Gun ownership poll

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.

Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

Not to steer this political, but if they greatly strengthen states' rights on abortion, many in the pro gun control crowd will be quite upset. Some people want the Court to guarantee rights not specified in the Constitution, but not guarantee rights (the 2nd Amendment) that clearly are.

This court is interpreting the Constitution and respecting its own limitations. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated as a right guaranteed by the federal government. Many things are not, and the right to legislate them belong to the states. This is the role of the Supreme Court - to be an umpire and rule on laws expressly under their review, not to create laws as they choose.

[Pat R]

It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.

If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Pat R

It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.

If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal.

i think they dont enforce DUI's enough as well, if someone gets a DUI i think they should have to have a purple license plate for a few years so people to warn people etc..

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

i think they dont enforce DUI's enough as well, if someone gets a DUI i think they should have to have a purple license plate for a few years so people to warn people etc..

At least one state does that I think but only on second offense.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

At least one state does that I think but only on second offense.

thats cool to know but still funny they let you DUI once where you could kill people plus all the other times you werent pulled over and then they get you a 'free' DUI.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

It's a quite literal reading; you know, the obvious one to make using the meaning of the actual words, not what ban-supporters wish they had written. I'd love to hear where in the Constitution it says the 2nd is to be held to a different standard than the rest.

Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion.

Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does.

I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's a quite literal reading; you know, the obvious one to make using the meaning of the actual words, not what ban-supporters wish they had written. I'd love to hear where in the Constitution it says the 2nd is to be held to a different standard than the rest.

Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion.

Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does.

I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that.

You have freedom of religion. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you claim your religion involves sacrificing a sheep in the middle of the street. You have freedom speech. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the second amendment where pro gun people draw the line and don’t accept reasonable restrictions like the other amendments - even the one that comes before it. Society is better off with these reasonable restrictions in place. We are worse off since they are not allowed by pro gun activists with respect to the second amendment. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world with our guns and school shootings.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

You have freedom of religion. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you claim your religion involves sacrificing a sheep in the middle of the street. You have freedom speech. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the second amendment where pro gun people draw the line and don’t accept reasonable restrictions like the other amendments - even the one that comes before it. Society is better off with these reasonable restrictions in place. We are worse off since they are not allowed by pro gun activists with respect to the second amendment. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world with our guns and school shootings.

Yes. Just as it is illegal to shoot up a room full of school children, or to even discharge a firearm within city limits and nobody wants to change that. There is no requirement that I need to get a permit from the state to practice normal religion, or to speak my mind. You are advocating that special requirements be met to exercise the 2nd at all, which does not and has not existed for any other right. There is no clause that the 2nd is any different; that it is subject to a different set of standards from the rest. I don't need a permit to exercise my first amendment rights. I do not need a special permit to be protected by the 4th amendment. Nor should I for the 2nd; it should be treated the same as the rest, nothing more nor less.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes. Just as it is illegal to shoot up a room full of school children, or to even discharge a firearm within city limits and nobody wants to change that. There is no requirement that I need to get a permit from the state to practice normal religion, or to speak my mind. You are advocating that special requirements be met to exercise the 2nd at all, which does not and has not existed for any other right. There is no clause that the 2nd is any different; that it is subject to a different set of standards from the rest. I don't need a permit to exercise my first amendment rights. I do not need a special permit to be protected by the 4th amendment. Nor should I for the 2nd; it should be treated the same as the rest, nothing more nor less.

Speakers wishing to speak, religions wish to hold services, are burdened with numerous permit requirements. Religious freedoms is not unconstitutionally infringed when we make a pastor comply with the fire code to preach. Nor is it infringed in my opinion if we require gun owners to pass a background check or, heaven forbid, take a safety course.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Speakers wishing to speak, religions wish to hold services, are burdened with numerous permit requirements. Religious freedoms is not unconstitutionally infringed when we make a pastor comply with the fire code to preach. Nor is it infringed in my opinion if we require gun owners to pass a background check or, heaven forbid, take a safety course.

As discussed numerous times, buying a gun at the gun store already requires a background check, in all states. People getting a concealed carry permit will still go through a background check. Shall issue means they must issue by default, unless they find a very specific and non-arbitrary reason to deny, like having a violent criminal history. I really wish the anti-gun side would educate themselves on the laws, even as they screech for more they continually fail to understand what the laws actually are.

Yes, the church has to comply with the fire code. So does my sportsmen's club. Again, nobody is trying to change this. Gun owners are not saying the constitution means our meeting places don’t have to meet fire code. What changes is that the 2nd has to be held to the *same* standards as the other amendments, not a separate and different one whereby it can be ignored whenever desired by one side.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

As discussed numerous times, buying a gun at the gun store already requires a background check, in all states. People getting a concealed carry permit will still go through a background check. Shall issue means they must issue by default, unless they find a very specific and non-arbitrary reason to deny, like having a violent criminal history. I really wish the anti-gun side would educate themselves on the laws, even as they screech for more they continually fail to understand what the laws actually are.

Yes, the church has to comply with the fire code. So does my sportsmen's club. Again, nobody is trying to change this. Gun owners are not saying the constitution means our meeting places don’t have to meet fire code. What changes is that the 2nd has to be held to the *same* standards as the other amendments, not a separate and different one whereby it can be ignored whenever desired by one side.

I may misunderstand the process. If I go to buy a shotgun today along with as much ammo as I can afford, what do they look for in me? Make sure I’m not a felon?