Page 3 of 40 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 595

Thread: U.S. Gun Control Laws & The Second Amendment

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    So if the Constitution is only recognizing this intrinsic right, it must originate from some other source1. I can only conclude that it is intrinsic to the nature of a human being; and if so, humans in countries with reasonable2 gun-control laws are actually living in repressive states.3
    1. 'our creator', god, 'the spirit in the sky' etc.

    2. to people in those countries apparently

    3. I have no problem with this statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc
    The irony is that the government we most need to worry about taking our liberty will be one the gun lobby worked to get elected.1 It'll be a majority government, won't it, and we'll be subject to the tyranny of the majority2 which will wholeheartedly support its assault on freedom. Isn't that what happened in the Thirties in Germany? Now that was a popular government3.

    Didn't we get a little taste of that right here the last six years?

    Free access to guns and eroded liberty. It's OK, it was just a little taste, but I can't imagine why anybody thinks having people own guns will preserve liberty when it's the gun aficionados' preferred governments we most need to worry about.4
    1. Not necessarily, a uniform policy of preserving individual liberties would include gun ownership but also privacy, free speech, etc.

    2. Only in a pure democracy. The strength of our form of government - Constitutional Republic - is that it guarantees the rights of the minority even if a majority would act to stifle them - as such, gun laws are unconstitutional.

    3.One with civil rights, meaning the rights are granted by the authority of the government, just as easily taken away by the authority of the government. In the United States all authority of the government is derived from, and therefore subordinate to, the authority of the people. Our rights reside within us and are protected by government.

    4. Two separate thoughts here. Pandering to a cause by unscrupulous politicians does not change the merit of the cause. And yes the Bush administraton has been the greatest threat to liberty, arguably, this country has ever seen.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonik View Post
    Two separate thoughts here. Pandering to a cause by unscrupulous politicians does not change the merit of the cause.
    True enough. Who can be against motherhood?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonik View Post
    And yes the Bush administraton has been the greatest threat to liberty, arguably, this country has ever seen.
    Not much hope of redress from the gun-toters who elected him.

    Why would this change in the future?

    Aren't gun owners mostly control freaks or closet fascists about everything except gun control, where they're libertarians?

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc View Post
    Aren't gun owners mostly control freaks or closet fascists about everything except gun control, where they're libertarians?
    I don't know. Buit libertarians are always anti gun control, anti control freaks and anti fascists.

    I think you may be inferring a false relationship causality from the facts.

    -Gun control opponents vote.
    -Gun control opponents vote for the candidate (on the ballot) most likely to preserve gun rights.
    -The candidate (on the ballot) most likely to preserve gun rights is a proto-fascist.
    -Gun control opponents vote for proto-fascists.
    -Gun control opponents are proto-fascists.

    Though the above may pass for logic in this crazy time - it isn't.

    Believe me I am horrified by the implications of the situation. Not the least of which is that gun owners will self infer themselves to share the proto-fascist leanings of the one they elected and readily prostrate themselves to government in the name of security. For instance, registering all guns with the local gov't (to be added to a federal database) thereby criminalizing all guns the gov't can't locate- ie. revoke.

    The way the political spectrum is set up right now; I fear it's almost inevitable the gov't will gain contol of the vast majority of guns in this country. The only way to protect our bill of rights guaranteed freedoms is to force the government to protect them all. For if we give up one, we effectively give up all.

  4. #34

    Default Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

    The fundamental right to bear arms for protection is laid out here as it was for the founders.
    *****
    Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690.

    ---Chap. I. Sect. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks
    upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it
    the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he
    builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the
    great maxims of justice and charity. His words are, The like natural
    inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to
    love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal,
    must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good,
    even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul,
    how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless
    myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in
    other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered
    them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as
    much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no
    reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they
    have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals
    in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of
    bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of
    equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several
    rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man
    is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1.

    ---Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state
    of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to
    dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy
    himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some
    nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature
    has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason,
    which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that
    being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his
    life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship
    of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one
    sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his
    business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last
    during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like
    faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be
    supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to
    destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the
    inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to
    preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like
    reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as
    much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it
    be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what
    tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or
    goods of another.

    ---Sect. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others
    rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be
    observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the
    execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's
    hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that
    law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature
    would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if
    there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute
    that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And
    if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has
    done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where
    naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another,
    what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a
    right to do.

    ---Sect. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power
    over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal,
    when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or
    boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so
    far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his
    transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and
    restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully
    do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing
    the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule
    than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set
    to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes
    dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and
    violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass
    against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for
    by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to
    preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary,
    destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one,
    who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it,
    and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like
    mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT
    TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.

    ---Sect. 9. 1 doubt not but this will seem a very strange doctrine to
    some men: but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me, by
    what right any prince or state can put to death, or punish an alien, for
    any crime he commits in their country. It is certain their laws, by
    virtue of any sanction they receive from the promulgated will of the
    legislative, reach not a stranger: they speak not to him, nor, if they
    did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legislative authority, by which
    they are in force over the subjects of that commonwealth, hath no power
    over him. Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England,
    France or Holland, are to an Indian, but like the rest of the world, men
    without authority: and therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath
    not a power to punish offences against it, as he soberly judges the case
    to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an
    alien of another country; since, in reference to him, they can have no
    more power than what every man naturally may have over another.

    ---Sect, 10. Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and
    varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes
    degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature,
    and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some
    person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression:
    in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of
    punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek
    reparation from him that has done it: and any other person, who finds it
    just, may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in
    recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the
    harm he has suffered.

    ---Sect. 11. From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the
    crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of
    punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs
    only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by
    being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands,
    can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law,
    remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet
    cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he
    has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand
    in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this
    power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender,
    by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the
    crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of
    preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order
    to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has
    a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like
    injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the
    punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from
    the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule
    and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and
    slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind,
    and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild
    savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon
    this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
    man shall his blood be shed. And Cain was so fully convinced, that every
    one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that after the murder of his
    brother, he cries out, Every one that findeth me, shall slay me; so plain
    was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.

  5. #35

    Default

    http://www.potowmack.org/

    The issue is the relationship between citizen and state. The response on the gun rights ideologies side is that governmental authority can only be tolerated as long as there is an armed populace pointing guns at it. On the other side, it is that the only viable concept of nationhood is where the rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing; that there is a difference between civil society and the State of Nature as indicated in John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government from which the American Revolutionaries and the Framers of the Constitution took much of their instructions. On the gun rights side is a childish, anarchic political fantasy, a childish concept of the political self and the essence of political cynicism; on the other, the operating concepts of the system we live under. As the United States goes off on a global campaign against terrorism, terrorist states, terrorist harboring states and rogue states, the ultimate goal is to establish a viable concept of nationhood in politically dysfunctional parts of the world where the rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. It is the nation state in the present world which is still the vessel for the rule of law, political authority, and the conservative, very unlibertarian heresy of political community. We ought to be able to arrive at some conclusions on what a viable concept of nationhood means in this country.

    he issue the gun rights ideologies raise is a logical absurdity. When sovereign individuals in the State of Nature come together to form political community they create a higher law, a governing authority. Again, in political community the rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. The right to be armed outside of the law is the right to individual sovereignty. Individual sovereigns by definition do not consent to be governed, do not give "just powers" to government, do not "quit everyone his Executive Power of the Law of Nature". They exist in the State of Nature before there is law and government. They still want this government to have the "just powers" to secure the rights they proclaim.

    Whatever rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, have to be consistent with what a constitution is. A constitution is the fundamental law of a political community. A civil right to be armed outside of the law would reduce the Constitution of this political community from a frame of government with "just powers" that derive from the "consent of the governed" to a treaty among sovereign individuals in the State of Nature who give no more than word of honor and promise of good faith.. Sovereign powers, whether sovereign states or sovereign individuals, do not accommodate to a law-giving, law-enforcing authority. They make a treaty not a government. Civil rights are defined in constitutional doctrine by the judiciary. To secure civil rights government needs "just powers" that derive from the consent of the governed. No "consent of the governed" means no "just powers" to secure civil rights or anything else. We are on our own to secure our own rights as individual sovereigns. That is why we need a gun in every pocket. It is not within the powers of the judiciary to reverse the process followed by the Framers of the Constitution from John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government, dissolve law and government, and return to the State of Nature— that is institute anarchy.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TPI
    When sovereign individuals in the State of Nature come together to form political community they create a higher law, a governing authority.
    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Locke. The sovereign individuals delegate their authority to the government. The powers of the government authority are valid insofar as they are derived and limited to- and by the Natural authority of the individual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke
    The state of nature
    has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason,
    which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that
    being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his
    life, health, liberty, or possessions...
    These are the laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke
    And that all men may be restrained from invading others
    rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be
    observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the
    execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's
    hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that
    law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature
    would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if
    there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute
    that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And
    if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has
    done, every one may do so:
    All may apply these laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke
    From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the
    crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of
    punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs
    only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by
    being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands,
    can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law,
    remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority
    , but yet
    cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he
    has received.
    The government may be delegated to apply these laws with the discretion of individuals applying the laws- except with regard to material damages.

    Nowhere is it justified for the powers of the government to exceed the natural powers of the individual, i.e. if I cannot deny you property or liberty - guns and their use- the power of life preserving defense, neither can the government. Furthermore, nowhere is it justified that extension of the application of common rights held by individuals, to a government authority in any way prevents these so governed from retaining the free exercise of these common rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by TPI
    Again, in political community the rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing.
    Saying it's so doesn't make it so. First off, within the Union of these United States, internal sovereignty belongs to the States and the Federal government is limited within the country- hence National Guard troops under the comand of Governors. This fundamental Federal position was somewhat blurred after the Civil War, but in interpreting the Constitution that blurring is immaterial. Thus the Federal use of force internally has always been limited except to "insure domestic Tranquility." (Though there is some concern about the recent dilution of the Insurection Act of 1807).

    Using Max Weber's Gewaltmonopol des Staates, force monopy of the state, in this context not only undermines the article's final argument, but is antithetical to the notion of the Constitution- that political and governmental authority shall flow from the control of power, not from the duty to protect liberty.
    Quote Originally Posted by TPI
    Whatever rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, have to be consistent with what a constitution is. A constitution is the fundamental law of a political community.
    No problem yet. I note that both the government and the people are bound by the "supreme Law of the Land."
    Quote Originally Posted by TPI
    A civil right to be armed outside of the law would reduce the Constitution of this political community from a frame of government with "just powers" that derive from the "consent of the governed" to a treaty among sovereign individuals in the State of Nature who give no more than word of honor and promise of good faith.
    The government's powers are "just" because they are the same powers given to sovereign individuals by God- the people "consent" because this is so. There is no such thing as "armed outside of the law." There can be no civil law that contradicts or limits natural law in a free society. Only because the people first have guns (the inherent right of self preservation), can the government even have them. The Constitution of the United States is not a treaty among individuals, it is a contract between individuals and government. The people delegate certain authority, with the stipulation that the government can not assume a power it is not specifically given, and it must "secure the Blessings of Liberty" for the governed and their posterity.

    Quote Originally Posted by TPI
    ...sovereign individuals in the State of Nature who give no more than word of honor and promise of good faith.
    In fact the inverse should make individuals suspicious of a government. Here the author cleverly- (if intentional) intimates, by confusing Lockean with Hobbesian states of nature, that people don't desire to enter into peacful agreements and would wish to suspend them at a moments notice. The strength of Locke is that there is no desire for the people to break the "social contract" because they have not given anything up to to enter into it, unlike Hobbes who insists the governed relinquish some of their liberty for the convenience government brings.
    Quote Originally Posted by TPI
    Sovereign powers, whether sovereign states or sovereign individuals, do not accommodate to a law-giving, law-enforcing authority.
    Only insofar as the "law-giving, law-enforcing authority" doesn't break the original constitutional contract.
    Quote Originally Posted by TPI
    They make a treaty not a government. Civil rights are defined in constitutional doctrine by the judiciary. To secure civil rights government needs "just powers" that derive from the consent of the governed. No "consent of the governed" means no "just powers" to secure civil rights or anything else. We are on our own to secure our own rights as individual sovereigns. That is why we need a gun in every pocket. It is not within the powers of the judiciary to reverse the process followed by the Framers of the Constitution from John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government, dissolve law and government, and return to the State of Nature— that is institute anarchy.
    Whatever argument this flacid reasoning attempts to 'prove', I can only conclude that a continuation of the "consent of the governed" is contingent on the government's justification as a protector of liberty, justice, and rule of law- not its reformation as an authoritarian police state. Or in the words of one who did all he could to ensure it is so:

    The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
    -James Madison. The Federalist No. 46


    Additionally:

    U.N. v. Madison

    For the Americans, fighting to forge a free political union, to contradict any principal element of Locke's world-view would therefore be to undercut the whole philosophy as such. Locke's basic principles, insofar as they relate to the Founders' principal political purpose, are these: (1) Reason (not one's unchecked passions or other men's opinions) as the proper and sole tool of cognition and guide to action-and so the basis for asserting men's natural rights; (2) Rights, therefore, as being brought with men into civil society, and not the mere creation of social or political institutions; (3) Government as a protector of rights-and not a provider of privilege, in the sense of furnishing material assistance to some, ultimately at the expense of others (rich or poor; landlord or laborer; farmer, furrier, or ferry boat captain); (4) Private property as sacrosanct; and so (5) Unregulated and politically unassisted markets as the basic rule of economic organization.
    -Jerome Huyler How Lockean Was the American Revolution?


    The Constitution of the United States

  7. #37

    Default

    The government's powers are "just" because they are the same powers given to sovereign individuals by God- the people "consent" because this is so. There is no such thing as "armed outside of the law." There can be no civil law that contradicts or limits natural law in a free society. Only because the people first have guns (the inherent right of self preservation), can the government even have them.
    If anyone wants to observe the State of Nature in full flower, visit Iraq.

  8. #38

    Default

    That is a specious comment. If anything it is a Hobbesian nightmare foist upon them by outsiders. The Iraquis are being imposed upon by at least 5 different parties. They have no sovereignty to speak of, individual or otherwise. They are like animals in a cage.

    I see no path from that mess to what we have without leaving them alone to fight it out and come up with something that works. We are lucky enough to be born in a land where the founders of our government were completely free to make their plan without needing to compromise with an existing power system other than former colonial states. I can only wish this for the Iraqis.


    I hope that you appreciate the difference between your assumed lawless, selfish, revengeful, violent anarchy, and the Natural Rights derived from Man's need for self preservation. Remember our unique human trait is reason- with it we don't have to live like savages.

    A safe place to sleep = property rights
    Recompense for theft or damage = property rights + courts
    And on and on...

    Some may see government as an authority that keeps people in line, like Giuliani or the aspired to Iraqi police state. Just because they will be given courts, and certain civil rights doesn't mean they are free. Their rights are given by the power, might, and authority of the government- it might as well be King George.
    It is so sad to see today in this country such apathy and cynicism toward embracing and holding accountable our government for protecting our uniquely guaranteed set of god-given enumerated (and others not so numerated) rights. For crying out loud, Federal Judges are citing FOREIGN COURT CASES AS LEGAL PRECEDENT!?!

    Fine. Rollover. Big Brother will throw you a bone.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonik View Post
    That is a specious comment. If anything it is a Hobbesian nightmare foist upon them by outsiders. The Iraquis are being imposed upon by at least 5 different parties. They have no sovereignty to speak of, individual or otherwise. They are like animals in a cage.
    An accurate assessment.

    Among their oppressors is a vengeful God and His Prophet.

  10. #40
    I admit I have a problem
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Koreatown
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Most Americans want more gun control, but support is slipping a bit lately:
    http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

  11. #41

    Default

    ^ That's an opinion poll. Jasonik's talking about eternal verity.

  12. #42

    Default

    I haven't read back through all the posts. But it looks like, at long last, we may get a final Supreme Court decision on whether the Second Amendment confers a direct individual right to own weapons (including, but not limited to, handguns).

    There's a case out of DC (Parker v. Washington DC), which challenged what is essentially a ban on private handgun ownership. A panel of the DC Circuit overturned the law, and the full Circuit refused to review the ruling. This puts the DC Circuit in direct conflict with other circuits (most noteably the 9th in San Francisco). This means that this is likely heading to the SCOTUS.

    Given that between the Reagan and two Bush appointment, the SCOTUS has gotten pretty conservative, I think it's a better than even chance that they'll uphold the DC Circuit ruling and read the 2A as conferring an individual right.

  13. #43

    Default (moderating note)

    This thread's title was changed from:
    Bolstering the Database on Gun Buyers
    to:
    U.S. Gun Control Laws & The Second Amendment

  14. #44

    Default

    ^ Why?

    Folks who start threads: why not credit them with knowing what they want to title them --particularly in the case of someone as thoughtful as jasonik. He doesn't need to be second-guessed.

    And neither do most of the rest of us. We don't need to be worrying about whether our posts will be "improved" or bowdlerized.

    Spammers are fair game, but lighten up your "moderating", Punzi, or you may drive some people away who are the forum's backbone.

  15. #45

    Talking Gotcha!

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc View Post
    ^ Why?

    Folks who start threads: why not credit them with knowing what they want to title them --particularly in the case of someone as thoughtful as jasonik. He doesn't need to be second-guessed.

    And neither do most of the rest of us. We don't need to be worrying about whether our posts will be "improved" or bowdlerized.
    . . .
    I am the AUTHOR of the thread! I retitled my own thread!

Page 3 of 40 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NYC's Fight for Gun Control
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 28th, 2011, 06:10 PM
  2. Rent Control Questions
    By tone99loc in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: December 7th, 2005, 10:39 PM
  3. Cabaret Laws Face Rewrite
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 12th, 2004, 12:48 AM
  4. U.S. is a joke - homeland security out of control
    By Qtrainat1251 in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: September 5th, 2003, 05:32 PM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2003, 08:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software