The Raging Debate

[Bikenut]

imported post

HankT wrote:

wethepeople wrote:

When the constitution was written,citizens were using the same firearms as the military. Yes times have changed, but as the left likes to brag "we need to level the playing field" I believe every citizen that has a right to keep and bear arms has the right to keep ANY firearm period.

So, do you think that any law, state or federal, that regulates any gun in any way ..... is unconstitutional?

Also, do you include mentally incapable and felons in your definition of "every citizen?"

Allow me to suggest that the focus of the laws is skewed onto the tool used and not the problem itself.. and has been ever since gun laws started.

(As an aside... our gun laws were patterned after.... the gun laws Hitler used to disarm the German people. Please do research that statement on your own! That alone should scare the hell out of anyone with any modicum of common sense!)

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have any language in it that limits what "arms" can be kept... or borne. When this amendment came into being it was understood that if a person wanted to own a cannon... they certainly had the right to.

Now any laws that limit the 2nd Amendment are unconstitutional since the Constitution says what it says... period. Those who try to stick their own understanding of it (read that as sticking their own agenda into it) as a representation of what it actually says has resulted in the crap we have now.

And as for the argument that if the laws were unconstitutional then they would already have been challenged? Well.... they are beginning to be challenged NOW!

As for felons and the mentally challenged? Again... the focus is skewed since if someone is nuts enough to be a danger with a gun why are they running the streets? And if a felon is so dangerous they shouldn't have a gun why are they running the streets?

The focus should be on the behavior of people... not the things they use while engaging in that behavior. Not to mention that with all the laws in the world written on all the paper in the world not one of those laws ever stopped someone determined to commit a crime from doing the crime.... using whatever illegal tool they desired to use. The thinking that passing a law will stop or eliminate a problem........ is a problem in the ability to think.

There is no problem with adding extra jail time for committing a crime while using a gun. Or keeping dangerous nuts locked up. But the real problem wasn't the gun... it was the person who committed that crime.

 

[HankT]

imported post

ComradeV wrote:

HankT wrote:

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

HankT wrote:

wethepeople wrote:

When the constitution was written,citizens were using the same firearms as the military. Yes times have changed, but as the left likes to brag "we need to level the playing field" I believe every citizen that has a right to keep and bear arms has the right to keep ANY firearm period.

So, do you think that any law, state or federal, that regulates any gun in any way ..... is unconstitutional?

Also, do you include mentally incapable and felons in your definition of "every citizen?"

If a convicted felon can't be trusted with legally carrying a gun, how can we trust him not to carry it illegally? The purpose of our penal system ought to be to punish the criminal for his crime and send him back to be a productive member of his community. This includes the ability to defend himself and his family. I don't think we ought to deprive felons of the ability to defend themselves that is afforded to other citizens. I certainly don't think the Federal government has the constitutional authority to do so.

So, you favor felons, including those who are felons because of violent acts, including murder and rape,obtaining guns and carrying them after they get out of prison?

Fascinating.

If they are dangerous to our society, they have no business being out on our streets and should either be executed or kept in Prison until they are deemed not a threat. Which means that if they are a violent murderer/rapist and cannot be trusted to not violently rape and murder why should they be on the streets at all, with/without "legal" weapons?

1. Where is your constitutional basis for what you suggest? (Permanently incarceration of certain felons not related to their adjudicated offense. )

2. Who decides if such people are "dangerous?" How would that work, again keeping in mind the Constittution of the United States?

Have you eventhought your position through, comrade? At all?

 

[LeagueOf1291]

imported post

HankT wrote:

So, you favor felons, including those who are felons because of violent acts, including murder and rape,obtaining guns and carrying them after they get out of prison?

Fascinating.

Of course not, and if you'd bother to understand my position before attributing false arguments to me, you'd understand that.

Felons convicted of murder and rape should be executed.

Felons as our dysfunctional penal system defines them include people who, like our legislators, misappropriate funds. Those people, including our legislators, should be made to pay restitution, maybe flogged, and then sent back with instructions to "sin no more."

 

[nobama]

imported post

You misunderstood. Convicted felons and or convicted mental handicapped people have already lost their right to own or carry a firearm. I said any person that has a right to , not including convicted felons and the like. There are enough laws on the books. What right does our Gov. have to tell you or me what kind of guns we want to own. Most of those people are felons anyway,just not convicted Yet.

 

[squisher]

imported post

HankT wrote:

squisher wrote:

HankT wrote:

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

HankT wrote:

Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.

I would most definitely take that position. All of the laws restricting my right to bear arms violate the 2A, concealed or not, fully automatic or not.

Aren't there now laws in some states, such as Cali and NJ, that restrict the carry and or possession of AR-15/AK-47 rifles?

Are you saying that you believe those laws to be unconstitutional?

Yeah, why is that even a question?

Unless you want to argue that the states should be able to make their own decisions (which I normally agree with). But in this case, if the states can override it, what is the point of the 2nd amendment?

The 1st is worded "Congress shall make no law..."
The 2nd is worded "...shall not be infringed."

So, you're saying that "infringed" means legally that no law can be passed that would restrict or ban an AR/AK in any way? That any law regulating any thing about those rifles would be de facto unconstituional?

Try to focus like a laser on the meaning of the word "infringed." The meaning from a legal standpoint. Not "infringed" from a conversational context.

It seems to me that if the laws were truly unconstitutional, that they would be attacked as such and that they would fall.

The recent Heller case indicates that "reasonable regulation" is an operational legal concept. "Reasonable regulation" is not unconstitutional.

So, if you're saying that any law whatsoever regarding AR/AKs, state or federal, are unconstitutional...you are wayyyyyyy out there in extremist land. Your view would simply not be realistic.

I am, and I really don't think I'm that extreme at all.

That, and my idea of "reasonable regulation" of weapons is going to be GROSSLY different than say...Ms. Brady One-note's idea of "reasonable regulation."

My idea of "reasonable regulation" is simple (and this goes far beyond arms): "A person is free to do as they see fit so long as it does not affect any other person's ability to do the same."


According to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infringement:

"The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract."

So, magazine size limits, cosmetic feature limits, barrel minimum length limits, maximum caliber limits, not allowing fully automatic, or any other kind of limit or prohibition amount to "encroachment" at the least, if not "breach."

Hell, if you've got the money for it, a private citizen should be able to own tanks, fighter planes or anything, as long as they are not using it against other citizens. (Side thought, weren't a number of cannon back in the day privately owned in the first place?)

When it comes to felons who are no longer in prison due to having "served their time," if they are somehow still dangerous after having "paid their debt to society," then punishment was not effective or severe enough. That really says more about our penal system than anything else.

I mean, if you're convicted, and serve your time/submit to your punishment, you should be "square" with society afterward, right?

There are people who continue to be violent after they are released -- the obvious easy answer is that they should not have been released. But who is to know what is in the heart/mind of another? Again, I argue that if a convicted person who has submitted to their punishment continues in the behavior that led to their punishment in the first place did not receive a severe enough punishment.

Maybe I am extreme, but I believe the Constitution and its amendments mean what the say and say what they mean. I don't find them hard to understand, but maybe that's why I'm a normal citizen instead of a politician.

As far as laws not being challenged and struck down for being unconstitutional, I think the point made earlier about "watching the watchers who watch the watchers" pretty much sums it up.

 

[Mike]

imported post

Folks - as many have asked, John and I have formally updated our main page to clarify the focus of OpenCarry.org: "A pro-gun Internet community focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life."

Long gun carry is a great topic for some folks to look into but distracts from our organizational focus here - generally in the law of carry rght now we have major restrictions on the right to open or conceal carry handguns in many states - and generally the law of long gun carry is much less restrictive - and for long guns the issue is mainly just "carry" generally, as concealed carry of long guns is not practical or in some cases possible anyway.

Please note - NEW RULE - #11:

11) This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. Do not start OFF TOPIC threads or discussions such aspromoting the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the folks on this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.