Montana threatens to secede

[Coors]

Sorry, but that ruling did not ban regulations and restrictions. Read again.

 

You're changing your word choice. In your first post you said you wanted handguns banned. Now you're using words like regulated and restricted. Which is it? And what kind of reasonable restrictions and regulations would you recommend for handguns?

 

 

And I believe I read it throughly:

Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense".

 

Where in that sentence does it say banning handguns is acceptable?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Raiderfan001

[LoArmistead]

I'd like to know what part of that you find scary? The fact that it's going to require you to pass a test and get a license? Oh no, how could our govt want only knowledgeable people handling firearms?! O THE HUMANITY!

 

How could our government want only knowledgeable people in the voting booth every four years?

[redtigerdragon]

Ok first of all, this news is OLD. As in February 2008 old. This threat was made regarding the DC v. Heller case that was decided in June 2008, which upheld individual gun owners rights, but with reasonable restrictions. So for anybody who thinks the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee individual gun ownership, just stop. The Supreme Court has said that the right exists, so stop trying to make the argument that it doesn't. It's done, let's move on.

 

There are parts of it still going on: link. Also, Texas is trying to do the same thing: link. I apologize for not noticing that this part of the argumnet was old. I should know better.

Edited May 6, 2009 by redtigerdragon

[wevsspot]

I'd like to know what part of that you find scary? The fact that it's going to require you to pass a test and get a license? Oh no, how could our govt want only knowledgeable people handling firearms?! O THE HUMANITY!

 

Clay, have you ever even bothered reading the entire bill? Specifically here are the parts that I find scary with my comments in bold after;

 

(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.what a joke - how is this going to enable law enforcement to quickly and effectively trace firearms used in a crime? i'm sure all of the criminals will have their information on file with the attorney general. and hell even most dumb criminals are smart enough to dispose of the weapon used in a violent crime immediately after the crime has been perpetrated

 

 

 

[ClayMeow]

You're changing your word choice. In your first post you said you wanted handguns banned. Now you're using words like regulated and restricted. Which is it? And what kind of reasonable restrictions and regulations would you recommend for handguns?

 

 

And I believe I read it throughly:

 

 

Where in that sentence does it say banning handguns is acceptable?

I never said that ruling stated banning was acceptable, I said it didn't stop restrictions and regulations.

 

As for banning vs. regulating, I stated banning in my first post because that's what this thread was originally about and I was voicing my opinion that personally I wouldn't care if guns were banned. However, from a realistic standpoint (AKA. upholding the Constitution), I realize that's never going to happen, not to mention it's not feasible, so that's why I was stating the points about regulations and restrictions since it seems people wanted to make this a 2nd Amendment debate.

[redtigerdragon]

Not really related, but one of the reasons I hate the patriot act: link.

Edited May 6, 2009 by redtigerdragon

[ClayMeow]

My comments are in orange:

Clay, have you ever even bothered reading the entire bill? Specifically here are the parts that I find scary with my comments in bold after;

 

(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.what a joke - how is this going to enable law enforcement to quickly and effectively trace firearms used in a crime? i'm sure all of the criminals will have their information on file with the attorney general. and hell even most dumb criminals are smart enough to dispose of the weapon used in a violent crime immediately after the crime has been perpetrated

Even when weapons are disposed of, they're often discovered (that's what detective work is for). As such, having a record of who owns the firearm is why it would allow law enforcement to quickly and effectively find the culprit.

 

 

[redtigerdragon]

[ClayMeow]

[Verran]

Last I checked the freedom from stop signs and speed limits wasn't in the Bill of Rights. And not being able to cause panic by shouting "BOMB" or "FIRE" is common sense.

It seems this discussion has moved well beyond this, but for the record, you can be detained and even prosecuted for shouting these things in certain places, just like you can for saying you wish harm on the president. And yet we are granted the freedom of speech expressly, aren't we? That's because we apply exceptions to these rules, and this is nothing new.

 

As I said before, the second amendment does not say nearly as much as you seem to think it does. It is not the end-all-be-all of points. When people say that bans or restrictions are unconstitutional, they are wrong. I'm not saying this to support the anti-war side of the discussion because I don't really care to take a side here, I'm just clarifying this point (as I have done before) because a lot of people seem to be confused by what the second amendment does and does not dictate.

[ClayMeow]

It seems this discussion has moved well beyond this, but for the record, you can be detained and even prosecuted for shouting these things in certain places, just like you can for saying you wish harm on the president. And yet we are granted the freedom of speech expressly, aren't we? That's because we apply exceptions to these rules, and this is nothing new.

 

As I said before, the second amendment does not say nearly as much as you seem to think it does. It is not the end-all-be-all of points. When people say that bans or restrictions are unconstitutional, they are wrong. I'm not saying this to support the anti-war side of the discussion because I don't really care to take a side here, I'm just clarifying this point (as I have done before) because a lot of people seem to be confused by what the second amendment does and does not dictate.

QFT.

 

 

Here, for you guys that are whining.

[Coors]

When people say that bans or restrictions are unconstitutional, they are wrong.

The Supreme Court disagrees. And I never said reasonable restrictions were wrong.