A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post-sto

[roflpublican]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Very well, let's say that I don't accept it as a remotely adequate explanation that makes sense.

How you can say that a municipality should be able to decide that rifles are fine (even though more deadly and more penetrative) but pistols are not (when they are the most commonly used self-defense arm), is just as nonsensicle as claiming the 1st Amendment need only protect newpapers but not radio and TV. An unreasonable and needless infringement, is an unreasonable and needless infringement.

infringement is exactly what we're talking about unfortunately, it's a little bit here, a little bit there, and before you know it the 2nd amendment is just words on a sheet of paper with no substance behind it.

 

[samsmart]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Very well, let's say that I don't accept it as a remotely adequate explanation that makes sense.

How you can say that a municipality should be able to decide that rifles are fine (even though more deadly and more penetrative) but pistols are not (when they are the most commonly used self-defense arm), is just as nonsensicle as claiming the 1st Amendment need only protect newpapers but not radio and TV. An unreasonable and needless infringement, is an unreasonable and needless infringement.

As I stated before, radios and televisions are not designed solely for the infliction of lethal violence. And that is the line of distinction that I draw.

Coupled with the fact that at the time of it's writing, firearms were technologically limited in a number of ways. And also that rifles and shotguns were used as just as much as hunting weapons as for self protection. And that we were primarily a rural nation with an agrarian economy to an urban nation with a service economy.

And so I have come to my interpretation in balance of all those aspects of the issue.

 

[roflpublican]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

As I stated before, radios and televisions are not designed solely for the infliction of lethal violence. And that is the line of distinction that I draw.

Coupled with the fact that at the time of it's writing, firearms were technologically limited in a number of ways. And also that rifles and shotguns were used as just as much as hunting weapons as for self protection. And that we were primarily a rural nation with an agrarian economy to an urban nation with a service economy.

And so I have come to my interpretation in balance of all those aspects of the issue.

there is more crime per capita in urban areas, so there's more need for self-defense firearms in an urban setting than a rural one.

 

[ChrisL]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

First of all, you are somehow under the assumption that I favor a ban on handguns.

I have never in this thread said that I favor a ban on handguns. And that's not what I'm arguing.

Rather, I'm arguing that local governments have the right to regulate handguns how they see fit as I don't believe that a constitutional liberty to handgun applies.

Because a constitutional liberty to handguns do not apply, regulations, or lack thereof, is regulated to the states or the people as per the 10th amendment.

So I don't know why you're asking me why I'm for handgun bans.

Why do you want states or local municipalities to have the power to deny people their right to own a handgun? The criminals will still be able to get them, so it just doesn't make any sense. Gun control laws will not control violence or violent people.

Instead of trying to limit the people's rights, how about making gun crime laws more harsh? I think THAT would accomplish more than limiting the law-abiding citizens because somehow, I don't think criminals who want guns care about the laws.

 

[samsmart]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

there is more crime per capita in urban areas, so there's more need for self-defense firearms in an urban setting than a rural one.

Then argue that to citizens in urban areas so they can make the decision themselves.

 

[roflpublican]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Then argue that to citizens in urban areas so they can make the decision themselves.

it was already argued, and decided:


i believe that's the new-york copy of the bill of rights, sent there for ratification.

 

[Goshin]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

As I stated before, radios and televisions are not designed solely for the infliction of lethal violence. And that is the line of distinction that I draw.

Coupled with the fact that at the time of it's writing, firearms were technologically limited in a number of ways. And also that rifles and shotguns were used as just as much as hunting weapons as for self protection. And that we were primarily a rural nation with an agrarian economy to an urban nation with a service economy.

And so I have come to my interpretation in balance of all those aspects of the issue.

You draw a line based on personal bias. A right is a right.

As for what they had when the BoR was written.... they had slow mechanical printing presses, and THAT was the only "press" to which the 1A referred... so the comparsion between newspapers vs tv/radio is absolutely apt.

Your distinction remains arbitrary as you have given no reasons that make sense. We do not allow municipalities to define what kinds of speech are protected, or what protections from unreasonable search and seizure are allowed within their jurisdiction. These are rights, the 2A is a right, and your bias doesn't change the fact that it is an enumerated Constitutional right.


There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for allowing municipalities to make arbitrary infringements on rights guaranteed in the BoR to all citizens regardless of where they live.

 

[roflpublican]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

it was already argued, and decided:
View attachment 67137431

i believe that's the new-york copy of the bill of rights, sent there for ratification.

also i sould add that municipalities have no right to restrict a federal law like the 2nd amendment, because the incorporation/due process clause of the 14th amendment takes the right to restrict constitutional rights/federal laws out of the hands of the states.

 

[samsmart]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Why do you want states or local municipalities to have the power to deny people their right to own a handgun? The criminals will still be able to get them, so it just doesn't make any sense. Gun control laws will not control violence or violent people.

States and local municipalities already have the power to deny other rights to people. Such as the right to recreational drugs. And I don't think that's a good policy, as it tends towards drug violence. However, I do recognize the power of local municipalities, as well as states and the federal government to regulate it.

Instead of trying to limit the people's rights, how about making gun crime laws more harsh? I think THAT would accomplish more than limiting the law-abiding citizens because somehow, I don't think criminals who want guns care about the laws.

Again, I'm not trying to limit the people's rights. Rather, I'm saying that such policies, one way or the other, can be decided locally.

 

[samsmart]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

You draw a line based on personal bias. A right is a right.

As for what they had when the BoR was written.... they had slow mechanical printing presses, and THAT was the only "press" to which the 1A referred... so the comparsion between newspapers vs tv/radio is absolutely apt.

Your distinction remains arbitrary as you have given no reasons that make sense. We do not allow municipalities to define what kinds of speech are protected, or what protections from unreasonable search and seizure are allowed within their jurisdiction. These are rights, the 2A is a right, and your bias doesn't change the fact that it is an enumerated Constitutional right.


There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for allowing municipalities to make arbitrary infringements on rights guaranteed in the BoR to all citizens regardless of where they live.

And if such jurisprudence provided for a limited interpretation of the freedom of the press, I would argue for expansion of that right locally, state-wide, and federally and that it be expanded by a constitutional amendment.

And, again, the freedom of the press is not an issue solely of lethal violence.

 

[ChrisL]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

States and local municipalities already have the power to deny other rights to people. Such as the right to recreational drugs. And I don't think that's a good policy, as it tends towards drug violence. However, I do recognize the power of local municipalities, as well as states and the federal government to regulate it.

Sam, there is no "right to do drugs." There is nothing in the Constitution that refers to the right to use drugs. However, it is specifically stated in that the people have the right to bear arms without that right being infringed upon by the government.

Again, I'm not trying to limit the people's rights. Rather, I'm saying that such policies, one way or the other, can be decided locally.

Why would you want that though? What will that accomplish?

 

[samsmart]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Sam, there is no "right to do drugs." There is nothing in the Constitution that refers to the right to use drugs. However, it is specifically stated in that the people have the right to bear arms without that right being infringed upon by the government.

You asked why I would want localities to have the power to write their own laws that would infringe people's access to something. I answered that localities already have that power in other areas anyways, and so they should decide for themselves.

I believe that non-automatic rifles and shotguns are constitutionally protected. Other firearms are not, and therefore are subject to regulations as determined by the people of a locality. Just as other goods and services are.

Why would you want that though? What will that accomplish?

I don't know what it will accomplish, and I'm not one to speak for all the localities, as the culture of each locality is different, and have different requirements of policies. Therefore, I would leave it up to those localities to decide for themselves.

 

[Goshin]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

And if such jurisprudence provided for a limited interpretation of the freedom of the press, I would argue for expansion of that right locally, state-wide, and federally and that it be expanded by a constitutional amendment.

And, again, the freedom of the press is not an issue solely of lethal violence.

Again, you're making arbitrary arguments based on your own bias, and on what "might have been" or "could be".

We don't have a system like you're extolling, where rights are limited and subject to local "expansion". Enumerated rights are enumerated rights, whether 1A or 2A or 3A or 4A, and regardless of your current lattitude and longitude and whether your local gov't says "county of" or "city of".


Local preference doesn't figure into it.... just like local preference doesn't mean Dark Corners Alabama can arbitrarily limit anti-discrimination laws.

 

[samsmart]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Again, you're making arbitrary arguments based on your own bias, and on what "might have been" or "could be".

We don't have a system like you're extolling, where rights are limited and subject to local "expansion". Enumerated rights are enumerated rights, whether 1A or 2A or 3A or 4A, and regardless of your current lattitude and longitude and whether your local gov't says "county of" or "city of".

And yet, as an individual with free will, I can have my own thoughts on such matters, and advocate for them as I see fit.

 

[Goshin]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

And yet, as an individual with free will, I can have my own thoughts on such matters, and advocate for them as I see fit.

Yup, you sure can... and I can say they don't make sense in light of the law of the land. :shrug:


I reckon we've beat this dead horse quite a while now, I think I'll go see how the election is doing. Laters, bro.

 

[ChrisL]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

I believe that non-automatic rifles and shotguns are constitutionally protected. Other firearms are not, and therefore are subject to regulations as determined by the people of a locality. Just as other goods and services are.

Hmm. Interesting. Where in the Constitution does it state that?

I don't know what it will accomplish, and I'm not one to speak for all the localities, as the culture of each locality is different, and have different requirements of policies. Therefore, I would leave it up to those localities to decide for themselves.

That doesn't make any sense though. You want to allow government to limit constitutional rights is what you are saying. Because local and state municipalities are also a part of the governing body. Don't you see how dangerous it is to let the government limit our rights?

 

[samsmart]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Yup, you sure can... and I can say they don't make sense in light of the law of the land. :shrug:


I reckon we've beat this dead horse quite a while now, I think I'll go see how the election is doing. Laters, bro.

Or the law of the land refuses to acknowledge my interpretation of this part of the Constitution. Yet.

Have a good night!

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Look, I have no clue what you're going in about here in regards to minorities. I've never said anything about minorities.

My position is that non-automatic rifles and shotguns are protected by the 2nd amendment.

Automatic weapons and handguns aren't and so can be regulated by the government.

I don't advocate for handgun regulation one way or the other, as I think localities should decide for themselves.

I also advocate for expansion of less-than-lethal weapons for self-defense.

If you want to come up with some weird twisted reading of that position so I'm somehow racist or misoginist, okay. But that's not the case and it just shows your own warped logic.

this is based on what you want or a rigorous understanding of the constitution?

 

[roflpublican]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

States and local municipalities already have the power to deny other rights to people. Such as the right to recreational drugs. And I don't think that's a good policy, as it tends towards drug violence. However, I do recognize the power of local municipalities, as well as states and the federal government to regulate it.



Again, I'm not trying to limit the people's rights. Rather, I'm saying that such policies, one way or the other, can be decided locally.

they cant though, as i mentioned, the 14th amendment takes this out of the hands of the states.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Hmm. Interesting. Where in the Constitution does it state that?



That doesn't make any sense though. You want to allow government to limit constitutional rights is what you are saying. Because local and state municipalities are also a part of the governing body. Don't you see how dangerous it is to let the government limit our rights?

Samsmart apparently thinks that the rights of citizens are determined by criminal misuse.

 

[roflpublican]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

Samsmart apparently thinks that the rights of citizens are determined by criminal misuse.

i don't think so, but i do think he has too much faith in the 'inherent good' of government.

 

[Shadow Serious]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

The meaning of that clause remains debated to this day.



No, it would mean that non-automatic rifles and shotguns are constitutionally protected but that other types of firearms be regulated locally, by state governments, or by the federal government.

What about swords and battle axes? If I remember correctly NYC dont allow people to have those either.

 

[roflpublican]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

What about swords and battle axes? If I remember correctly NYC dont allow people to have those either.

not to mention halberds:

 

[Shadow Serious]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

As I stated before, radios and televisions are not designed solely for the infliction of lethal violence. And that is the line of distinction that I draw.

The intent is lethal violence to wrongdoers or at least a threat of violence to wrongdoers. And it is the point of the 2nd amendment in the first place.

Coupled with the fact that at the time of it's writing, firearms were technologically limited in a number of ways. And also that rifles and shotguns were used as just as much as hunting weapons as for self protection. And that we were primarily a rural nation with an agrarian economy to an urban nation with a service economy.

And generally Americans had the best that they could afford which were the best in the world. Even though Americans go to the Supermarket instead of hunt we still have to protect our property from time to time. Instead of wolves or foxes going after the chickens and livestock we have thugs going after our stuff our persons and our families. While a rilfe might be good against a predatory animal a handgun is a better choice against a two legged varmint.

And so I have come to my interpretation in balance of all those aspects of the issue.

So far all you have argued is that Constitutional enumerated rights can be put on some "minimum" and can be done at a local level "just because."

 

[Shadow Serious]

Re: A good reason for the 2nd Admendment: Queens residents arm themselves in the post

There is another thread about mayor Bloomberg not wanting the National Guard preventing looters in one of the boroughs in NYC (Riverside I think) even though the President of that borough want them. Because they carry guns and the police should be the only ones with guns. There is National Guard doing traffic control, handing out food, but God forbid anyone but NYPD (which are no shows) carrying guns and protecting the citizens property.