Posted on 03/19/2008 12:15:12 AM PDT by BellStar
Even we disagree on what's "reasonable" And if we disagree on this forum, then obviously there is a wide range of what different people consider "reasonable." For example, I think if a person is incarcerated in either a mental institution or a jail, then no guns. Otherwise I say OK. Take criminals for example. If they're a danger to society what are they doing out of jail, and if they're not a danger to society, then they should be able to defend themselves legally the same as anyone else. Also there is the practical side of it that anyone intent on committing murder or assault with a firearm is obviously not going to pay any attention to a gun control law.
"Reasonable restrictions" only affect the law abiding.
Oh yes they can...I hear ya. The joke of course is that “reasonable restrictions” weren’t intended to prevent the criminally insane or convicted felons from getting guns. Such restrictions have been proven ineffective in preventing crime. They serve only to control the law-abiding (Sheeple).
Of course they did. For proof, and I haven't heard any one speak of it, we have The Bill of Rights.
Are we to believe that BOR, which are Of The People, By The People and For The Poeple....All 10 of those amendments are for US...all of them EXCEPT THAT ONE ???? Why not the 1st? You know, give the state the right to speak freely? Why isn't any one bringing that up? It's simple to see & understand, yet nary a peep.
Our Fore Fathers were brilliant, yet they dropped the ball on this one?
Ok. As I see it, there are three possible outcomes.
1) they rule that there is no such thing as an individual right to keep and bear arms
2) they rule that such a right does exist, subject to reasonable restrictions
3) they rule that there is an absolute, unqualified right to keep and bear arms by anyone and everyone
From what I’m reading:
1) ain’t gonna happen, so that means it’s 2) or 3)
3) ain’t gonna happen, because unfettered unqualified rights have already been reviewed and rejected. The ole “can’t yell fire in a theatre” stuff
That leaves 2).
I’m just trying to call it as I see it, not how I want it.
The thing about 2) is that it ALLOWS for some differences in geographical circumstances.
But there is an absolute result if it ends up being 2).
“Gun bans” would be banned.
Well, Thrownatbirth, I detect by your above writing that you are pro-gun as I am. So, I will ever so gently correct your stated premise concerning the reason for the 2nd ammendment as I can see that you are one of the good guys for sure. Here in Texas one will occasionally see a bumper sticker that states “The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting”. While this statement is written in Bubba’ese, it absolutely nails the 2nd amendment. To put it more succinctly, the 2nd Amendment was written so to provide a last recourse for the general public (we the people aka individuals) to defend themselves against a corrupt government gone bad. And, it's no accident that the 2nd Amendment was #2 in the Bill of Rights as it was written to specifically to protect the 1st Amendment. All one must do to confirm this, along with the fact that the 2nd was written to apply to individuals as is the entire Constitution, is to read the Federalist Papers. I wish the Federalist Papers would be mandatory reading for all high school students but alas, with all the lib's in control of our public schools that ain't gonna happen. But, that's another subject...
Yep. You’re right. I believe it’ll be Nr. 2 as well. The pessimist in me, however, warns that Nr. 1 is not outside the realm of possibility. After all, the Black Robes have issued stranger edicts, such as our recent loss of private property rights. Once a right is taken away...
When can I start the lawsuits against the Massholes in charge of this awful state??? 10# triggers, gun locks, no Taurus, No Colts, $100 F.I.D. cards , $100 dollar licenses to carry... Get the lawyers ready!!!!!!
I agree with your analysis. There’s every indication that George W. Bush will get his way in support of gun-control regulations.
I am shocked...shocked, I tell you...that FReepers aren’t whining about how foreign law is being used to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, though. :-)
No.
The figurehead of the "Brady Bunch" got shot.
The leader of the "Brady Bunch" is his unscrupulous, abusive wife.
Well, there is another issue, and that issue is the question of enforceability.
It is often commented on that gun laws only effect the law abiding, that sort of thing.
But let’s be honest. There have been cases where violent convicted felons were caught after their release and found to have guns. So it does sometimes work.
But if we get 2. as an outcome, then THE TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS that people are talking about would no longer be allowed... no more blanket bans.
And that, to me, would seem to be a step in the right direction.
So while no restrictions at all is the most easily enforceable choice, a “reasonable restrictions” clause is only slightly more difficult to enforce.
Now, if they were to go with 1, then they better have 400 million armed Chinese guys in boats off the coast ready to come in and go door to door.
They know that. They’re not fools.
How does that indicate the restrictions work?!?
And that, to me, would seem to be a step in the right direction.
Both sides can say that.
So while no restrictions at all is the most easily enforceable choice, a “reasonable restrictions” clause is only slightly more difficult to enforce.
I'm not in favor of removing rights just because it's "easily enforceable"...sorry.
I'll admit that the connection broke after only 38 minutes and I can't seem to restart it at that point, so I'll have to listen to the end when I have more time. Note that many important inflections and nuances (yes, nuances) of the discussion are lost when just reading the transcript, IMHO.
What’s the URL for the audio?
I tried the CNN feed but it looked like it required realplayer or some such junk.
Have you read the briefs and the transcript/heard the audio from yesterday? Surprisingly, it seems that your argument is what DC is saying...and then arguing that the Second Amendment isn't protective of handguns since individuals can use rifles or shotguns to be part of the citizen militia.
It's an interesting twist to the gun-grabbers' argument...and something we have to be sure to note in the fight, as they can use words against us if we don't take the next step and explain why that argument falls apart.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is just my own interpretation and opinion, not any sort of legal advice!
Instead of RealPlayer, I use Real Alternative (since RealPlayer was started by a leftie and I don’t want to support it so he can donate more to leftist causes!).
Here’s the link from CSPAN:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm
One place you can find it is here:
http://www.download.com/Real-Alternative/3000-2139_4-10698783.html?tag=lst-1
(Note...I have no affiliation with them, so use at your own risk. I just know that it has worked well for me and it’s free, and the Media Player Classic it installs can also be used to view .FLV videos, with the right codec. Also, though, . .smi and .smil files sometimes only play the first part of a clip.)
Hope that helps!
Oh, one drawback of Real Alternative: I was going to get a very nice program (WM Recorder)to capture streaming RealMedia files, but it required RealPlayer to be installed, not Real Alternative. It looked like a great program and the tech support folks were very responsive and helpful, but without installing RealPlayer, it’s not any use to me.
I suppose I can give it a shot. Gives me a good reason to GHOST my boot drive before I install it.
(and I been a slacker, been about a month since last backup!)
:-{
If the court rules an individual right that cannot be infringed, that opens the machine gun/asault weapon argument and the gun controllers will go absolutely ape$hit. There may even be talk of judicial impeachment.
So, with a wink and nudge, the fix is in. It will be declared an individual right that may be reasonably regulated or, as Justice Stevens opined, "It shall not be unreasonably infringed".
Like I said, this proves that nothing has changed...
We have the right to “own”??? How utterly arrogant...
Yet the flipside is that they “feel” government has the authority to continue to “regulate”...
I feel the need to flush the entire system is in order...
And its not just because of this issue alone...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.