I think every American has the right to have a personal nuclear briefcase bomb. Seriously, beyond "I want one," why does any private citizen need an assault rifle? Please don't respond with slippery slope fallacies. If one's house is feloniously entered by a militia, an assault rifle in the home won't make a difference.
The framers intended the Second Amendment to provide an ultimate deterrent against a tyrannical government. They never intended to limit the ability of the citizenry to defend itself against tyranny with obsolete weaponry having a much shorter range than individual arms of jack booted thugs.
The failure of the federal government to secure its borders and streets against radical Islamists is not a rational argument in favor of disarming American citizens.
Is it practical to believe, circa 2016, that a well-armed citizenry could defend itself against the United States military? It seems, by your logic, that to get to the Framer's intent (in your interpretation) citizens should have access to all manner of weaponry, including the most lethal of artillery.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Is it practical to believe, circa 2016, that a well-armed citizenry could defend itself against the United States military? It seems, by your logic, that to get to the Framer's intent (in your interpretation) citizens should have access to all manner of weaponry, including the most lethal of artillery.
Do not deliberately mischaracterize my posts. It is bad enough for liberals to attempt to politically exploit tragedies before the bodies of the dead are cold and counted, why must they make the same dishonest claims about proponents of personal liberty and our Constitutional rights?
Hoot Gibson Wrote:The framers intended the Second Amendment to provide an ultimate deterrent against a tyrannical government. They never intended to limit the ability of the citizenry to defend itself against tyranny with obsolete weaponry having a much shorter range than individual arms of jack booted thugs.
The failure of the federal government to secure its borders and streets against radical Islamists is not a rational argument in favor of disarming American citizens.
You do realize that for two hundred years after 2nd Amendment ratified it was not interpreted by the SCOTUS nearly as broadly as the NRA now defines and lobbies? John Paul Stevens well articulated this "johnny come lately" shift.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Do not deliberately mischaracterize my posts. It is bad enough for liberals to attempt to politically exploit tragedies before the bodies of the dead are cold and counted, why must they make the same dishonest claims about proponents of personal liberty and our Constitutional rights?
"Before the bodies are cold" is blatantly appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy. An assault rife is a weapon of war. Up until the NRA majority, the SCOTUS did not interpret the 2nd Amendment so broadly. Where do you draw the line seems to me a fair question.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:You do realize that for two hundred years after 2nd Amendment ratified it was not interpreted by the SCOTUS nearly as broadly as the NRA now defines and lobbies? John Paul Stevens well articulated this "johnny come lately" shift.
The NRA has retreated too far, IMO. The shooting in Orlando is the result of the failure of the federal government to protect its borders and interior from the relentless march of radical Muslims. It has nothing to do with inadequate gun control. This is just another example of liberals attempting to exploit a tragedy to advance an extremist left wing political agenda. When the facts are not on your side, exploit people's emotions.
If you are opposed to our Second Amendment rights, then do not exercise the right yourself. Stop trying to rob the rest of us of our constitutional rights.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:"Before the bodies are cold" is blatantly appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy. An assault rife is a weapon of war. Up until the NRA majority, the SCOTUS did not interpret the 2nd Amendment so broadly. Where do you draw the line seems to me a fair question.
You posting a gun control thread is the appeal to emotion. Your position is logically weak, so the cowardly way of attacking a constitutional right is to exploit peoples' emotions following a tragedy. It is predictable as the time of tomorrow's sunrise.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:The NRA has retreated too far, IMO. The shooting in Orlando is the result of the failure of the federal government to protect its borders and interior from the relentless march of radical Muslims. It has nothing to do with inadequate gun control. This is just another example of liberals attempting to exploit a tragedy to advance an extremist left wing political agenda. When the facts are not on your side, exploit people's emotions.
If you are opposed to our Second Amendment rights, then do not exercise the right yourself. Stop trying to rob the rest of us of our constitutional rights.
Here is just the point: does the 2nd Amendment extend to weapons of "max kill" proportion? To ask this question in light of Orlando event is not appeal to emotion. To ask this question is not to "rob" anyone of anything. It is to suggest that the "johnny come lately" approach to interpreting the 2nd Amendment by the majority of the SCOTUS needs to be revisited.
As I understand it, the assailant was born in the United States, which begs the question on your "immigration policy" position, at least in this particular instance.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Here is just the point: does the 2nd Amendment extend to weapons of "max kill" proportion? To ask this question in light of Orlando event is not appeal to emotion. To ask this question is not to "rob" anyone of anything. It is to suggest that the "johnny come lately" approach to interpreting the 2nd Amendment by the majority of the SCOTUS needs to be revisited.
The Second Amendment is very clear. The creation of the nebulous "assault rifle" term is simply an effort by liberals to undermine a basic constitutional right.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:As I understand it, the assailant was born in the United States, which begs the question on your "immigration policy" position, at least in this particular instance.
What was the birthplace of the merchant of hate who advocated the killing of gays at his local mosque? What were the demographic data for his fellow "worshippers" at that mosque? Which sect of Islam did the shooter follow? These are more relevant to American security than another left wing assault on the Second Amendment is.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:What was the birthplace of the merchant of hate who advocated the killing of gays at his local mosque? What were the demographic data for his fellow "worshippers" at that mosque? Which sect of Islam did the shooter follow? These are more relevant to American security than another left wing assault on the Second Amendment is.
I'm not sure but that the internet is the "local mosque" where the lone wolf is stoked into this type of hatred, a hatred most likely already simmering. I'm not sure an amped up screening process for certain types of weapons is "gun control."
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I'm not sure but that the internet is the "local mosque" where the lone wolf is stoked into this type of hatred, a hatred most likely already simmering. I'm not sure an amped up screening process for certain types of weapons is "gun control."
This is exactly what our politicians want you to believe. The FBI interviewed the shooter at least three times for suspected terrorist ties. "Lone wolves" have often been regular mosque attendees and often have Pakistan and other homes of radical Islam stamped in their U.S. passports. Calling such terrorists "lone wolves" is just an effort by politicians to absolve themselves of responsibility for these attacks. I believe the same is true of calling for gun control in the immediate aftermath of the slaughter of innocents.
Below is a story of local Orlando imam calling for the death sentence for gays in April of this year. It is crazy to continue accepting immigrants that fill the seats of mosques that give platforms to imams advocating death to American citizens based on Sharia Law.
[YOUTUBE="Vev-OzHQy94"][/YOUTUBE]
I am struggling to understand why making it a very stringent process for a private citizen to obtain a military-grade assault weapon violates the 2nd Amendment.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I am struggling to understand why making it a very stringent process for a private citizen to obtain a military-grade assault weapon violates the 2nd Amendment.
LOL, and you will continue to struggle with it if Mr Trump gets elected.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I am struggling to understand why making it a very stringent process for a private citizen to obtain a military-grade assault weapon violates the 2nd Amendment.
A very stringent process for a private citizen to obtain a gun directly violates the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment. I am a firm believer in the existence of slippery slopes, and much of the logic by which liberals seek to employ to undermine our Second Amendment rights could be used later to undermine other constitutional rights. Every constitutional right should be treated as a precious possession not to be surrendered without a vigorous struggle ending in total defeat.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:A very stringent process for a private citizen to obtain a gun directly violates the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment. I am a firm believer in the existence of slippery slopes, and much of the logic by which liberals seek to employ to undermine our Second Amendment rights could be used later to undermine other constitutional rights. Every constitutional right should be treated as a precious possession not to be surrendered without a vigorous struggle ending in total defeat.
You hold more with Scalia in HELLER, while I hold more with Stevens. Freedom of speech has a limit ("fire" in a crowded theatre), so the whole "absolute right, no exceptions" thing, for me, doesn't fly. The scope of a right, as Justice Stevens pointed out in HELLER dissent, is a relevant consideration. "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech, as it endangers the public good. Military-style weapons of mass killing potential as the right of every citizen, in my view, broadens the scope of the 2nd Amendment too far.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:You hold more with Scalia in HELLER, while I hold more with Stevens. Freedom of speech has a limit ("fire" in a crowded theatre), so the whole "absolute right, no exceptions" thing, for me, doesn't fly. The scope of a right, as Justice Stevens pointed out in HELLER dissent, is a relevant consideration. "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech, as it endangers the public good. Military-style weapons of mass killing potential as the right of every citizen, in my view, broadens the scope of the 2nd Amendment too far.
Prior to the Heller decision, Washington, DC had effectively made legal gun ownership impossible for most of its citizens. The analogy to the "Fire" exception to the First Amendment is ridiculous, IMO. If the government is free to regulate constitutional rights out of reach by imposing excessive barriers and costs to the exercise of those rights, then citizens are deprived of those rights as surely as if they were erased from the Constitution.
The fact is, areas of the country where liberals have been most successful in imposing gun control laws, such as Chicago, generally have higher gun crime rates than areas where Second Amendment rights are respected and widely exercised.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Prior to the Heller decision, Washington, DC had effectively made legal gun ownership impossible for most of its citizens. The analogy to the "Fire" exception to the First Amendment is ridiculous, IMO. If the government is free to regulate constitutional rights out of reach by imposing excessive barriers and costs to the exercise of those rights, then citizens are deprived of those rights as surely as if they were erased from the Constitution.
The fact is, areas of the country where liberals have been most successful in imposing gun control laws, such as Chicago, generally have higher gun crime rates than areas where Second Amendment rights are respected and widely exercised.
I believe Justice Stevens was suggesting not that the majority in HELLER was utterly wrong, but that the scope was too broad. I simply do not believe stringent regulation of an AR-15 is an excessive barrier to exercising a 2nd Amendment right. The pendulum swings in American jurisprudence, and perhaps HELLER was a corrective of a lurch too far left, but it has jolted the pendulum too far right, in my view.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I am struggling to understand why making it a very stringent process for a private citizen to obtain a military-grade assault weapon violates the 2nd Amendment.
Why can't I own a small fort of assault weapons?
Please give me an answer besides, "why do you need one?"
Real Badman Wrote:Why can't I own a small fort of assault weapons?
Please give me an answer besides, "why do you need one?"
I do not believe, until the last rounds of SCOTUS decisions, that the 2nd Amendment meant all private citizens any weapon they want. In my view, Justice Stevens was correct to point out that interpretation is too broad. Again, in my view, "defense of self and property" is a stretch when it comes to military-style "mass kill" weapons.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:As I understand it, the assailant was born in the United States, which begs the question on your "immigration policy" position, at least in this particular instance.
Obviously you have not read a lot about the mass shooting. The assailant may have been born in the US but his parents were not and are not citizens. Whether or not they are citizens isn't even the problem. It is the fact that their radical Islamist beliefs and actions are a danger to everyone in America, citizen or not. The articles that I read even said that he was on a "hot list" of radicals that have been identified but nothing was done about it. So our problem is our military and law enforcement can't take care of these "hot listed" radicals because there are so many and it needs to be limited and dealt with, SOON!!! If it is not addressed and demonstrates the US's dominance it will get worse. And for those of you bitching about people should not have assault guns, "you arris idiots." If the law abiding citizens cannot have them, the only ones with them will be criminals. As my dad always says, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." That is the TRUTH! God Bless America.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I do not believe, until the last rounds of SCOTUS decisions, that the 2nd Amendment meant all private citizens any weapon they want. In my view, Justice Stevens was correct to point out that interpretation is too broad. Again, in my view, "defense of self and property" is a stretch when it comes to military-style "mass kill" weapons.
Well if there are people with bad aim and want to protect themselves from criminals, an assault rifle is perfect for them. And don't say that they should practice shooting at a gun range because people have jobs unlike a ton of liberals. Since they have all the time in the world picketing, protesting, and stealing from the people who pay taxes and are not primarily supported by those dollars provided by the working people of America.
⬆⬆ Funny, I didn't think the discussion was about "outlawing guns." I thought it was about the scope of the 2nd Amendment being broadened to the point where every private citizen can have any weapon they want any time they want, which is too broad. The immigration issue needs a massive revisit to better match the world we live in.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I believe Justice Stevens was suggesting not that the majority in HELLER was utterly wrong, but that the scope was too broad. I simply do not believe stringent regulation of an AR-15 is an excessive barrier to exercising a 2nd Amendment right. The pendulum swings in American jurisprudence, and perhaps HELLER was a corrective of a lurch too far left, but it has jolted the pendulum too far right, in my view.
You are entitled to your opinion, but Justice Stevens has been on the losing side of Supreme Court decisions far more often than he has been with the majority. Citing a Justice who favors the creation and restriction of rights that are no where to be found among the words of the Constitution does not carry the same weight as being able to cite the Constitution itself, IMO. The Constitution was never intended to be an instrument whose meaning changed at the whim of a political party.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I think every American has the right to have a personal nuclear briefcase bomb. Seriously, beyond "I want one," why does any private citizen need an assault rifle? Please don't respond with slippery slope fallacies. If one's house is feloniously entered by a militia, an assault rifle in the home won't make a difference.
I'm curious, what exactly constitutes assault rifle? Is it the semi-auto action? is it the caliber and if so, then which calibers are considered assault and which one's aren't? Everyone is quick to jump on the assault weapon bandwagon, yet no one has stepped back long enough to define what an assault weapon is.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:⬆⬆ Funny, I didn't think the discussion was about "outlawing guns." I thought it was about the scope of the 2nd Amendment being broadened to the point where every private citizen can have any weapon they want any time they want, which is too broad. The immigration issue needs a massive revisit to better match the world we live in.
Do they not go hand in hand???
The scope of the 2nd Amendment and immigration policy, post San Bernadino and Orlando? I can see your point, though not completely.
⬆⬆ An AR-15 extended mag? That's a military style, "mass kill" weapon.