- Joined
- Oct 20, 2018
- Messages
- 44,871
- Reaction score
- 29,824
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I’m not justifying anything. Just stating fact.you seem more interested in justifying governmental limits than supporting the freedom of citizens.
I’m not justifying anything. Just stating fact.you seem more interested in justifying governmental limits than supporting the freedom of citizens.
wrong-you're a big fan boy of trying to justify expansions of the government power over the negative restrictions placed on the government by the second and tenth amendment sI’m not justifying anything. Just stating fact.
Now you’re just sounding like a paranoid hoplophile.wrong-you're a big fan boy of trying to justify expansions of the government power over the negative restrictions placed on the government by the second and tenth amendment s
you constantly try to frame the second amendment as "being limited"Now you’re just sounding like a paranoid hoplophile.
Because, like all rights, there are limits. Something you undoubtedly know, but are having trouble coming to grips with.you constantly try to frame the second amendment as "being limited"
I keep wondering why you are so invested in stressing "limits" which is not the proper way to look at it anyway. Government has only the powers that it is legitimately given to it. Some power that the government has-is not exactly legitimate. De facto it has it-de jure perhaps not. Most of the federal gun control nonsense is based on fraud. Several of our gun controllers constantly claim that a gun control law is proper if it hasn't been struck down yet which is really poor form in terms of debatingBecause, like all rights, there are limits. Something you undoubtedly know, but are having trouble coming to grips with.
And they have:That’s what you’re here for.
Seriously though, the “governmental unit” in the case I referenced had/has the “proper power” to determine the limits of 2A. An obvious fact not necessitating clarification.
I’m not stressing limits. I’m acknowledging that they exist. You should try recognizing that reality.I keep wondering why you are so invested in stressing "limits" which is not the proper way to look at it anyway. Government has only the powers that it is legitimately given to it. Some power that the government has-is not exactly legitimate. De facto it has it-de jure perhaps not. Most of the federal gun control nonsense is based on fraud. Several of our gun controllers constantly claim that a gun control law is proper if it hasn't been struck down yet which is really poor form in terms of debating
I have no heartburn at all with your references.And they have:
“The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "
Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.
SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).
this is a debate board-see if you can actually formulate a good argument why those limits are actually validI’m not stressing limits. I’m acknowledging that they exist. You should try recognizing that reality.
Nothing anyone can say will put a scratch in your armor of denial.this is a debate board-see if you can actually formulate a good argument why those limits are actually valid
are you unable to give a good argument for those laws other than saying they have yet to be stricken down?Nothing anyone can say will put a scratch in your armor of denial.
I'm pretty sure that TD and I are aligned here.I have no heartburn at all with your references.
TD can’t say the same.
roger that. Has RB given an argument (other than the court has not struck it down) for those laws?I'm pretty sure that TD and I are aligned here.
Yes, you did. It is rather pointless to deny it on a forum where prior posts are recorded.I made no such claim.
It is obvious that you are completely clueless, not just about this subject but so many others. You go around making ridiculous assertions that the Second Amendment is some unlimited power, and then refuses to even acknowledge your ignorant and baseless assertion.You, on the other hand.
Really??
^ This is one your stupidest attempts at recovery after posting yet another ignorant assertion.
You’re either confused or lying. Either way, you’re wrong.Yes, you did. It is rather pointless to deny it on a forum where prior posts are recorded.
It is obvious that you are completely clueless, not just about this subject but so many others. You go around making ridiculous assertions that the Second Amendment is some unlimited power, and then refuses to even acknowledge your ignorant and baseless assertion.
BTW, the quoted portion of my post was taken, verbatim, from SCOTUS’ decision in Heller.What part of “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” are you still not able to grasp?
No right is absolute, @Glitch.
Verbatim but truncated.You’re either confused or lying. Either way, you’re wrong.
BTW, the quoted portion of my post was taken, verbatim, from SCOTUS’ decision in Heller.
View attachment 67386677
You sure about that? From every post of TD’s I’ve read, he clearly comes from a virtually absolutist position against any curtailment whatsoever of 2A rights.I'm pretty sure that TD and I are aligned here.
Completely irrelevant to the false claim made by @Glitch .Verbatim but truncated.
Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, later, expressed a very limited view of what gun control laws could be considered Constitutional.
DC v Heller
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Chicago v McDonald.
"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. "
The restrictions listed in these two opinions, all existing laws, are the only ones that can be presumed to be Constitutional. Nothing else can be presumed to be Constitutional.
This turns out not to be the case.You sure about that? From every post of TD’s I’ve read, he clearly comes from a virtually absolutist position against any curtailment whatsoever of 2A rights.
I'm a firm believer that a citizen should have access to any weapon that the State is willing to use against the citizen.Do you think TD good with this provision in Heller?
“(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
I can recall, on several occasions, TD voicing his objection to any bans on firearms that are available for used by police.
Many police departments employ fully automatic weapons.
No, and neither am I. NFA 1934 was patently unconstitutional, and Hughes Amendment was unequivocally a law passed, in dubious circumstances, to harass lawful gun owners.The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) contained a provision that banned the sale to civilians of machine gunsmanufactured after the date of enactment.
Do you think TD is cool with that?
Can you provide evidence that asserts otherwise?This turns out not to be the case.
While I respect your opinion, that wasn’t my point/question (Do you think TD good with this provision in Heller?).I'm a firm believer that a citizen should have access to any weapon that the State is willing to use against the citizen.
Fair question. I can’t think of any instances when full auto fire was a necessary option for police officers. Maybe to use in burst mode?The question is why. When has there ever been a need for the police to engage civilians with machine guns?
Fair enough.No, and neither am I. NFA 1934 was patently unconstitutional, and Hughes Amendment was unequivocally a law passed, in dubious circumstances, to harass lawful gun owners.
We're both in agreement that given Scalia's opinion in Heller and Kavanaugh's opinion in Heller II that it's very unlikely that the NFA 1934 would be overturned by SCOTUS.
You could ask him.Can you provide evidence that asserts otherwise?
What do you mean by "good with"? I believe that he and I recognize that the privisions in Heller would be found as Constitutional if examined again by the current Court. We both understand why Scalia wrotevwhat he did.While I respect your opinion, that wasn’t my point/question (Do you think TD good with this provision in Heller?).
You’re the one that said;You could ask him.
and this;I'm pretty sure that TD and I are aligned here.
Can you support your assertions, or not?This turns out not to be the case.
Commonly understood colloquialism for approves of or agrees with.What do you mean by "good with"?
Agreeing that the provision would stand if reviewed by the current SCOTUS body, but not fully agreeing with the decision.I believe that he and I recognize that the privisions in Heller would be found as Constitutional if examined again by the current Court. We both understand why Scalia wrotevwhat he did.
What kind of "proof" would satisfy you? A complete listing of all 2A concerns signed by both TD and I, properly notarized and sent to your home?You’re the one that said;
and this;
Can you support your assertions, or not?
What part of the decision do you disagree with and why?Commonly understood colloquialism for approves of or agrees with.
Agreeing that the provision would stand if reviewed by the current SCOTUS body, but not fully agreeing with the decision.
I was going to say something along the line of how the hell old is that article. His article "post 237" makes no mention of a "ghost gun"