt like to speak in public, especially with controversial subjects. Others shouldnt be allowed.

Free speech is gone

If the cops had more power to conduct random searches and seize potentially dangerous items we'd all be safer. Boom there goes teh 4th

 

[McDad]

Not everyone has access to news media. And fewer still can sift through the opines and glean the facts. It isnt fair or safe.

Bye bye, Freedom of the Press.

 

[McDad]

This was fun!

 

[0nelilreb]

If the cops just stopped all these people from people from gathering in large groups when we thought it might be dangerous to the public or property , we wouldn’t have all these negative stories in the press .