(05-03-2021 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How much of the topic have you looked at in the then existing state protections for arms, in the Federalist papers, in any writings by the attendees of the 1787 Convention, or historical accounts?

My guess is that your opinion above has as much background work as your homework on the usage of semi autos in this country?

Tanq, I'm curious how you feel about #'s gun licensing proposal WRT a citizen's Constitutional rights. It's fine as long as the enforcement is reasonable or you don't like the idea of a license at all?

I think it negates the idea of a fundamental right.

What do you think about a similar proposal that requires explicit individual state permission to get an abortion? Or an explicit jndividual state permission to practice a specific religion?

I guess it's hard to compare guns to abortion and to the practice of religion.

Abortion is obviously tricky. I would say that gun violence is affecting we Americans' right to life and you may (rightly?) say that abortion is affecting a fetus' right as well. We then get into the issue of how many cells does an embryo have before it can be considered a person with inalienable rights? We've been down that path here with no resolution.

In terms of the practice of religion I don't really see how the practice of your religion affects another American's rights.

Quote:The idea of a fundamental right is that the default is that a person may be able to enjoy that activity *unless* the government can show an extraordinary reason not to.

A licensing scheme like that proposed turns the burden completely on its head.

*If* keeping arms was *not* a fundamental right, the system might make sense. But pragmatically it would make sense only if each jurisdiction implemented a 'shall issue' means to fo so, That is, implementing an objective criteria that is not out of this world to reach, and if reached the state has to issue.

Given the reluctance of blue jurisdictions to even achieve that, I think that system would be ripe for misuse.

But in terms of a Constitutional right, at least for commonly used firearms, the idea of a license to exercise what should be a dd facto right cuts in z major way against the core concept of a right.

#'s seems to be the closest to a Constitutional scholar that we have here... it seems that he's comfortable with the licensing.

(05-03-2021 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 10:21 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My right to keep a gun impinges no one’s rights I hate to tell you. The interesting thing here is that you are conflating the right to keep arms with actions in using such arms in an illegal manner.

I have zero right to use arms except in a self-defense mode,

But you apparently here conflate the act of keeping an arm with the act of using it wrongly.

I am glad Tanq has brought this distinction to the forefront.

That is an excellent point.... and said far more clearly than I ever have

As a right, it is up to the government to, through specific due process, demonstrate that I, an individual cannot exercise this right appropriately. The idea that collectively we cannot exercise this right is proven false 100+mm times per day, every day.

And before 'the left' on this issue starts in with the number of deaths, if 100mm gun owners shoot 'nobody' today and 1 person shoots 5.... that is 100mm vs 1, and 350mm people NOT shot vs 5 people shot. Even though it is still overwhelmingly one sided, we most often are told we need to focus on the 5.

I still do go back to the idea that the reason we have to have 2/3rds and 3/4 in order to change the Constitution is that this is a means of demonstrating that the current make-up of the states WOULD STILL ratify the Constitution, as amended. Remember that this right was specifically enumerated for the very purpose of ensuring that the government WOULDN'T DO precisely what the left on this issue is trying to do.

How anyone gets around that and thinks its 'okay' is very much beyond me.

And I'm no Constitutional Scholar and not often even big on the details... but I'm also still fairly educated.

I have yet to hear one single person from the left on this issue, including some of the greatest minds out there... tell me why the requirement to amend the constitution shouldn't apply here.

To be fair, how hard are you actually looking? I've definitely seen arguments that focus on the "prefatory clause" component that focuses on the "well regulated militia" and how that allows for the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to be legsilated.

I mean, I did a really quick google search and here is Cornell Law, quoting US vs Miller:

Quote:The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution...mendment-2

I do think Tanq brings up a very good point, but not one that makes it clear that no infringement on the right to bear arms is absolute. The court has established a preface already, as has been discussed already.

And that's a strawman argument that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. If you noted in my comments on rights, it is framed solely on who enjoys the right to act and whom has the burden.

No one here is arguing that air dropped cluster bombs and anti-tank missiles are considered to be the types of arms encompassed by the 2nd. And the historical record of the 2nd doesn't imply that, let alone the preceding state constitutions on the subject.

Your comment about Miller is a non-sequitor, especially since Heller and McDonald refer and actually incorporate the principles of McDonald.

The problem of the left is that Miller drew the line on what arms the government can affect with restriction. The left hates Heller and McDonald since the court now turns to drawing a line on what the government *cannot* infringe.

Not to mention the court ixnaying the poppycock and absurd notion of a 'collective' right.

You may be slightly misunderstanding my point based on this response.

Ham's comment I was responding to seemed broader than what has been discussed in the back and forth on the board so far. He said that he has "yet to hear one single person from the left on this issue, including some of the greatest minds out there... tell me why the requirement to amend the constitution shouldn't apply here."

So I made a point that references the bolded portion of your comment. There are already existing legal arguments as to why the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be amended to restrict someone's right "to keep and bear arms."

And I think that there is a logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be amended to address other types of arms besides "cluster bombs." I'm not saying I agree/disagree with that logic, but pointing out that there are clearly arguments as to why the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be amended to pass gun control legislation. In short, it's because we have already passed gun control legislation without amending the 2nd amendment.