Thread Options
|
#864520 - 11/30/07 11:54 PM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
straw
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
What Supreme Court cases do you disagree with? what's this odd segue all about? tmos posted an article about gun control. i responded to that issue. this seems to be a bit out of left field, straw. do you disagree with the miller case?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864521 - 11/30/07 11:55 PM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Hrothgar Geiger
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
I'm confused about the thread title "Who's Right to Bear Arms?"
Do you mean "Who Is Right to Bear Arms?" Also, I don't think you can claim that the residents of D.C. have been "legally disarmed." They may still legally purchase rifles and shotguns. And, I might be wrong, but I'd thought there was a grandfather clause for handguns legally registered prior to a certain date. No one (aside from criminals) has had their firearms confiscated. I meant the title as a possessive "Whose" but misspelled it. The actual article's title is "Whose..."
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864522 - 11/30/07 11:56 PM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Hated By Some
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
What Supreme Court cases do you disagree with? what's this odd segue all about? tmos posted an article about gun control. i responded to that issue. this seems to be a bit out of left field, straw. do you disagree with the miller case? Of all my article postings, I love the RTBA postings because I sit back and watch the most hilarious, albeit serious and informative, debates unfold
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864574 - 12/01/07 03:49 AM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Hrothgar Geiger
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
I don't think you can claim that the residents of D.C. have been "legally disarmed." They may still legally purchase rifles and shotguns. And, I might be wrong, but I'd thought there was a grandfather clause for handguns legally registered prior to a certain date. No one (aside from criminals) has had their firearms confiscated. Wow, that's great. Really, that's one of the best posts I've ever seen from a lefty. (a) You deftly ignore the restriction that the shotgun or rifle may only be owned if stored disassembled or with a trigger lock, greatly reducing their ability to serve as a deterrent. (b) You brilliantly pretend that the grandfathering of legal hangun ownership - from such a long time ago that only literal grandfathers can own the weapons! - is some sort of mitigating allowance. And (c) your use of the gun rights crowd's argument against them is, quite simply, stunning!... If it's illegal to have guns, then only criminals own guns!
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864580 - 12/01/07 06:16 AM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Jokerman
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
(a) You deftly ignore the restriction that the shotgun or rifle may only be owned if stored disassembled or with a trigger lock, greatly reducing their ability to serve as a deterrent. what about serving in a militia means that the right is for deterrence of crime?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864583 - 12/01/07 06:40 AM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Hated By Some
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
(a) You deftly ignore the restriction that the shotgun or rifle may only be owned if stored disassembled or with a trigger lock, greatly reducing their ability to serve as a deterrent. what about serving in a militia means that the right is for deterrence of crime? Ignoring your glaring logical fallacy (you should trust that source), the question was not about constitutional rights - it was about whether the residents had been disarmed.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864663 - 12/02/07 05:00 PM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Hated By Some
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
either way, i see no prohibition of disarming in the constitution. Of course not, Ron. This is the definition that tmos and Tom use to assert that D.C. residents are disarmed since their weapons must be kept unloaded and locked. How would you know what definition I'm using?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864668 - 12/02/07 05:26 PM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Hrothgar Geiger
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
There is one definition of 'disarm' that reads 'to take away weapons'. This is the definition I use to question whether D.C. residents have been 'disarmed'. As far as I am aware, legally registered firearms have not been removed from the possession of D.C. residents by civil authorities.
There is another definition of 'disarm' that reads 'to render harmless'. This is the definition that tmos and Tom use to assert that D.C. residents are disarmed since their weapons must be kept unloaded and locked.
This can either be a typical BOL semantic slugfest, or it can lead to a more interesting discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
An unloaded and locked weapon owned by a citizen represents an infringement of the RTBA, as tmos puts it, only if you believe that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizen to keep weapons for their personal defense. If you believe that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to keep weapons for the defense of the State, then an unloaded and locked weapon represents no infringement at all. Actually, I have not stated my opinion on this, so much as posted the article to continue the debate on the Second Amendment. But I do have a question that I am generally putting out there to the various parties in this debate (Rainman, Barb, RM, TT, Straw, etc) in light of the 2nd possibility, that the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to keep weapons for defense of the state. If citizens are permitted to keep and bear arms, and this is for the purpose of defending the state, not with the express and sole purpose of self-defense, then consider the following: My home is breached and an attacker, using some sort of deadly weapon (blunt, cutting, firearm, has a bomb) threatens or has in fact already done harm to me and/or a family member. Would I have the right to utilize the firearm I keep under the 2nd Amendment for militia purposes, in order to facilitate the dispatching of the assailant. Please consider each of the factors I have proposed, and the following condition: it is unknown if law enforcement or anyone else is aware this is taking place, and I have somehow managed to assemble and load my firearm during the commission of this crime.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864676 - 12/02/07 07:57 PM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Hrothgar Geiger
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
TMOS,
With respect to your hypothetical situation;
1. I don't know. There are too many extraneous factors not defined. Militia regulations, laws on the use of deadly force, whether or not you may own other weapons for personal use. 2. Does it really matter? Wouldn't you defend yourself anyway and take whatever consequences may be applied? Yes, I would. But I want to know what the legal implications of doing so would be. For instance, could my use of the firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the above scenario, though not provided for in the Constitution's 2nd Amendment (presuming SCOTUS rules that way) result in a crime on my part? Or, would the "right to life, liberty.." set forth in the Declaration supercede the use of the firearm in a manner not keeping with the 2nd Amendment? Thatis what my concern is if the court rules that self-defense does not apply.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#864810 - 12/03/07 03:39 PM
Re: Who's Right to Bear Arms?
Hated By Some
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
What Supreme Court cases do you disagree with? what's this odd segue all about? tmos posted an article about gun control. i responded to that issue. this seems to be a bit out of left field, straw. do you disagree with the miller case? Do you disagree with any Supreme Court case?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|