• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

The only necessary limit on rights for a society is understanding that the one restriction on our rights is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others. It's the maximization of rights and our ability to exercise them at our leisure.

We can debate all day as to what is a necessary restriction of rights. But in fact, that is what all societies do, in varying extents.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Yet we all give up "rights" to live in an organized society, and if that is the definition of tyranny, we all live with a tryannical government.

YEt some of us resist it or at best grudgingly see some of it as a necesary but certain evil. Others want to expand it and welcome such tyranny. That seems to be the difference between me and you
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

The only necessary limit on rights for a society is understanding that the one restriction on our rights is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others. It's the maximization of rights and our ability to exercise them at our leisure.
You are correct.

My owning a gun, in and of itself, in no way infringes on the rights of others.

If we agree that rights may only be restricted if and when they infringe on the rights of others, then my right to own a gun may not be restricted.
 

t looks like the ACLU is going to have to change their anti-2nd amendment page.Will they start taking cases to defend the individual's right to bear arms or will they continue their crock of **** anti-2nd amendment interpretation of the 2nd amendment while still claiming to defend constitutional rights?

American Civil Liberties Union : Gun Control
Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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 Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

You are correct.

My owning a gun, in and of itself, in no way infringes on the rights of others.

That depends upon who you are, your intent, and your level responsibility. That's a little like saying driving drunk, in and of itself, in no way infringes on the rights of others.
 
Last edited:
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

YEt some of us resist it or at best grudgingly see some of it as a necesary but certain evil. Others want to expand it and welcome such tyranny. That seems to be the difference between me and you

That is a matter of opinion. One person's reasonable restriction is another's tyrrany, I suppose.
 
t looks like the ACLU is going to have to change their anti-2nd amendment page.Will they start taking cases to defend the individual's right to bear arms or will they continue their crock of **** anti-2nd amendment interpretation of the 2nd amendment while still claiming to defend constitutional rights?

American Civil Liberties Union : Gun Control




"IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."




what a bunch of idiots, guns are mentioned in the 2nd, cars are not.
 
"IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."




what a bunch of idiots, guns are mentioned in the 2nd, cars are not.

Yet the President of the American Communist Lawyers Unit has been heard saying that the right was archaic and should be abolished and the last I checked the right to keep and bear autos is not in the bill of rights.

no one talks about banning autos (well maybe al gore) and no one has advocated using registration lists to confiscate autos and you do not have to license or register a car used on or kept on private property

I would love it if my CCW license was recognized as widely as my Ohio Drivers license and if I could buy guns as freely (ie across state lines etc)/ BTW you can buy a car that outperforms anything the police have too. That sounds good as well when it comes to guns
 
It looks like the ACLU is going to have to change their anti-2nd amendment page.Will they start taking cases to defend the individual's right to bear arms or will they continue their crock of **** anti-2nd amendment interpretation of the 2nd amendment while still claiming to defend constitutional rights?
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Like most liberals, the ACLU in only interested in defending rights they like.
 
I would love it if my CCW license was recognized as widely as my Ohio Drivers license....
If a state issues CCW permits, then its impossible to argue that said state can refuse to honor your OH CCW permit.

Full Faith and Credit clause, you know.

At least that's what they tell us re: same-sex marriage...
 
If a state issues CCW permits, then its impossible to argue that said state can refuse to honor your OH CCW permit.

Full Faith and Credit clause, you know.

At least that's what they tell us re: same-sex marriage...



Not true:


Welcome to CarryConcealed.net



I have both the Utah and the FL, neither are good in each others state and both are good in 28+ states, just not each others. money.
 
I know its not true -- but there's no valid legal argument for it not being true.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

There is no need for a constitutional amendment for Congress to say Gay marriage contracts in California are not valid anywhere else.

An elected Judge gave me a concealed carry after the FBI background check, which was before the Royal Governor Zig Zag Zell changed the way it had been done since the revolution (first in the history of the people electing judges over the people), it does not necessarily carry over to Florida, a different Republic, who "elect" differently.
 
Back
Top Bottom