The second amendment is not universal or above regulation

[H. Lee White]

Two full centuries of American jurisprudence could only be considered as meaningless by somebody who does not understand the meaning of the word.

Doesn't change the fact that the fact you cite is is meanigless, trivial, and legally irrelevant.

 

[haymarket]

Doesn't change the fact that the fact you cite is is meanigless, trivial, and legally irrelevant.

Two full centuries of American jurisprudence could only be considered as meaningless by somebody who does not understand the meaning of the word.

 

[H. Lee White]

Two full centuries of American jurisprudence could only be considered as meaningless by somebody who does not understand the meaning of the word.

Meaningless, trivial and legally irrelevant.
It is impossible for you to show otherwise.

 

[clownboy]

I have read that highly erroneous account of 'history' by some of your fellows here and it is riddled with lies and misinformation. It ignores that measures controlling restricting weapons were plentiful in the 1800s, long before Franklin Roosevelt ever was conceived.

So you may want to go back and do some good reading and not put your blind faith in people here who are steering you in a really bad direction. you can begin here

Gun control in the Old West

There's precious little concrete example in that screed, it's more editorial in nature than informative. But hey, the localities did all sorts of anti-American, anti-constitutional things in the 1800s. Courts, the feds, the government didn't have near the reach back then. One rogue judge or sheriff could rule a town as their personal fiefdom.

Again, go back and read what the framers thought of the second. That should disabuse you of your silly notions of what it means.

 

[haymarket]

There's precious little concrete example in that screed, it's more editorial in nature than informative. But hey, the localities did all sorts of anti-American, anti-constitutional things in the 1800s. Courts, the feds, the government didn't have near the reach back then. One rogue judge or sheriff could rule a town as their personal fiefdom.

Again, go back and read what the framers thought of the second. That should disabuse you of your silly notions of what it means.

By your own admission localities did exercise gun control. And that was my point. It did NOT start with FDR less than a century ago. Such a claim is stupid and contrary to reality.

Adam Winkler has a good book on the four century lone war over gun control. Note: FOUR CENTURIES LONG. Here is a review

'Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America' by Adam Winkler - chicagotribune.com

In the early Republic, the Second Amendment was no barrier to strict laws governing firearms. The founding generation kept guns out of the hands of slaves, free blacks, and loyalists who opposed the American Revolution. Officials in some communities counted and registered guns and public safety prompted safe storage laws that mandated unloaded weapons by requiring the storage of gunpowder on a building's top floor. After the Civil War, former Confederates forcibly disarmed freedmen in the South, while in the so-called Wild West, frontier towns prohibited concealed weapons.

Keep in mind this is just a short summary of chapters from a much longer book with much much more detail.

this is from the LA Times review of the same book

And yet, even as he produces evidence of early recognition of gun rights, Winkler also uncovers substantial historical support for gun control restricting those rights. "The right to bear arms in the colonial era was not a libertarian license to do whatever a person wanted with a gun," Winkler writes. "When public safety demanded that gun owners do something, the government was recognized to have the authority to make them do it." Thus, gun owners were barred from selling guns to Native Americans and blacks — and to those who refused to swear allegiance to the Crown.

I would be happy to quote extensively from the actual book but that is not online.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Doesn't change the fact that the fact you cite is is meanigless, trivial, and legally irrelevant.

He's got a bad habit of accrediting worth to people that agree with him, facts be damned.

 

[jonny5]

And yet you refuse to bring anything substantive to the discussion. Close enough.

Your agreement is not required for me to be right.

 

[H. Lee White]

Your agreement is not required for me to be right.

No.... you presenting a sound argument is.
Please begin.

 

[H. Lee White]

He's got a bad habit of accrediting worth to people that agree with him, facts be damned.

I really could not possibly care less what he thinks - I proved him wrong, and now he's back on ignore.

 

[clownboy]

By your own admission localities did exercise gun control. And that was my point. It did NOT start with FDR less than a century ago. Such a claim is stupid and contrary to reality.

Adam Winkler has a good book on the four century lone war over gun control. Note: FOUR CENTURIES LONG. Here is a review

'Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America' by Adam Winkler - chicagotribune.com


Keep in mind this is just a short summary of chapters from a much longer book with much much more detail.

this is from the LA Times review of the same book



I would be happy to quote extensively from the actual book but that is not online.

Not by my "own admission", where are you getting that? And the Second Amendment hasn't been around for four centuries, nor has the Constitution.

What the colonies did is irrelevent. And at the time of the "founding generation", blacks were not allowed the protections of the Constitution - they were property.

 

[haymarket]

I really could not possibly care less what he thinks - I proved him wrong, and now he's back on ignore.

And this from somebody who claims that two full centuries of American jurisprudence is meaningless and irrelevant. :doh The only thing you proved wrong is your own debate tactics.

 

[haymarket]

Doesn't change the fact that the fact you cite is is meanigless, trivial, and legally irrelevant.

Apparently you do not know the difference between your OPINION and what constitutes a FACT.

 

[Vallista]

You have rights, and many people love to spout on about how the government cannot infringe upon them, but every one of your rights is regulated. You cannot say whatever you want wherever you want. There are rules governing your free speech. You cannot even live free under all circumstances, and the government or people can legally take away your life under certain situations. You don't even have a right to live every way you want to. So why is it that gun owners think they are entitled to have any gun they want without any regulation?

It does not even make sense under the present laws and constitution. The states and federal government have set up regulations on gun laws. these regulations have withstood many legal battles, and precedent has been set that the government has the right to regulate gun sales, possession, and even use. You don't even have the right to purchase and own many guns without proper licensing and checks. If you want a handgun you have to get a permit to purchase one. if you want to carry it you need a permit to do so above that. Even with that permit you cannot carry that gun everywhere.

If you do own a gun there are places where it is illegal to fire guns. Firing near highways, homes, and businesses is prohibited in many states. If you don't see it under typical laws check your environmental codes. That is often where states put them do to the regulations normally effecting hunters and where they can legally hunt. It is pretty much illegal in most places to go hunting on main street even if you see a sweet buck just shopping at your local town business. It is illegal to shoot near roads which is why hunting from your truck is often a crime.

So please second amendment supporters quit pretending the government has no ability to regulate your possession, use, and ownership of guns.

See consevatives, this is what we call a sound argument. Try it!

 

[Harshaw]

See consevatives, this is what we call a sound argument. Try it!

Perhaps you should "try" reading the 400+ posts worth of thread eviscerating this "sound" argument.

 

[Vallista]

Perhaps you should "try" reading the 400+ posts worth of thread eviscerating this "sound" argument.

I have.

 

[H. Lee White]

See consevatives, this is what we call a sound argument. Try it!

Except for the several hundred posts that show it unsound, sure.

 

[Harshaw]

I have.

Then you do not know what constitutes a "sound argument." Given that you apparently you think Democrats aborting their babies will stop Republicans from being born, this is not surprising.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are so wrong it's not even funny. Until the FDR era guns were considered a given except against southern freedmen(which was wrong), the first gun control was against the freedmen by the Democrat party, this was southern Democrat legislation at it's finest. The freedmen were disbarred arms because former slave owners feared retribution, further, the black codes, Jim Crowe, etc. were ended by SCOTUS tying the states to the fourteenth amendment, which bound the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and every amendment to the constitution and article to the states. The legislative would not take on gun control until the 1930s, but it wasn't "this century" and "this court" as you like to claim leading to the individual right being upheld. It has been understood since 1776 by everyone who comes to it objectively, glad to see the talking points have been modified though, the old ones used since the 1960s were getting kind of boring.

It seems a good idea to clarify a point here, for some who may be too dense to get it, or to understand the full significance thereof: Where you use the word “freedmen”, you are referring to Negros. Up until the FDR era, nearly all “gun control”*laws were of specifically racist intent, meaning to deprive black people of the right to bear arms, while allowing white people the free exercise of this right. The term “Saturday Night Special” that you may hear from time to time, is a cleaned-up version of the original term, “Niggertown Saturday Night Special”, again reflecting the racist intention behind the creation of the term, and the application thereof to define and restrict a certain class of low-cost firearms, in order to deprive poor, mostly black people of the right to bear arms, while allowing wealthier, mostly-white people to this right who could afford the more expensive firearms not defined as “Niggertown Saturday Night Specials”.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It seems a good idea to clarify a point here, for some who may be too dense to get it, or to understand the full significance thereof: Where you use the word “freedmen”, you are referring to Negros. Up until the FDR era, nearly all “gun control”*laws were of specifically racist intent, meaning to deprive black people of the right to bear arms, while allowing white people the free exercise of this right. The term “Saturday Night Special” that you may hear from time to time, is a cleaned-up version of the original term, “Niggertown Saturday Night Special”, again reflecting the racist intention behind the creation of the term, and the application thereof to define and restrict a certain class of low-cost firearms, in order to deprive poor, mostly black people of the right to bear arms, while allowing wealthier, mostly-white people to this right who could afford the more expensive firearms not defined as “Niggertown Saturday Night Specials”.

I use freedmen for a very specific reason, they were certified rightfully as citizens and thus entitled to full rights, however the Democrat party so feared equality and retaliation that they created a special case to disbar them the basic right of armed self defense. You are correct though, the freedmen were necessarily black former slaves. I never heard the "niggertown saturday night special" classification though, only "saturday night special".

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I use freedmen for a very specific reason, they were certified rightfully as citizens and thus entitled to full rights, however the Democrat party so feared equality and retaliation that they created a special case to disbar them the basic right of armed self defense.

I've been cringing every time I see this. The word you want is “debar”, not “disbar”.

You are correct though, the freedmen were necessarily black former slaves. I never heard the "niggertown saturday night special" classification though, only "saturday night special".

Most people haven't heard the full term. “Saturday Night Special” continued in popular use for quite some time, after our society moved beyond the point of accepting racism in such an open manner. But as the term was originally used, it included the word “Niggertown”, and the specific idea that it was “niggers”, in particular, that it was desired to prevent from having access to them.

 

[hikari]

Perhaps you should "try" reading the 400+ posts worth of thread eviscerating this "sound" argument.

Nothing written thusfar has actually done anything to this argument, I have seen lots of chest beating and constitutional fantasy from conservatives, and lots of smug indignation from liberals, however the basic point that all "rights" are already regulated cannot be refuted, because it is the truth.

 

[H. Lee White]

Nothing written thusfar has actually done anything to this argument, I have seen lots of chest beating and constitutional fantasy from conservatives, and lots of smug indignation from liberals, however the basic point that all "rights" are already regulated cannot be refuted, because it is the truth.

You're only stating the obvious.
The question is: What's your point, and how does it fall into the established means for determining which 'regulations' are allowed by the Constitution?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I've been cringing every time I see this. The word you want is “debar”, not “disbar”.

Hmm, you're right. I've always seen or heard disbar used in general discussion of the topic so I picked up the bad habit of using it incorrectly. Thanks.

Most people haven't heard the full term. “Saturday Night Special” continued in popular use for quite some time, after our society moved beyond the point of accepting racism in such an open manner. But as the term was originally used, it included the word “Niggertown”, and the specific idea that it was “niggers”, in particular, that it was desired to prevent from having access to them.

I did know that there was a racial component to the attack on Saturday Night Specials, the move was sold as a targeting of cheap guns used in crime but I remember picking up that it was mainly targeted at urban gangs, and typically considered to be blacks.

 

[hikari]

You're only stating the obvious.
The question is: What's your point, and how does it fall into the established means for determining which 'regulations' are allowed by the Constitution?

My point is that rights are already regulated, and if the constitution supposedly prevents that then it doesn't making it moot. In fact I would argue that in today's world the whole constitution is pretty unimportant seeing as how judges and legislators are the ones who really control what's going to happen so why try and even make constitutional arguments?

What really matters is making the hearts and minds of a fickle populace understand that they need to exercise restraint because the constitution isn't going to so it for them.

 

[H. Lee White]

My point is that rights are already regulated, and if the constitution supposedly prevents that then it doesn't making it moot.

I'm sorry - you need to clarify what you mean here.

In fact I would argue that in today's world the whole constitution is pretty unimportant...

Really.
Tell us why the government cannot tap your phone w/o a warrant.
Tell us why states cannot enact an outright ban on abortion.
Tell us why states cannot restrict black people and women from voting.
Tell us why we cannot own slaves.