New Rant on Old Topic - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > New Rant on Old Topic

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-29-2012, 12:37 AM   #21
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmj View Post
To add to this.... if i may..i am not nearly as learned or skilled with words as Sir BKT

If one were to delve into the founders writings, one would find that the founders were against the idea of a standing army.

Hence the need for militia AND the UNLIMITED RKBA...bringing us back to the point BKT is making. I believe.
Well, yeah. The constitution says a standing army is a no-no. That doesn't mean we don't have a military; it means the government doesn't control it except in times of war.

And don't call me sir.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 12:55 AM   #22
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,454
Liked 753 Times on 437 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Well, yeah. The constitution says a standing army is a no-no. That doesn't mean we don't have a military; it means the government doesn't control it except in times of war.

And don't call me sir.
Yes sir.

Like i tell folks when they call me sir.

"Calling me sir is like putting an elevator in an outhouse... just dont belong." - Road house
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 12:42 PM   #23
I used to play keyboards, but now...
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,410
Liked 2377 Times on 1441 Posts
Likes Given: 2504

Default

I agree that the general public doesn't need flamethrowers or LAWs rockets. What I object to is that one American (me, for example) has the right to carry a gun concealed or (soon to become effective) openly, while other Americans (my friends in Illinois, for example) are denied that right.

When states make laws limiting the ability of Americans to exercise rights provided by the Bill of Rights, they are acting irresponsibly and the laws are, by any objective standard, unconstitutional. Such laws clearly "infringe" and 2A says that RKBA "shall not be infringed." Period.

2A does not go on to say "unless some new type of weapon is developed that we, the founding fathers, were too short sighted to anticipate and include explicitly in this, the Second Amendment, in which case, the States have the right to restrict the RKBA in any way they wish, and preferably all in different ways to cause as much confusion as this excessively long sentence..." It does not go on to say that because that is not what they meant. They said what they meant. It's a pretty short sentence (by legal standards) that is fairly easy to understand.

Dang, there I go again. This time I'll try really hard to <<RANT OFF>>

__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 5th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/5th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-apr-11-12-2015-a-109479/


Last edited by Balota; 08-29-2012 at 12:45 PM.
Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 06:14 PM   #24
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota View Post
I agree that the general public doesn't need flamethrowers or LAWs rockets.
it's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.
__________________
bkt is offline  
PrimePorkchop Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 06:20 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
PrimePorkchop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Urbana,Illinois
Posts: 1,748
Liked 991 Times on 499 Posts
Likes Given: 2547

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post

Many articles in the BoR have been legally incorporated against state and lesser governments. The second amendment, in spite of the 9th Circuit ruling and the SCOTUS/Heller ruling, is still not recognized as being incorporated against the states.
Question: How is it possible that SCOTUS has ruled it as being incorporated...yet states are still able to deny it?

It confuses me
__________________
VICTORY IS OURS
Because of members of THIS FORUM - Bass Pro Shops have reversed their anti-2nd Amendment policies on ammunition sales in the State of Illinois
PrimePorkchop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 06:28 PM   #26
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimePorkchop View Post
Question: How is it possible that SCOTUS has ruled it as being incorporated...yet states are still able to deny it?

It confuses me
The SCOTUS qualified the incorporation in cheesy language saying states may limit the RKBA the same way the Federal government does.

As for onerous state laws being stricken, that's a matter where a person or people much challenge the law (probably after being arrested) and hire a darn good attorney who can find a sympathetic judge to agree to nullify the law.

Even if you managed that, it would only strike the law that affected *you* not necessarily other laws across the state that affect others. For example, it's illegal to have an AR-15 within the city limits of Rochester, New York. If you won a case against that law, fine. But it would still be illegal to have one in New York City. They're legal everywhere else in New York State.

This will definitely be an uphill battle.
__________________
bkt is offline  
PrimePorkchop Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 09:04 AM   #27
I used to play keyboards, but now...
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,410
Liked 2377 Times on 1441 Posts
Likes Given: 2504

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
it's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.
True, the people have the right to carry a LAW rocket or a flame thrower, but not a need. At some point there is a limit to what kind of arms an individual should possess regardless of the right to do so. I wouldn't want anyone I know to possess a nuclear bomb, for example, and I don't think I'd be willing to argue for their right to do so. Where that line should be drawn may be a fascinating philosophical exercise for some other day.

My current interest is not in the upper limits of firepower. Rather I am concerned about the fact that some people are being denied even enough of those rights to cover a reasonable lower limit. Some people have a legitimate need to carry a concealed weapon (Chicagoans for example), but are being denied the right. They are being denied that right by virtue of (in my opinion) clearly unconstitutional laws. Hence my rant.
__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 5th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/5th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-apr-11-12-2015-a-109479/

Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 10:40 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
PrimePorkchop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Urbana,Illinois
Posts: 1,748
Liked 991 Times on 499 Posts
Likes Given: 2547

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota
True, the people have the right to carry a LAW rocket or a flame thrower, but not a need. At some point there is a limit to what kind of arms an individual should possess regardless of the right to do so. I wouldn't want anyone I know to possess a nuclear bomb, for example, and I don't think I'd be willing to argue for their right to do so. Where that line should be drawn may be a fascinating philosophical exercise for some other day.

My current interest is not in the upper limits of firepower. Rather I am concerned about the fact that some people are being denied even enough of those rights to cover a reasonable lower limit. Some people have a legitimate need to carry a concealed weapon (Chicagoans for example), but are being denied the right. They are being denied that right by virtue of (in my opinion) clearly unconstitutional laws. Hence my rant.
But the reason they are being denied is because an infraction was allowed to occur in the first place.

Once you open the gate and say "this gun is okay that gun is not" then you open the fate for no gun to be okay. Personally I do not believe a bomb constitutes an arm so I'd say a nuke is out of the question. It's a WMD, not an arm
__________________
VICTORY IS OURS
Because of members of THIS FORUM - Bass Pro Shops have reversed their anti-2nd Amendment policies on ammunition sales in the State of Illinois
PrimePorkchop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 11:13 AM   #29
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota View Post
True, the people have the right to carry a LAW rocket or a flame thrower, but not a need. At some point there is a limit to what kind of arms an individual should possess regardless of the right to do so. I wouldn't want anyone I know to possess a nuclear bomb, for example, and I don't think I'd be willing to argue for their right to do so. Where that line should be drawn may be a fascinating philosophical exercise for some other day.

My current interest is not in the upper limits of firepower. Rather I am concerned about the fact that some people are being denied even enough of those rights to cover a reasonable lower limit. Some people have a legitimate need to carry a concealed weapon (Chicagoans for example), but are being denied the right. They are being denied that right by virtue of (in my opinion) clearly unconstitutional laws. Hence my rant.
The hurdle gun-grabbers must leap to get their way is to get widespread buy-in of the subjective ideas you give above. What is "necessary" or what do people "need"? The idea then is to be able to deny access to everything deemed "unnecessary". Then, they work on what was previously called "reasonable" and whittle away at that list until we're left with nearly nothing.

No thanks. That's not what 2A is about.

Why would it be wrong for well trained (that's the modern term for "well regulated") civilian militias keeping the high-power stuff secured throughout multiple locations in every state and take this stuff out of the hands of the military and government bureaucracies except in times of declared war? If we agree the military strength should rest with the people and not the government, this seems a reasonable way to accomplish that.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 11:14 AM   #30
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,454
Liked 753 Times on 437 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimePorkchop View Post
But the reason they are being denied is because an infraction was allowed to occur in the first place.

Once you open the gate and say "this gun is okay that gun is not" then you open the fate for no gun to be okay. Personally I do not believe a bomb constitutes an arm so I'd say a nuke is out of the question. It's a WMD, not an arm
B-1 with a nuke, Abrahms with uranium shells, 10/22...ALL "arms". If one can afford it, they have the right to keep and bear it!
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Research Topic Help bolt_action14 Legal and Activism 6 02-15-2012 10:38 PM
I have no idea where to put this topic. Hlander General Rifle Discussion 3 02-04-2012 05:51 AM
Off Topic but funny Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 01-11-2010 09:02 AM