"Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

[Killer]

Originally Posted by Vis

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

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Killer

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

[Vis]

Originally Posted by Killer

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?

[MACH1]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

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.

[MACH1]

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by MACH1

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?

[torpedoshell31]

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.

[Killer]

Originally Posted by Vis

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.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by torpedoshell31

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]

Originally Posted by Killer

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