Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - Page 4
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2012, 02:38 PM   #31
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,324
Liked 5717 Times on 3232 Posts
Likes Given: 5148

Default

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say gun control laws work.

The gun control laws are a pain in the arse of honest people, and they accomplish nothing worthwhile that I an see.

If you pass a law against going to church, and most folks still go, what have you accomplished??

It seems to me that to say a law "works" it must accomplish some worthwhile goal.'

what am I missing?

__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 02:56 PM   #32
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

Gun Control Laws only work when you realize that all they're designed to do in the first place is Make Gun control advocates feel good about themselves

__________________
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  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 02:59 PM   #33
Dispossessed Mechwarrior.
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TDS92A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern Alabama or Northern Florida, the jury is still out.
Posts: 1,957
Liked 1352 Times on 798 Posts
Likes Given: 3412

Default

Good points. I stand educated and enlightened. However, in neither of those states is the citizen forbidden from obtaining a firearm, just limited as to where they can carry it or how much ammo they can feed it at any given time. Is that right? Absolutely not!! But only the people of those states along with the NRA and other activist bodies can change it. Maybe the people of those states should do a re-enactment of the "Battle of Athens" (as seen on another thread). When Law Abiding Citizens start taking the law into their own hands and take down the criminals in an organized fashion, then we will truly be the government.

Personally, I would not mind Law Abiding Citizens being able to openly carry their side arm nationwide or every city adopting the law that is in place in Kennesaw, GA. The crime rate in this country would be lower than a snakes belly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimePorkchop View Post
Yes. They do. A law abiding citizen should not face any opposition in obtaining a firearm. The State of Illinois not "allowing" Concealed Carry violates t he 2nd amendment.

The State of California having limitations on magazine size violates the 2nd amendment.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do these people not comprehend? Whether or not you agree with the level of which they infringe is, and I say this kindly, irrelevant.

It's the law...and as KalishnakovJosh reminded us all the other day, this is the only "Right" we have in this country that is "regulated" against the idea of "Innocent until proven guilty"

In other words, the Government is ripping out peoples vocal cords so they can't scream "Fire" in a crowded theater...but they are taking away peoples guns so they can't defend against an armed robber.
__________________
The difficult I do immediately, the impossible takes me a few minutes longer.
NRA, U.S. Army (Ret), AGA, F&AM
A Person has to stand for something, or they will fall for anything.
How different the new order would be if we could consult the Veteran instead of the Politician - Henry Miller
The Soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur
TDS92A is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 03:03 PM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,052
Liked 2851 Times on 1689 Posts
Likes Given: 1878

Default

Quote:
JonM;886698 the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. there isnt any grey area
everything has gray areas. the constition does not specify in 2A what "ARMS" are. the men who wrote it did not foresee a world where a person could bear arms that could (and does) kill dozens of people in seconds. at the time this was written, if someone missed you with a gun, you could run at them and tackle them within 50 yards before they could reload...it was a VERY different world.

the "right to bear arms" and "not infringed" actually has never been violated by any gun control in the US up to this point imo. the assault weapon ban (as stupid as it was imo), did not infringe americans right to "keep" arms at all. it infringed their rights to keep certain types of arms. americans still had as many "arms" as ever. the brady bill have never infringed on amercians "right to keep arms." again, the constitution does not say "shall not inconvience" gunowners or specify the "right to bear arms with 100 round mags." again, "ARMS" is pretty vauge.

just playing devil's advocate. i support 2A (for many reasons), but i think anything that is a potential danger like drugs, cars, alcohol.....need some regulations. i don't think the 2A makes guns an exception, it was never specific enough to do so. regulation is NOT infringing on americans right to "bear arms." as long as americans can legally keep and bear arms (guns), regulation of firearms IS NOT unconstitutional.

if you can still buy and keep guns, your 2A HAS NOT been infringed imo. all that being said, regulation can of course start to infringe on certain rights. it just depends on the restriction or regulation.

not trying to make people mad, i just don't agree with the "no restrictions" constitution argument. but i am normally a "look at the situation from every side kind of person."

and before anyone starts on me, i think an armed civilian population makes sense for all the reasons you do. i know many of you will challenge my beliefs on this and even claim i don't support 2A because of my stance. but like all of you, i am just giving my beliefs, hopefully you can respect that, even if you disagree. gun ownership, like most controversial issues, has MANY gray areas.

and for the record, the restrictions that i generally would support.....mostly include keeping guns away from criminals, kids, mentally unstable. or just "you have to eventually draw the line somewhere" laws.
__________________

Last edited by hawkguy; 07-31-2012 at 03:06 PM.
hawkguy is offline  
TDS92A Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 03:10 PM   #35
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 hawkguy View Post
everything has gray areas. the constition does not specify in 2A what "ARMS" are. the men who wrote it did not foresee a world where a person could bear arms that could (and does) kill dozens of people in seconds. at the time this was written, if someone missed you with a gun, you could run at them and tackle them within 50 yards before they could reload...it was a VERY different world.

the "right to bear arms" and "not infringed" actually has never been violated by any gun control in the US up to this point imo. the assault weapon ban (as stupid as it was imo), did not infringe americans right to "keep" arms at all. it infringed their rights to keep certain types of arms. americans still had as many "arms" as ever. the brady bill have never infringed on amercians "right to keep arms." again, the constitution does not say "shall not inconvience" gunowners or specify the "right to bear arms with 100 round mags." again, "ARMS" is pretty vauge.

just playing devil's advocate. i support 2A (for many reasons), but i think anything that is a potential danger like drugs, cars, alcohol.....need some regulations. i don't think the 2A makes guns an exception, it was never specific enough to do so. regulation is NOT infringing on americans right to "bear arms." as long as americans can legally keep and bear arms (guns), regulation of firearms IS NOT unconstitutional.

if you can still buy and keep guns, your 2A HAS NOT been infringed imo. all that being said, regulation can of course start to infringe on certain rights. it just depends on the restriction or regulation.

not trying to make people mad, i just don't agree with the "no restrictions" constitution argument. but i am normally a "look at the situation from every side kind of person."

and before anyone starts on me, i think an armed civilian population makes sense for all the reasons you do. i know many of you will challenge my beliefs on this and even claim i don't support 2A because of my stance. but like all of you, i am just giving my beliefs, hopefully you can respect that, even if you disagree. gun ownership, like most controversial issues, has MANY gray areas.

and for the record, the restrictions that i generally would support.....mostly include keeping guns away from criminals, kids, mentally unstable. or just "you have to eventually draw the line somewhere" laws.
The whole reason the 2nd was written was to act as a balance to the power of the government, therefore, by pure common sense, it goes without saying that if the government has this arm, so should a private citizen. The Musket of 1776 is the M4 of 2012.

NOW! Before you respond and say "Well....what about NUCLEAR arms!!??" realize that you cannot BEAR a Nuclear arm. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is arms that you can bear on your person...so unless you have a method for strapping a Nuclear device onto your M4 rail...lets leave that argument in the gutter where it belongs.

If we take your argument and apply it to the first Amendment, then the Government would have a list of words and phrases that you are not allowed to say, and if you do say them, you will go to federal prison for years

If we are to take your argument and apply it to the 2nd Amendment, then all the rest of us are allowed to have are the muskets and flintlocks of the day...and you can't honestly believe that this is what the 2nd Amendment really suggests..
__________________
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

Last edited by PrimePorkchop; 07-31-2012 at 03:14 PM.
PrimePorkchop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 03:14 PM   #36
Dispossessed Mechwarrior.
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TDS92A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern Alabama or Northern Florida, the jury is still out.
Posts: 1,957
Liked 1352 Times on 798 Posts
Likes Given: 3412

Thumbs up

Hey hawkguy,

Well said!!

I am glad to see that I am not alone in this view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
everything has gray areas. the constition does not specify in 2A what "ARMS" are. the men who wrote it did not foresee a world where a person could bear arms that could (and does) kill dozens of people in seconds. at the time this was written, if someone missed you with a gun, you could run at them and tackle them within 50 yards before they could reload...it was a VERY different world.

the "right to bear arms" and "not infringed" actually has never been violated by any gun control in the US up to this point imo. the assault weapon ban (as stupid as it was imo), did not infringe americans right to "keep" arms at all. it infringed their rights to keep certain types of arms. americans still had as many "arms" as ever. the brady bill have never infringed on amercians "right to keep arms." again, the constitution does not say "shall not inconvience" gunowners or specify the "right to bear arms with 100 round mags." again, "ARMS" is pretty vauge.

just playing devil's advocate. i support 2A (for many reasons), but i think anything that is a potential danger like drugs, cars, alcohol.....need some regulations. i don't think the 2A makes guns an exception, it was never specific enough to do so. regulation is NOT infringing on americans right to "bear arms." as long as americans can legally keep and bear arms (guns), regulation of firearms IS NOT unconstitutional.

if you can still buy and keep guns, your 2A HAS NOT been infringed imo. all that being said, regulation can of course start to infringe on certain rights. it just depends on the restriction or regulation.

not trying to make people mad, i just don't agree with the "no restrictions" constitution argument. but i am normally a "look at the situation from every side kind of person."

and before anyone starts on me, i think an armed civilian population makes sense for all the reasons you do. i know many of you will challenge my beliefs on this and even claim i don't support 2A because of my stance. but like all of you, i am just giving my beliefs, hopefully you can respect that, even if you disagree. gun ownership, like most controversial issues, has MANY gray areas.

and for the record, the restrictions that i generally would support.....mostly include keeping guns away from criminals, kids, mentally unstable. or just "you have to eventually draw the line somewhere" laws.
__________________
The difficult I do immediately, the impossible takes me a few minutes longer.
NRA, U.S. Army (Ret), AGA, F&AM
A Person has to stand for something, or they will fall for anything.
How different the new order would be if we could consult the Veteran instead of the Politician - Henry Miller
The Soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur
TDS92A is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 03:14 PM   #37
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,324
Liked 5717 Times on 3232 Posts
Likes Given: 5148

Default

Hawkguy,

Again, I ask what worthwhile goal have these laws accomplished??

I can't find any.

__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill

Last edited by locutus; 07-31-2012 at 03:16 PM.
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 03:16 PM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cuate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Comanche,Texas
Posts: 166
Liked 15 Times on 11 Posts

Default

Rather than more insane laws regarding firearms, hi capacity magazines and online ordering of ammunition, a Law that would prevent any such Philistines as are now in power in our Nation from seeking, running for, or serving in any capacity of rule making or power in any precinct, district, city, county or state, or national capitol of the United States !

A definition of Philistine= Unwanted leftists, progressives, socialists, communists, liars, despots, perverts, dopers, and other lawbreakers, as well of they who after close inspection can not show with 100% proof of 100% American citizenship to the entire Nation.

__________________

NRA Lifer Since 1968
Former USMC
Former Texas NG

cuate is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 03:54 PM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,052
Liked 2851 Times on 1689 Posts
Likes Given: 1878

Default

Quote:
The whole reason the 2nd was written was to act as a balance to the power of the government, therefore, by pure common sense, it goes without saying that if the government has this arm, so should a private citizen. The Musket of 1776 is the M4 of 2012.
i pretty much agree with this statement. but i still think "arms" is very vauge, and as long as US citizens can keep modern firearms, their 2A has not been violated. no gun restriction to this point has denied americans the righ to keep arms.

Quote:
NOW! Before you respond and say "Well....what about NUCLEAR arms!!??" realize that you cannot BEAR a Nuclear arm. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is arms that you can bear on your person...so unless you have a method for strapping a Nuclear device onto your M4 rail...lets leave that argument in the gutter where it belongs.
you CAN hand carry nuclear and biological weapons! you can carry explosives as well. i don't think either were a part of what the men who wrote the constitution were meaning when they wrote "arms"


Quote:
If we take your argument and apply it to the first Amendment, then the Government would have a list of words and phrases that you are not allowed to say, and if you do say them, you will go to federal prison for years
like it or not, 1A is restricted as well....or school kids could tell the theacher to "eff off" when they asked them to stop running in the halls. FULL free speech would include threats, which are illegal. the 1A IS restricted in some ways as well.

Quote:
If we are to take your argument and apply it to the 2nd Amendment, then all the rest of us are allowed to have are the muskets and flintlocks of the day...and you can't honestly believe that this is what the 2nd Amendment really suggests.
no. i agree that "common sense" says citizens should be able to own modern firearms. BUT....the 2A really does not say it. it provides no defination of what "arms" is, either in regards to nuclear arms or muskets.

but i am not arguing that we should have muskets. citizens have a right to own modern firearms in my opionion of 2A. but also, imo, 2A does not mean no restrictions on the types or how we purchase firearms. it only says "the right to bear and keep" shall not be infringed.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 04:00 PM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,052
Liked 2851 Times on 1689 Posts
Likes Given: 1878

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
Hawkguy,

Again, I ask what worthwhile goal have these laws accomplished??

I can't find any.
i have personally seen a "gang banger" type turned away at a gun store from a background check.

could he get a gun off the street? probably. still, that is another crime to charge him with, should they use it improperly.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
All guns are loaded guns! downsouth Training & Safety 24 06-03-2012 01:55 AM
Kagan goes hunting wth Scalia Mongo Legal and Activism 3 05-10-2012 02:30 PM
THIS is the reason normal people are scared of guns and people with guns DodgerBlue Legal and Activism 51 03-28-2012 02:58 AM
40,000 lbs of guns melted down by LAPD - LAPD Implies Owning Guns Is Illegal crowbar Legal and Activism 17 02-25-2010 01:28 AM
Video: Guns, Guns, Guns sculker The Club House 15 02-22-2010 12:53 AM