A small price to pay for Freedom

Hoosier Daddy said:
no, you are wrong. the founding fathers were literate. they did not just add superfluous words to amendments. the right to own and bear arms, arms means all weapons of war, is reserved for those who are in a well-regulated militia. which were necessary at that time. the right to own guns was a given, just like the right to own a dining room table, but it also means they are not a constitutional right, just a logical right to defend yourself with a weapon, at that time not more lethal than a sword. if you really believe private citizens have the right to own shoulder fired ground to air missiles and rocket grenade launchers and fully operational tanks and assault weapons with no restrictions, then you are goofy as hell. and those are all "arms."
Click to expand...

Good point....but I'm putting you on ignore anyway for calling me goofy and for being from Indiana.
Neverthekless, have a very pleasant winter.
 
Concart said:
With respect to guns..... I am not opposed to gun ownership. But we have opened that door to far too many people who should not be in possession of a firearm. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. We can do a much better job of controlling the genie.
Click to expand...

Everybody on JPP knows that I'm not a huge worshiper of our Constitution.
Still, whom does the 2nd Amendment exclude from the right to bear arms?
Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Concart said:
The lives of our children is a small price to pay for your freedom to own 27 semi-automatic weapons.

The lives of 800,000 Americans is a small price to pay for your freedom to go maskless and defy vaccines.

You are freedom fighters. You have sacrificed...... oh wait, absolutely nothing.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
My body, my choice.


Women...your body, my choice.

Makes perfect sense
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Yet these same "champions of freedom" believe that they have the right to dictate what American women can and cannot do with their own bodies. Embryos are worth saving, but already-born children are not. Very strange.
Click to expand...
What she said
 
Nomad said:
Easy.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment and then outlawing the sale of guns along with the manufacture of them for private ownership about 4 or 5 decades ago, would have prevented not only the most recent school shooting, but likely would have prevented a good 99%+ of the murdres that have happened in this country over whatever time period would have applied had such a repeal and enactment happened.

Putting a tax of several hundred percent on ammunition and the material required to make it, or just outlawing the sale and possession of it while making possession/sale/manufacture a felony punishable with mandatory prison time would also be pretty effective.
Click to expand...
That's the key. Guns might be a constitutional right, but ammo isn't.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Everybody on JPP knows that I'm not a huge worshiper of our Constitution.
Still, whom does the 2nd Amendment exclude from the right to bear arms?
Maybe I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But no constitutional right is unlimited. Take a look at Heller. It's interesting.
 
volsrock said:
So if i beat up your stupid daughter and she is 8 months pregnant with a boy, baby does not make it.. She didn't loose a child that had a heartbeat and I should only be charged with assault not murder?

Guess u would tell her to suck it up .. was just a mass of goo not a child never was...
Click to expand...
Most fetuses are not 'loose'.
 
Concart said:
It doesn't. But no constitutional right is unlimited. Take a look at Heller. It's interesting.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, the Heller decision said that the right was not unlimited but than struck down all the limitations!

There are so many more important (to me) progressive issues that need to be advanced
that gun control is not the hill on which I'd be willing to die.
 
Althea said:
That's the key. Guns might be a constitutional right, but ammo isn't.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the gun goobers would claim ammo falls under the heading of "arms", but in reality, the Constitution says nothing about what constitutes arms and what doeasn't.

So in reality, a ban on handguns would not violate the letter of the 2nd Amenndment because certain types of arms are already banned for private ownership and use.
 
domer76 said:
Actually, it is. Ammunition is still considered “arms”.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

But given that certain types of arms are illegal to own and the Constitution makes no distinction about which kind of arms are included in the 2nd and which are not, it has been left up to Congress to decisde.

If there is ever a large enough majority in the Senate who are in favor of putting tight restrictions on ammo, it seems like they should be able do it.

Depends on how far right the SCOTUS is at the time.
 
domer76 said:
Actually, it is. Ammunition is still considered “arms”.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the Constitution addresses pricing, which is a great way to make it harder to obtain.

There could be a 100% tax imposed by the Feds, with corresponding state taxes.

Chris Rock once did a bit about charging $5000 each for bullets.

"I'd kill you man, but I can't afford it"
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Unless I'm mistaken, the Heller decision said that the right was not unlimited but than struck down all the limitations!

There are so many more important (to me) progressive issues that need to be advanced
that gun control is not the hill on which I'd be willing to die.
Click to expand...

I agree, not the highest priority. Heller involved a D.C. law that required a gun in the home to be unloaded and locked up. The law was incredibly restrictive. It was struck down, and Scalia wrote the decision, in which he made it abundantly clear that laws that restricted some people from owning and carrying weapons, laws that prohibited weapons in certain locations, and bans on 'dangerous and unusual weapons' were not unconstitutional on their face. So while I agree that all weapons can't be banned, we can certainly make things more regulated.
 
Althea said:
I don't believe the Constitution addresses pricing, which is a great way to make it harder to obtain.

There could be a 100% tax imposed by the Feds, with corresponding state taxes.

Chris Rock once did a bit about charging $5000 each for bullets.

"I'd kill you man, but I can't afford it"
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top