Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Steelers - Giants Giants
August 9th, 2014, 7:30pmET

CBS
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-27-2013, 11:39 AM   #21
Fire Haley
Banned
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,359
Member Number: 763
Thanks: 53
Thanked 1,098 Times in 768 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post

Dan gets it. He understands the rights and the limits. You know half the story and seem to apply absolutism to only the 2nd amendment. It's not your fault you lack the education on the subject but it is your fault you don't admit that you do.
still attempting to reframe the argument I see

what rights and limits?

the ones you and the Feinsteins choose?


So the founding fathers, who raised an army of volunteers largely self-armed, who overthrow an established government, put the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in place, to secure the right to squirrel hunt?

the 2nd amendment isn't about types of guns or their uses, it's about freedom from abuse by the government itself

Which is why it's #2 on the list - right after freedom of the press
Fire Haley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:44 AM   #22
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,058
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 1,830
Thanked 5,762 Times in 2,664 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer View Post
You still don't get it .
Neither does the DC Circuit Court of Appeals based upon the decision I suggested you may want to take a look at. Gun rights are not absolute - the question to be resolved (and under our constitutional system the courts make the call on that - you probably do not like that either but that has been the deal since the Supreme Court entered a decision in a case called Marbury v. Madison in 1803) is whether the restriction upon a constitutional right unduly burdens the exercise of taht right

I agree I do not get your contention that the 2nd Amendment gives an absolute right to own any firearm - neither do the courts (including the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions entered in the past 5 years). if you are contending that you have the better argument on that walk me through why that is so based upon applicable legal precedent rather than boilerplate quotes you pulled from some website. Otherwise your argument is reduced to your opinion that you are right and I am wrong
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:52 AM   #23
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,117
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 514
Thanked 4,071 Times in 2,094 Posts
My Mood: Innocent
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer View Post
still attempting to reframe the argument I see

what rights and limits?

the ones you and the Feinsteins choose?


So the founding fathers, who raised an army of volunteers largely self-armed, who overthrow an established government, put the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in place, to secure the right to squirrel hunt?

the 2nd amendment isn't about types of guns or their uses, it's about freedom from the abuse by the government itself
The 2nd Amendment protects the rights to bear arms, it does not protect the right to bear a specific arm.

Define "Arms" as meant in the bill of rights.

Define "speedy" for the right to a speedy trial.

Define excessive bail or cruel punishment.

Define an unreasonable search.



Do you apply original intent to them all or to none? Or does it depend on which is your favorite?
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:11 PM   #24
MACH1
Quest For Seven
Supporter
 
MACH1's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Potataho
Posts: 13,898
Member Number: 3236
Thanks: 1,480
Thanked 4,402 Times in 1,647 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan View Post
Really?

You cannot choose to drive 90 miles an hour or while legally drunk although you can drive and drive after having a drink

You cannot keep a pet lion in your backyard but you can have a dog

You cannot choose not to pay taxes on your earnings

You cannot choose to possess child porn

There are lots of activities in which you cannot elect your "right" as a free man to choose
Yet people still do. Go figure.

Bottom line is it's not up to you to decide.
__________________


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
MACH1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:15 PM   #25
MACH1
Quest For Seven
Supporter
 
MACH1's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Potataho
Posts: 13,898
Member Number: 3236
Thanks: 1,480
Thanked 4,402 Times in 1,647 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

__________________


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
MACH1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 01:12 PM   #26
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,058
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 1,830
Thanked 5,762 Times in 2,664 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by MACH1 View Post
Yet people still do. Go figure.

Bottom line is it's not up to you to decide.
Oh please - people still do lots of things that have been declared illegal - just because they do it does not make it legal and does not mean that the government cannot seek to restrict the activity

It is not up to any of us as individuals (including you) to decide whether or not to regulate an activity - it is up to one part of the government through its elected representatives (it is so sad Romney lost but deal with it) to decide whether to seek to restrict an activity and for another branch of the government (the judiciary) to decide if that restriction unduly burdens the exercise of a constitutional right. An action can be bad public policy without being unconstitutional public policy - that is one reason elections matter.

Or is your position that the government cannot restrict any activity unless an individual agrees to that restriction?
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 01:32 PM   #27
torpedoshell31
Bench Warmer
 

Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 192
Member Number: 24438
Thanks: 6
Thanked 30 Times in 24 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

If you choose not to own a firearm that is your right. If someone breaks into your house at night and threatens you with a butcher knife, you can try your best by attempting to wrestle him to the ground. I prefer to grab my 12 gauge and blow his head off. I am not telling you don't have a right to your way, so don't tell me I don't have a right to my way.
torpedoshell31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 02:17 PM   #28
Fire Haley
Banned
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,359
Member Number: 763
Thanks: 53
Thanked 1,098 Times in 768 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
The 2nd Amendment protects the rights to bear arms, it does not protect the right to bear a specific arm.

Define "Arms" as meant in the bill of rights.

Define "speedy" for the right to a speedy trial.

Define excessive bail or cruel punishment.

Define an unreasonable search.



Do you apply original intent to them all or to none? Or does it depend on which is your favorite?
still trying to muddy the waters

I ask the questions around here counselor


Do you approve of Feinstein saying your rights are secondary to the nanny state's wishes?
.

That's what this thread is about.
Fire Haley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 02:26 PM   #29
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,058
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 1,830
Thanked 5,762 Times in 2,664 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by torpedoshell31 View Post
If you choose not to own a firearm that is your right. If someone breaks into your house at night and threatens you with a butcher knife, you can try your best by attempting to wrestle him to the ground. I prefer to grab my 12 gauge and blow his head off. I am not telling you don't have a right to your way, so don't tell me I don't have a right to my way.
See my comment above - you and I both have opinions but neither of us has the legal authority to tell the other an activity is illegal - that power is reserved for the government and anyone who has view on what the government should do can contact their elected reprsentatives

And it is my understanding nobody is proposing the government take away your 12 gauge
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 02:33 PM   #30
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,058
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 1,830
Thanked 5,762 Times in 2,664 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer View Post
still trying to muddy the waters

I ask the questions around here counselor


Do you approve of Feinstein saying your rights are secondary to the nanny state's wishes?
.

That's what this thread is about.
All rights are not absolute

The right to own a handgun is stronger than the right to own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine - the weaker the right the less justification required to regulate the right - it is a balancing test to be determined by both those who enact a statute or regulation and the judiciary that determines whether the action is constitutional - IMO that is what the thread is about, without muddying the waters with rhetoric about "the nanny state" and doing what "massa" tells us to do

Not every action opposed by the proponents of smaller government is unconstitutional - sometimes you have to win elections by broadening your base if you want your agenda to prevail

Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts