disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
On the contrary -- my parallel is spot on.
Disagree?
Tell me:
How does the argument that speech that 'could start a riot' is not protected by the 2nd in any way apply to the simple ownership and/or posesion of 'assault weapons'?
Given your argument, banning simple posession of 'assault weapons' is no more moderate (or constitutional) than banning public criticism of the President.I don't know that there actually is a definition that everyone would agree on. However, I do believe that a moderate view on limitations would serve the interests of all.
I never made that argument.Because your original argument was that you couldn't place restrictions on free speech, such as criticizing the President.
Please:The fact is, there can be reasonable restrictions on free speech and there can be reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.
Given your argument, banning simple posession of 'assault weapons' is no more moderate (or constitutional) than banning public criticism of the President.
OK....Sure it is....just like banning incidendiary speech...
OK....
Explain to me the argument behind banning incendiary speech, and then tell me how it then applies to the banning os simple posession of assault weapons.
That is, tell me WHY incenduiary speech is banned, and then tell me how that argument supports the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.
I;d argue:
-The SCouTS has made it clear that the right of the individual, regardless of his connection to the militia, is protected by the 2nd.
-The 2nd amendment, applied to the states thru the 14th amendment, would prohibit states from violating TRKBA in the same manner as it prohibits the federal government from doing so.
No.Incendiary speech is banned because of the potential for violence that such speech has the potential to incite.
Given the above, this is unsupprtable.If you read the Supreme Court decision affiriming the right to bear arms (can't remember the name right off), it is clear that the justices would uphold such a ban.
Not sure how you can do that, given that the individual hlds the right 'regardless of any connection to the militia'.I agree, regardless of his connection to a militia, but I would say that eliigibility for militia duty, not direct connection with said militia, should be a factor in the individual right.
Well, that's fine - but unnecessary.I would then ALSO say only the mentally incompetant and felons could be disqualified for militia duty. (All physical impaired people would still be considered qualified for non-combat duty and such so would enjoy that personal right to bear arms)
We have that now. No issues.I would then add that ONLY those who are deemed dangerous to the general populous by reason of prior history or mental impairment could be denied that right.
They could, but then the federal prohibition would still apply.Then again, some states may individually choose to exclude nobody, and allow both felons and the mentlaly impaired to own firearms.
Many have made the 10th amendment argument. It is sound in terms of there being no power for the Feds to ban posession and use of firearms.In total, I firmly believe that the right is an individual one, and I don't believe it can ever fall within th epurview of the federal governemnt.
:applaud:2dance:All others should be assumed as eligible, and therefore enjoy the individual right.
Incendiary speech is banned because of the potential for violence that such speech has the potential to incite.
Assault weapons similarly are a reasonable restriction. Assault weapons place law enforcement at risk and thus place our society at risk.
The Court engages in a weighing process...what are the benefits of such v. the potential for danger.
If you read the Supreme Court decision affiriming the right to bear arms (can't remember the name right off), it is clear that the justices would uphold such a ban.
They could, but then the federal prohibition would still apply.
No, I got you. You were clear.I actually do not agree with the federal prohibition for those deemed dangerous. I believe the states, and the states alone, should deem this or not.
Maybe failing to explain this fully is where I went wrong in my post.
Why not?I don't think the Federal government has the right to prohibit anyone form bearing arms for felonious actions that have been charged by the state.
From:
Urban Policy
So now, it is official White House policy to reinstate the AW Ban.
Seems to me we were told there was no rational reason to express concern for our right to keep and bear arms under the Obama Administration...
No, I got you. You were clear.
I believe this is one of those cases where both the states and the Federal government share competency.
Why not?
Ok... I don't really disagree with anything you said here.I see the bill of rights, and especially the second amendment, as limiting federal authority. While I believe that the rights explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights are rights that everyone should have, I also believe that they firmly limit the federal govenrment from having any say whatsoever on those matters.
Ok... I don't really disagree with anything you said here.
My question:
If the BOR only applies to the actions of the federal government and does not restrict the states, what stops the states from, say, banning 'assault weapons'?
Simple posession of an 'assault weapon' creates no such [clear and present danger to others -- an immediate threat to pubic safety] -- and so, the argument you present, above, falls to support the constitutionality of banning them.
Thanks for wasting our time!GAT Dernit Obamaer don't take my guns! How else am I gonna do some shootin!? Wat if them ppl come to meye home and steal my wife/daughter.
No.
It is banned because it creates a clear and present danger to others -- an immediate threat to pubic safety.
Simple posession of an 'assault weapon' creates no such danger -- and so, the argument you present, above, falls to support the constitutionality of banning them.
Given the above, this is unsupprtable.
No response from D-Dude?
Hmmmm.
I was wrong about... what, specifially?There can be no response to your post.....because you are simply wrong.
I was wrong about... what, specifially?
There can be no response to your post.....because you are simply wrong.
The government can and will continue to place reasonable restrictions of Constitutional rights. Just because you claim that a restriction on assault weapons is not reasonable doesn't make it so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?