Sojourner Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='22 September 2009 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1253628778' post='1970971'] It's not about hunting. The right shall not be infringed, which means restricting ownership to hunting weapons is unconstitutional. You realize, Texan that our revolution was about the private ownership of a cannon. That's artillery. [/quote] See [i]District of Columbia v. Heller[/i], which in 2008 affirmed the right of individuals to bear arms. Scalia's opinion is beautifully written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Terra Firma' date='22 September 2009 - 10:24 AM' timestamp='1253629457' post='1970975'] See [i]District of Columbia v. Heller[/i], which in 2008 affirmed the right of individuals to bear arms. Scalia's opinion is beautifully written. [/quote] I strongly disagree. Scalia makes mention of something he calls a "reasonable restriction" on a right. What on earth is a reasonable restriction on a right? You either have the right to do something, or you do not. You cannot justly restrict that which is a [i]right.[/i] A restriction of a right is called an infringement. I have the right to responsibly speak the truth. What is a reasonable restriction on that right? I have the right to peaceably and safely walk down the street. What is a reasonable restriction on that right? This whole "restriction of rights" nonsense got a great shot in the arm by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., when he opined in [i]Schenck vs. the United State[/i] that one does not have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater and cause panic in doing so. You absolutely do have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, so long as there [i]is[/i] a fire, and if shouting it is the best way to make people aware of that fact. Whether or not a panic results is not necessarily your fault, nor is the danger posed by a panic the good sought by yelling "fire" in the first place. A prohibition against needlessly or recklessly putting other people in mortal danger by using fraudulent speech is not a restriction on your right to free speech. A restriction on putting others in imminent harm is not a restriction on a right, because you have[i] no right[/i] to really and actually endanger another person without just cause. A restriction on a human being because of what he [i]might[/i] do is a restriction on human rights. I have a right to do a lot of things. One of them isn't initiating aggression or violence against other people. No one has a right to physically stop peaceful adults from doing something that does not put others in physical danger. ~Sternhauser Edited September 22, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secuutus Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Hey guys thats just how I feel. I'm not sorry for offending you all but I believe civilians don't have proper training in them to own one. That how I feel. so o well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Secuutus' date='22 September 2009 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1253635342' post='1971010'] Hey guys thats just how I feel. I'm not sorry for offending you all but I believe civilians don't have proper training in them to own one. That how I feel. so o well. [/quote] That's all right. You have the right to your opinion. You just don't have the right to use force to back it up, either yourself, or through a proxy. ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1253631197' post='1970989'] I strongly disagree. Scalia makes mention of something he calls a "reasonable restriction" on a right. What on earth is a reasonable restriction on a right? You either have the right to do something, or you do not. You cannot justly restrict that which is a [i]right.[/i] A restriction of a right is called an infringement. I have the right to responsibly speak the truth. What is a reasonable restriction on that right? I have the right to peaceably and safely walk down the street. What is a reasonable restriction on that right? This whole "restriction of rights" nonsense got a great shot in the arm by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., when he opined in [i]Schenck vs. the United State[/i] that one does not have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater and cause panic in doing so. You absolutely do have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, so long as there [i]is[/i] a fire, and if shouting it is the best way to make people aware of that fact. Whether or not a panic results is not necessarily your fault, nor is the danger posed by a panic the good sought by yelling "fire" in the first place. A prohibition against needlessly or recklessly putting other people in mortal danger by using fraudulent speech is not a restriction on your right to free speech. A restriction on putting others in imminent harm is not a restriction on a right, because you have[i] no right[/i] to really and actually endanger another person without just cause. A restriction on a human being because of what he [i]might[/i] do is a restriction on human rights. I have a right to do a lot of things. One of them isn't initiating aggression or violence against other people. No one has a right to physically stop peaceful adults from doing something that does not put others in physical danger. ~Sternhauser [/quote] The state can and should restrict some of your "rights" - for the benefit of the common good. For example you have the right to walk down the street but the state can and should tell you to stop at a stop sign in order to ensure the safety of all. You have the right to bear arms, but the state can and should restrict that right in some ways (ie no guns for criminals). While the bill of rights are meant to protect against state action it should be fairly obvious that the state can limit those at least in a very minor way for the "common good". Before some people start calling me a communist, I don't take this approach very far. But it is true nonetheless. Think of every right in the bill of rights - there is some, even minor restriction on it (except for maybe housing soldiers...) Freedom of speech - until you create chaos and cause people to be hurt by yelling fire. Freedom of the press - until you publish something that slanders someone's good name. Freedom of religion - until your religion harms others. The old saying is your rights end where mine begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I have the right to bear arms, but also to choose not to bear arms. One who has a gun is no better than one without, unless they're in a duel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamiller42 Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 (edited) [quote name='rkwright' date='22 September 2009 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1253635872' post='1971018'] The state can and should restrict some of your "rights" - for the benefit of the common good. For example you have the right to walk down the street but the state can and should tell you to stop at a stop sign in order to ensure the safety of all. You have the right to bear arms, but the state can and should restrict that right in some ways (ie no guns for criminals). While the bill of rights are meant to protect against state action it should be fairly obvious that the state can limit those at least in a very minor way for the "common good". Before some people start calling me a communist, I don't take this approach very far. But it is true nonetheless. Think of every right in the bill of rights - there is some, even minor restriction on it (except for maybe housing soldiers...) Freedom of speech - until you create chaos and cause people to be hurt by yelling fire. Freedom of the press - until you publish something that slanders someone's good name. Freedom of religion - until your religion harms others. The old saying is your rights end where mine begin. [/quote] I agree with what you are saying. I would say the restrictions exist not for an artificial reason, but to protect the rights of others. There is no limit on rights until it infringes another right. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it threatens the life of another. The same with abortion. You can choose what you want to do with your body, but a line is drawn when it comes to harming yourself or others, i.e. the unborn. Now let me go dismantle the nuclear silo in my backyard. Edited September 22, 2009 by kamiller42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secuutus Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 It's just that to me; we, The United States, claim to be a civilized society. What is civilized about owning Machine guns and mechetes? I believe we have the right to bear arms, a concealed handgun would do just that. If you have a AR-15 or any other machine gun for safety purposes, wouldnt a handgun do the same damage? They both possess bullets, and bullets have 2 purposes to hurt and to kill. So now your probably saying, well then if they both have 2 purposses then why can't I own one then? Well because it is not civilized. Any decent human being likes to be civilized, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximilianus Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Secuutus' date='22 September 2009 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1253648642' post='1971125'] It's just that to me; we, The United States, claim to be a civilized society. What is civilized about owning Machine guns and mechetes? I believe we have the right to bear arms, a concealed handgun would do just that. If you have a AR-15 or any other machine gun for safety purposes, wouldnt a handgun do the same damage? They both possess bullets, and bullets have 2 purposes to hurt and to kill. So now your probably saying, well then if they both have 2 purposses then why can't I own one then? Well because it is not civilized. Any decent human being likes to be civilized, right? [/quote] I like being civilized, that's why I have semi-auto, gas operated, magazine fed rifles instead of wooden clubs and knives made of knapped rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Secuutus' date='22 September 2009 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1253635342' post='1971010'] Hey guys thats just how I feel. I'm not sorry for offending you all but I believe civilians don't have proper training in them to own one. That how I feel. so o well. [/quote] So you feel you know enough civilians to judge them all. And if it's really about training, then you wouldn't object to trained people owning them. I think every soldier who serves his time should be given a rifle at the end of his service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Secuutus' date='22 September 2009 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1253648642' post='1971125'] It's just that to me; we, The United States, claim to be a civilized society. What is civilized about owning Machine guns and mechetes? I believe we have the right to bear arms, a concealed handgun would do just that. If you have a AR-15 or any other machine gun for safety purposes, wouldnt a handgun do the same damage? They both possess bullets, and bullets have 2 purposes to hurt and to kill. So now your probably saying, well then if they both have 2 purposses then why can't I own one then? Well because it is not civilized. Any decent human being likes to be civilized, right? [/quote] I don't care to be civilised. I'll settle for moral. It's not immoral to own a selective fire weapon. And AR-15 isn't a machine gun, it's a semi-automatic rifle. The military version is considered an assault rifle, not a machine gun. Without selective fire, a semi-automatic rifle, even chambered with less than a full-size rifle round, is not an assault rifle. High capacity does not an assault rifle make. You should be more careful with your terms, since you're in the killing business these are your tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamiller42 Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I went to the firing range twice to shoot the M-16. We weren't allowed to shoot in automatic mode, but I did briefly anyway. It was interesting. It's a nice gun. Well built and light. I was an okay shot, but had a lot of room for improvement. Why do people have different guns and not just hand guns? Why do people have different cars and trucks? Why are there different clothes designs? And if there had to be a choice between civility and morality, I choose morality. Now, I am leaving to polish the toilet in my front yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varg Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='princessgianna' date='21 September 2009 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1253508691' post='1970248'] 1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson 2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams 3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms. 4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. 5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them. 6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. 7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for. 8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety. 9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive 10. Assault is a behavior, not a device. 11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. 12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved. 13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others. 14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand? 15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians. 16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves. 17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [/quote] Wow. If you people think like that I'm glad I live 3,000 miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 September 2009 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1253653159' post='1971149'] Wow. If you people think like that I'm glad I live 3,000 miles away. [/quote] The feeling is mutual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dauntingknight Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Secuutus' date='21 September 2009 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1253571583' post='1970627'] Im a supporter of the second amedment... But I dont believe civilians should be able to own automatic rifles. Im okay with .9 millimeters, and other handguns! [/quote] Why Not? explain [quote name='Resurrexi' date='21 September 2009 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1253590102' post='1970822'] I've never shot a gun before. [/quote] Your missing out the feel is rivatiting. The best way to get into guns is to find a good/responsible friend or family member who is already into it. [quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 September 2009 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1253644887' post='1971094'] I have the right to bear arms, but also to choose not to bear arms. One who has a gun is no better than one without, unless they're in a duel. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now