or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Positions on Guns in America - Page 10

Poll Results: How do you feel about guns in the US? (click all that apply)

Poll expired: May 12, 2007 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 19% (38)
    It is too easy to buy a gun in the US.
  • 3% (6)
    The proper systems are in place to control guns.
  • 6% (12)
    Gun control laws already go too far.
  • 7% (15)
    Guns save lives.
  • 14% (28)
    Guns are dangerous and should be strictly controlled.
  • 10% (21)
    Guns are a menace and should be banned.
  • 4% (9)
    The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct (assuming it allows possession).
  • 13% (26)
    The 2nd Amendment is out of touch with modern America (assuming the same)
  • 3% (7)
    College student should have the right to protect themselves with guns
  • 17% (34)
    College campuses are no place for weapons
196 Total Votes  
post #361 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Well, you're not a lawyer and I'm not getting into any legal analysis myself here.

I'm going with the New York Times on this one.

They must be wrong, huh?



Maybe it would reach the Supreme Court, but my point is that the federal circuit courts are basically the last word on the individualist/collectivist interpretation of the second amendment as it stands. So if it doesn't reach the Supreme Court, then whatever the appeals court says about the amendment is the law for that jurisdiction. Shouldn't be any disagreement there.



Well, sure, we have a mechanism for changing the constitution.

But that amended constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

It's "binding law" for everyone.



I don't have an answer for that actually. Interesting point. Scenario is:

State passes law banning individuals from owning guns.
Courts uphold ban.
Congress passes federal law making guns available.

Don't know.

You keep saying NYT, NYT, ...

And basically, I respect the NYT, but I also am older now, so I don't treat all that the NYT says like some sort of religion. And since ALL district courts have not ruled uniformly on this issue, it is clear that the specifics of each case dictated the decision handed down. But if you have an accessible NYT link (I subscribe, but after a certain time limit (7 days I believe), you have to pay to access older stuff), I wouldn't mind reading it.

And I think, IMHO, there is a reason SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on the generalities of individual gun ownership. And I think it has to be due to the fact that no law has ever been passed dictating a TOTAL ban as I have described.

Something of that magnitude, would IMHO, have to go before the SCOTUS.

I also don't see any state passing such legislation either. Think about that one, it would be like Prohibition in the United States, and we all know how well that one worked. Heck, the minute such legislation had even a ghost of chance of passage, gun sales in the state of said legislation would skyrocket. Heck, gun ownership would probably DOUBLE!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #362 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You keep saying NYT, NYT, ...

And basically, I respect the NYT, but I also am older now, so I don't treat all that the NYT says like some sort of religion. And since ALL district courts have not ruled uniformly on this issue, it is clear that the specifics of each case dictated the decision handed down. But if you have an accessible NYT link (I subscribe, but after a certain time limit (7 days I believe), you have to pay to access older stuff), I wouldn't mind reading it.

I linked to it previously in this thread.

Sorry though, I'm going to trust what the NY Times says before I go with your un-sourced opinion. Nothing personal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Something of that magnitude, would IMHO, have to go before the SCOTUS.

Not necessarily.

The Court can choose to hear any case it wants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I also don't see any state passing such legislation either. Think about that one, it would be like Prohibition in the United States, and we all know how well that one worked. Heck, the minute such legislation had even a ghost of chance of passage, gun sales in the state of said legislation would skyrocket. Heck, gun ownership would probably DOUBLE!

Maybe in Texas.
post #363 of 367
Thread Starter 
Somebody is beginning to sound like another major "debater" on these boards: any source that offers a differing opinion is not valid for various reasons.

Go Fox!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #364 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Somebody is beginning to sound like another major "debater" on these boards: any source that offers a differing opinion is not valid for various reasons.

Go Fox!

Bergie,

If you are referring to me, GO FOX YOURSELF!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #365 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I linked to it previously in this thread.

Sorry though, I'm going to trust what the NY Times says before I go with your un-sourced opinion. Nothing personal.



Not necessarily.

The Court can choose to hear any case it wants.



Maybe in Texas.

WoW!

So I read your link;

A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary

The article, in general, suggests that The Times They Are A-Changin' WRT individual rights! So you guys are losing ground on that one also!

And I guess you're referring to this part?

Quote:
Still, nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question.

So out of 12 US Circuit Courts that's 9-2-1 (collective-individual-no decision). Just what I like about the MSM, distortion of the facts, and no sourcing. Go figure, and given the clear bias that the NYT has become famous for, I take this non-sourced material WITH A GRAIN OF SALT!

And geez, lookie here (since we all seem to want to take things out of context);

Quote:
If only as a matter of consistency, Professor Levinson continued, liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like those protecting free speech and the rights of criminal defendants, should also embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment. And just as the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech is not absolute, the professors say, the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms may be limited by the government, though only for good reason.

WoW, kinda, what I've been saying from the get go, now imagine that (If you possibly could! ).

And now look at this link;

Circuit Court cases relating directly to the Second Amendment

Both cases cited there for "collective" rights (not individual rights) were WRT machine guns! Specifics?

And they keep talking about "arms," now what do you think they meant when they said "arms?"

Oh wait, someone is knocking at my door, oh wait, now their banging on my door, oh wait, now they've broken into my apartment. Holy crap Batman, it's the ATF storm-troopers, their searching my apartment for "arms." Oops, they found a screwdriver, it's starting to look bad now! Oh no Mr. Bill, they just found my Wright Brothers Commemorative 100th Anniversary pocket knife, I'm really, Really, REALLY in deep caca now!

Bzzzzzzzz, Bzzzzzzzz, Bzzzzzzzz, ...

What's that sound, Jiminy Cricket, it's a chainsaw, they say I don't have a right to "arms." Oh no, they're getting closer, they're grabbing me by both "arms," I think that they are going to, ... SPLAT ... , AHHHHHH, they just cut off one of my "arms!"

I'm now typing (but just barely) with one "arm!"

Bzzzzzzzz, Bzzzzzzzz, Bzzzzzzzz, ...

I think they're going for the other "arm" ... SPLAT ... , AHHHHHH ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #366 of 367
You're insane.
post #367 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You're insane.

I can't argue with you on THAT one!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America