Current Events > For those that support strong gun control or banning guns

(+) Yeah! (+)

hint: they didn't say that
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I haven't read or know about DC vs Heller, but I am curious about this now.

they ruled that you can't outright ban handguns or force legally owned firearms to be disassembled with a trigger lock while in the home

it definitely didn't say you can't require a permit -- that part of the law is still part of the law
---

chollima posted...

notice how when the red line is long the yellow line is short

damn

time to move to maryland

baltimore=safest city in america
---

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

Incorrect, unless you think a piece of paper has the power to grant rights.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights (it explicitly states that 'our Creator' gave them to us by virtue of being born). It establishes a framework for a limited government, who's sole job is to protect our ability to freely exercise those rights.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

I haven't read or know about DC vs Heller, but I am curious about this now.

they ruled that you can't outright ban handguns or force legally owned firearms to be disassembled with a trigger lock while in the home

it definitely didn't say you can't require a permit -- that part of the law is still part of the law

It did say you can't force renewals of that permit.
---

darkjedilink posted...

It did say you can't force renewals of that permit.

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Please feel free to elaborate.
---

LordRazziel posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Certainly not something to be worried about.

Just because they make up a very small portion of muders, doesn't mean they're irrelevant or it's irrational to seek preventative measures.

When the solutions take away people's fundamental rights, it most certainly does.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

Incorrect, unless you think a piece of paper has the power to grant rights.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights (it explicitly states that 'our Creator' gave them to us by virtue of being born). It establishes a framework for a limited government, who's sole job is to protect our ability to freely exercise those rights.

Why don't felons have those rights? If there exists a framework to remove them then how are they rights? Sounds like privileges my goob.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

Incorrect, unless you think a piece of paper has the power to grant rights.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights (it explicitly states that 'our Creator' gave them to us by virtue of being born). It establishes a framework for a limited government, who's sole job is to protect our ability to freely exercise those rights.

The constitution says nothing about "our creator" that's the declaration of independence and has no legal bearing.

The amendments don't grant rights, they limit government power. You're correct that it does not give the right but merely says the government can't limit a right. If the 2nd amendment was removed however congress would be free to limit that right to whatever extent they feel. It would no longer be a right.
---

There are still idiots that think America had a soft vetting system before the travel ban?
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

It did say you can't force renewals of that permit.

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Please feel free to elaborate.

DC also required all firearm permits to be renewed annually, or you forfeit the firearm to law enforcement. As in, your 'license' idea.

That decision made that unconstitutional too.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

It did say you can't force renewals of that permit.

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Please feel free to elaborate.

DC also required all firearm permits to be renewed annually, or you forfeit the firearm to law enforcement. As in, your 'license' idea.

That decision made that unconstitutional too.

ah, so you are making stuff up

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/570.html

Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement "in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one's home or possessed land without a license." App. 59a. The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District "may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one's house." 478 F. 3d, at 400. It then ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment "consistent with [respondent's] prayer for relief." Id., at 401. Before this Court petitioners have stated that "if the handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified," by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners 58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not "have a problem with ... licensing" and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is "not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner." Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.
---

though to clarify, the permit to purchase requirement and DC's licensing law are not the same thing. That isn't what I am advocating for, it is a stronger form of control, but it is also constitutional
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

Incorrect, unless you think a piece of paper has the power to grant rights.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights (it explicitly states that 'our Creator' gave them to us by virtue of being born). It establishes a framework for a limited government, who's sole job is to protect our ability to freely exercise those rights.

Why don't felons have those rights? If there exists a framework to remove them then how are they rights? Sounds like privileges my goob.

You can have your rights stripped away when you abuse them
---

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

Incorrect, unless you think a piece of paper has the power to grant rights.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights (it explicitly states that 'our Creator' gave them to us by virtue of being born). It establishes a framework for a limited government, who's sole job is to protect our ability to freely exercise those rights.

The constitution says nothing about "our creator" that's the declaration of independence and has no legal bearing.

The amendments don't grant rights, they limit government power. You're correct that it does not give the right but merely says the government can't limit a right. If the 2nd amendment was removed however congress would be free to limit that right to whatever extent they feel. It would no longer be a right.

And that's why the Second Amendment exists - they knew that people would become so stupid as to think that the paper gives them rights.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

Incorrect, unless you think a piece of paper has the power to grant rights.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights (it explicitly states that 'our Creator' gave them to us by virtue of being born). It establishes a framework for a limited government, who's sole job is to protect our ability to freely exercise those rights.

Why don't felons have those rights? If there exists a framework to remove them then how are they rights? Sounds like privileges my goob.

You can have your rights stripped away when you abuse them

Sounds antithetical. Fits with privilege though.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

Incorrect, unless you think a piece of paper has the power to grant rights.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights (it explicitly states that 'our Creator' gave them to us by virtue of being born). It establishes a framework for a limited government, who's sole job is to protect our ability to freely exercise those rights.

Why don't felons have those rights? If there exists a framework to remove them then how are they rights? Sounds like privileges my goob.

You can have your rights stripped away when you abuse them

Sounds antithetical. Fits with privilege though.

Guess you could say a right is a privilege in a way. Got nothing against that
---

darkjedilink posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Certainly not something to be worried about.

Just because they make up a very small portion of muders, doesn't mean they're irrelevant or it's irrational to seek preventative measures.

When the solutions take away people's fundamental rights, it most certainly does.

It's a right under the constitution, not a fundamental right.
I never said the solution was to take people's guns.
I am for stricter gun laws. Maybe a permit and some mental health stipulations.
---

The present suit involves challenges to three separate District firearm restrictions. The first requires a license from the District's Chief of Police in order to carry a "pistol," i.e., a handgun, anywhere in the District. See D. C. Code 22-4504(a) (2001); see also 22-4501(a), 22-4506. Because the District assures us that respondent could obtain such a license so long as he meets the statutory eligibility criteria, and because respondent concedes that those criteria are facially constitutional, I, like the majority, see no need to address the constitutionality of the licensing requirement. See ante, at 58-59.

@darkjedilink can you share your source of info for why you think this ruling did the opposite of what it did?
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

It's pretty funny how gun advocates don't even understand how rights were added in the first place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Our nation's history is based on destroying established laws and creating laws based on natural rights humans should possess. Gun ownership is incredibly out of place on the original list.
---

Squall28 posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Squall28 posted...

Let's go back to the thought experiment. If you remove the 2nd amendment, would it still be a right?

Obviously not.

It's pretty funny how gun advocates don't even understand how rights were added in the first place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Our nation's history is based on destroying established laws and creating laws based on natural rights humans should possess. Gun ownership is incredibly out of place on the original list.

Im not understanding your point here.
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Im not understanding your point here.

Human rights are inalienable. Not in the sense that a large force can't strip it from you, but in the sense that it isn't about written law.

It doesn't matter if there is a law. You have the right to do it, and a law should be created to give you the right to do it. That's how our country's law started.

My point is that we shouldn't be overly concerned with written laws when creating new laws.
---

Squall28 posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Im not understanding your point here.

Human rights are inalienable. Not in the sense that a large force can't strip it from you, but in the sense that it isn't about written law.

It doesn't matter if there is a law. You have the right to do it, and a law should be created to give you the right to do it. That's how our country's law started.

My point is that we shouldn't be overly concerned with written laws when creating new laws.

But the point of the constitution was to protect rights, not grant rights, that were seen to be the most important at the time with a system in place to change if and when times changed.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

You can have your rights stripped away when you abuse them

You can have your rights stripped away when you violate the rights of others.
---

would like guns to be banned

do not like the travel bans

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

But the point of the constitution was to protect rights, not grant rights, that were seen to be the most important at the time with a system in place to change if and when times changed.

Then will you take back your statement that removing the 2nd amendment will make it no longer a right?

When I made my initial statement in this thread, my sentiment is that bearing arms is not in the same league as everything else. Religion and speech are a given. The others are there to prevent the government from blatantly screwing you.
---

Squall28 posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

But the point of the constitution was to protect rights, not grant rights, that were seen to be the most important at the time with a system in place to change if and when times changed.

Then will you take back your statement that removing the 2nd amendment will make it no longer a right?

When I made my initial statement in this thread, my sentiment is that bearing arms is not in the same league as everything else. Religion and speech are a given. The others are there to prevent the government from blatantly screwing you.

It likely wouldn't be for very long. 2nd amendment disappears and you still have the right to bear Arms. A day later laws are passed restricting that and its no longer a right.
---

Squall28 posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

But the point of the constitution was to protect rights, not grant rights, that were seen to be the most important at the time with a system in place to change if and when times changed.

Then will you take back your statement that removing the 2nd amendment will make it no longer a right?

When I made my initial statement in this thread, my sentiment is that bearing arms is not in the same league as everything else. Religion and speech are a given. The others are there to prevent the government from blatantly screwing you.

I think you're both saying the same thing. Only, you speaking of rights as fundamental rights and he is speaking of rights as constitutional rights.

Defending yourself is a fundamental right.
Defending yourself with a gun is a constitutional right.
---

LordRazziel posted...

Defending yourself is a fundamental right.
Defending yourself with a gun is a constitutional right.

Not according to every Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Owning a firearm is a fundamental right.
---

darkjedilink posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Defending yourself is a fundamental right.
Defending yourself with a gun is a constitutional right.

Not according to every Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Owning a firearm is a fundamental right.

You're not understanding the difference.
---