What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Argonaut]

Not if you do some research as to the intent and purpose of the existence of the 2A.

You can have the opinion that the 2A needs updated, and like mentioned, there is a way to do that, but as written, "infringements" on "arms" are unconstitutional for "the people".

The Supreme Court has already ruled the 2nd can be infringed as written. The only real argument is how and how much........same as the first amendment.....how do you define pornography that has already been ruled to be infrangible.

 

[titsonritz]

I feel better while flying, without Stinger missiles in general circulation.

I can f' your s' up without a stinger, and so can anyone else with a mind to, that's that point it's not the tool it is the will.

 

[Argonaut]

Other State - NJ Governor...just, wow.

These guys can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want and they may be enforced until the case gets to the Supreme Court and is overturned. Happens every session with the entire spectrum of constitutional law.

 

[slimmer13]

The Supreme Court has already ruled the 2nd can be infringed as written. The only real argument is how and how much........same as the first amendment.....how do you define pornography that has already been ruled to be infrangible.

I realize that you think highly of the SCOTUS opinion, but had the presidential election gone another way, the nominee would have tipped the balance to where clearly unconstitutional rulings would be made.

The SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land, and decider of what is constitutional, as long as they do it right.
, then their rulings are BS

I'll listen to the framers who said what the 2A is for and means, rather than RBG, who says it's for the NG.

 

[titsonritz]

How many felons, particularly violent felons, have actually paid for their crimes?
Without statistics in front of me (probably easily obtainable), I'd say many, if not most, murderers have a long rap sheet of violent felonies that have been plead-down or just dismissed outright. The most recent newsworthy murder/mass shooting in NJ was comitted by a parolee... it's pretty common.
Murderers work their way up with assaults, aggravated assaults, robberies both armed and strong-arm, kidnapping, rape, and various other violent crimes against persons. Some have spent the better part of their lives in jail and/or prison... because they DESERVED it. Yet they're free and in "polite society", just waiting for the next opportunity to do something horrible to somebody.

I don't have an answer, but I know the answer is not going come from another restriction on ME. Or YOU.

I think a "reasonable" restriction threshold has been met and surpassed, passing into infringement territory.

The tired 1A "restrictions" of "FIRE!" and libel are the equivalent of calling murder and assault with a deadly weapon 2A "restrictions"... those aren't restrictions on civil rights. Even giving laws regarding libel, slander, and inciting a riot the same credence as a ban on semiautomatic firearms is foolish. In fact, it's the dumbest bubbleguming argument in play.

That is the issue, so many felons are not violent. As I mentioned "most" felons. That category you are talking about should have deaded (in my book) long before that an opportunity to repeat their BS. I strongly believe there is a classification of felon aimed specifically at denying 2A rights.

 

[Argonaut]

I realize that you think highly of the SCOTUS opinion, but had the presidential election gone another way, the nominee would have tipped the balance to where clearly unconstitutional rulings would be made.

The SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land, and decider of what is constitutional, as long as they do it right.
, then their rulings are BS

I'll listen to the framers who said what the 2A is for and means, rather than RBG, who says it's for the NG.

They are the last word whether you like it or not........I am pleased with the current court for the most part.......but even if I wasn't, what they say is the law.......noplace to go after them. Congress can rewrite a law to get a different interpretation but the supremes still define what the words mean reguardless of intent.

 

[Argonaut]

That is the issue, so many felons are not violent. As I mentioned "most" felons. That category you are talking about should have deaded (in my book) long before that an opportunity to repeat their BS. I strongly believe there is a classification of felon aimed specifically at denying 2A rights.

I for one, have no problem with a felon's inability to own guns, or a judge restoring the rights when deemed necessary. But that is the only way I want to see a felon's gun rights restored reguardless of his crime. The judge can take all the circumstances into account in his ruling. I also do not consider drug dealing (or use) a non violent crime. Look at the tens of thousands of people that die every year from the poison they peddle. We just are not always able to assign particular deaths to specific drug dealers but you know they are out there.

 

[titsonritz]

Other State - NJ Governor...just, wow.

Thanks, CD.

Like I mentioned above this POS never should have had another opportunity. These are not the people I'm referring to restoring rights, these should the ones that are deaded or locked away permanently, but I'm not getting into that debate. These turd politicians need to have their poster children visit them some dark night for a reality check. I don't wish ill on anyone (ok maybe except for my ex-wife) but that liberal judge that released some known scumbags and had a visit was poetic justice.

 

[slimmer13]

They are the last word whether you like it or not........I am pleased with the current court for the most part.......but even if I wasn't, what they say is the law.......noplace to go after them. Congress can rewrite a law to get a different interpretation but the supremes still define what the words mean reguardless of intent.

The people are the last word. They can rule that black is white and up is down, that doesn't make it so. When they stop doing their job, we are supposed to do ours.

 

[Cavedweller]

Thanks, CD.

Like I mentioned above this POS never should have had another opportunity. These are not the people I'm referring to restoring rights, these should the ones that are deaded or locked away permanently, but I'm not getting into that debate. These turd politicians need to have their poster children visit them some dark night for a reality check. I don't wish ill on anyone (ok maybe except for my ex-wife) but that liberal judge that released some known scumbags and had a visit was poetic justice.

No prob.

 

[Argonaut]

The people are the last word. They can rule that black is white and up is down, that doesn't make it so. When they stop doing their job, we are supposed to do ours.

The ONLY way you can effect the supremes is by electing a president and /or senate to control the apointments. That is how the system is set up. The Military is charged with protecting the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If it came to anarchy you wouldn't have a chance. The roll of the Court is well defined and one of the constitunal pillars it is all built on.

 

[Geardo]

It isn't at all.

If anyone reads the 2a with a cold eye, it clearly states , and begins with, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

As part of the NG we would be immune from the courts restrictive interpretations, additionally, training facilities and equipment would be available. Anybody that thinks they don't need training and practice needs to reconsider or be escorted elsewhere, IMO.

The purpose of the militia was not to be the "final balance" it was to be the ONLY balance. There was not supposed to be a permanent standing army. Please research George Washington's warnings about the dangers of a standing army.

Also I would suggest all readers Google the Pennsylvania constitution, that wording was the original wording the Constitution was supposed to have.

I don't disagree with any of your points. And I am finding training and equipment is expensive!

But shouldn't it be under the state guard, not the national?

Like WA.

https://m.mil.wa.gov/wsg-home

 

[Geardo]

.I am pleased with the current court for the most part.......but even if I wasn't, what they say is the law.......noplace to go after them

The laws of man do not supercede the laws of god.

 

[titsonritz]

I for one, have no problem with a felon's inability to own guns, or a judge restoring the rights when deemed necessary. But that is the only way I want to see a felon's gun rights restored reguardless of his crime. The judge can take all the circumstances into account in his ruling. I also do not consider drug dealing (or use) a non violent crime. Look at the tens of thousands of people that die every year from the poison they peddle. We just are not always able to assign particular deaths to specific drug dealers but you know they are out there.

We are not in disagreement, it should not be an easy deal, but it should be available. I know people that screwed up as kids for stuff like insurance fraud, DUI and can't legally own a gun, I think it is BS to deny them the right to SD, they paid their dues. One guy I know that pays more in taxes than most of us make in a year and has been a productive member of society for decades. Not everyone makes the greatest decisions when they are young and I'm probably less forgiving than most so I don't want to appear to make excuses for anyone, but they shouldn't have to pay for being a little stupid and if they're really that bad they shouldn't be sharing our air, otherwise restore their rights.

 

[Argonaut]

We are not in disagreement, it should not be an easy deal, but it should be available. I know people that screwed up as kids for stuff like insurance fraud, DUI and can't legally own a gun, I think it is BS to deny them the right to SD, they paid their dues. One guy I know that pays more in taxes than most of us make in a year and has been a productive member of society for decades. Not everyone makes the greatest decisions when they are young and I'm probably less forgiving than most so I don't want to appear to make excuses for anyone, but they shouldn't have to pay for being a little stupid and if they're really that bad they shouldn't be sharing our air, otherwise restore their rights.

That is why you can petition the court to have your gun rights restored or even have your record expunged. There are remedies to deserving people. Even beyond that there are pardon's available from governors and the President.

 

[Argonaut]

The laws of man do not supercede the laws of god.

I am not sure that is true either. God made me 6'2" and I weighed 235 lbs in combat trim. I have been able to unscrew a little guy's head most of my life. Is that the god's law you are referring to.......or should the little guy have the same rights to defend himself (man's law)

 

[Boboclown]

God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.

 

[Jonnyuma]

The roll of the Court is well defined and one of the constitunal pillars it is all built on.

Good... you have an understanding of the Constitution (albeit with an apparently overestimated opinion of SCOTUS' scope of power)... Then you'll understand when I say that the entire Constitution (and our Constitutional republic) are based on a series of checks and balances. Three branches, seperate but equal, etc, etc...

What's the next check? The next balance? You know where this is going...

The "media" has pompously claimed itself as the "fourth estate"*

WRONG.

WE are the 4th Estate. WE are the last check, the last balance. WE are the form of governance that exists to balance and check the chartered government... the REAL enemy in the founder's eyes. A real and dangerous threat to a limited government populated by the people and for the people.

Dumb anti-gun argument-buster:
Most of the founders of this nation were war heroes, inventors, entrepreneurs, and visionaries. To suggest that they had no idea that technology would progress is just stupid, and that includes "arms". They knew good and well that technology would march on... many wielded a flintlock and lived to see the common use of modern semiauto weapons**

*There's probably some byzantine legend about how that tag came about. I don't care because it doesn't matter.

**The timeline seems completely off to me. I just made that up... don't use it unless you can confirm that it might be true. As a diclaimer... this is Friday night for me. I may have imbibed a beverage... or two?

Yeah... I should go now.

 

[Argonaut]

I told you the balance........elections for the President and Senate.......how many more do you need?

 

[Will_White]

They knew good and well that technology would march on... many wielded a flintlock and lived to see the common use of modern semiauto weapons**

**The timeline seems completely off to me. I just made that up... don't use it unless you can confirm that it might be true. As a diclaimer... this is Friday night for me. I may have imbibed a beverage... or two?

Yeah... I should go now.

Not flint lock, although there were probably many around privately owned and used. The percussion rifles would have sufficient overlap with semi auto rifles though, the 1860s being towards the end of their military use, and the 1910s being when semi autos started being used in a military capacity.