| Author | Post |
|---|
Dr. Fresh
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 09:08 am |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: kparker wrote: maclean,
The ban on loaded long guns in vehicles really was aimed at hunters, and poachers in particular who shoot from their vehicles.
So why don't they just make poaching, and hunting from in/on a vehicle, illegal?
Oh, wait.... don't tell me this is Yet Another Case Of Banning Innocuous Behavior Because Other People Did Something Wrongtm? Bleah, put me down as another vote for getting rid if it! (Not that the climate in Olympia is particularly favorable at the moment; but as soon as it is, then heave-ho!)
Wrong again. They did it because the morons were shooting themselves or others in the vehicles while either being stupid or loading or unloading. The way the law is written it is even illegal to lean a loaded long gun up against a vehicle.
Regardless, it is a violation of my RKBA.
Wrong, when you buy the hunting license you agree to hunt under the states rules. There is no right to hunt so it is not a RKBA issue.
I'm not talking about hunting. I'm talking about my 2nd Amendment right to carry a longarm, which is much more important and relevant than carrying a handgun with regard to protection of liberty. I do not hunt and I do not have a hunting license.
I don't want to burst your bubble but the state already restricts your right to carry a handgun along with the restricting the long guns. If you don't believe it try driving around in your car without a CPL with a loaded handgun. That's a restriction and a long gun is not in most cases a viable weapon for day to day self defense. If you don't hunt or have a hunting lcense, then what are the long guns for and why would you need them loaded in your vehicle? Oh yeah, where in the 2A does it define what qualifies as a weapon? I being the devil advocate here but your reasoning is flawed.
My logic is not flawed. In fact, it's very simple. All of these restrictions violate my 2nd Amendment rights. In accordance with the 2nd Amendment, I should be able to carry any weapon I am able to.
Also, a long gun is the single best defensive weapon available. The only reason I don't carry a shotgun instead of a handgun is because it's too big. Handguns always have been, and always will be, last ditch and/or convenience weapons. They are the first choice for defense in America because they can be carried easily, not because they are more effective.
Did you read Heller vs DC? If so you would have read the the SCOTUS says reasonable restrictions are acceptable. So regardless of what you believe, the guys that decide what the 2A say your right is not absolute. Live with it or file your own suit. A rifle is the best defensive weapon in a car? Not in any tactical or self defense course I ever attend or by any logic I can think of. But then I'm old and may not have thought this out very well, NOT! A subgun maybe but a full sized rifle, uh,uh.
Yes I did, and Heller was purposefully a very narrow decision with the goal of gaining Kennedy's vote. There are MANY issues it does not address, but it does define the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Now, that means it comes with all the trappings of any other right. SCOTUS affirmed this right, and it should be and perhaps will be followed to its logical conclusion.
In other words, as with all other rights, "reasonable restrictions" exist only where my right intrudes upon another's. As a member of this forum, it should be obvious to you that merely carrying a loaded firearm is not intrusive upon the rights of other citizens. Why should this only apply to handguns? It comes down to "prior restraint."
Like all the anits, I'd expect a counter explaining the "reasonable restrictions" on the 1st Amendment, such as the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, or the similar "permits to assemble in a public place." Again, prior restraint is key here. None of these "restrictions" apply to someone before an illegal act is committed. For instance, people are not muzzled upon entry to a theater because they might yell "fire" during the film. Permits are issued to demonstrators because they are interfering with commerce and freedom of movement. Similarly, no one has the right to tell me what I can and can't carry on my person or in my vehicle just because I MIGHT commit a crime/hunting violation with it.
This argument has NOTHING to do with tactical advantages/disadvantages of a long arm. At that point, it's another CC vs. OC argument. Shotguns are a very viable means of defense, BTW.
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 09:08 am by Dr. Fresh
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 09:49 pm |
|
Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: kparker wrote: maclean,
The ban on loaded long guns in vehicles really was aimed at hunters, and poachers in particular who shoot from their vehicles.
So why don't they just make poaching, and hunting from in/on a vehicle, illegal?
Oh, wait.... don't tell me this is Yet Another Case Of Banning Innocuous Behavior Because Other People Did Something Wrongtm? Bleah, put me down as another vote for getting rid if it! (Not that the climate in Olympia is particularly favorable at the moment; but as soon as it is, then heave-ho!)
Wrong again. They did it because the morons were shooting themselves or others in the vehicles while either being stupid or loading or unloading. The way the law is written it is even illegal to lean a loaded long gun up against a vehicle.
Regardless, it is a violation of my RKBA.
Wrong, when you buy the hunting license you agree to hunt under the states rules. There is no right to hunt so it is not a RKBA issue.
I'm not talking about hunting. I'm talking about my 2nd Amendment right to carry a longarm, which is much more important and relevant than carrying a handgun with regard to protection of liberty. I do not hunt and I do not have a hunting license.
I don't want to burst your bubble but the state already restricts your right to carry a handgun along with the restricting the long guns. If you don't believe it try driving around in your car without a CPL with a loaded handgun. That's a restriction and a long gun is not in most cases a viable weapon for day to day self defense. If you don't hunt or have a hunting lcense, then what are the long guns for and why would you need them loaded in your vehicle? Oh yeah, where in the 2A does it define what qualifies as a weapon? I being the devil advocate here but your reasoning is flawed.
My logic is not flawed. In fact, it's very simple. All of these restrictions violate my 2nd Amendment rights. In accordance with the 2nd Amendment, I should be able to carry any weapon I am able to.
Also, a long gun is the single best defensive weapon available. The only reason I don't carry a shotgun instead of a handgun is because it's too big. Handguns always have been, and always will be, last ditch and/or convenience weapons. They are the first choice for defense in America because they can be carried easily, not because they are more effective.
Did you read Heller vs DC? If so you would have read the the SCOTUS says reasonable restrictions are acceptable. So regardless of what you believe, the guys that decide what the 2A say your right is not absolute. Live with it or file your own suit. A rifle is the best defensive weapon in a car? Not in any tactical or self defense course I ever attend or by any logic I can think of. But then I'm old and may not have thought this out very well, NOT! A subgun maybe but a full sized rifle, uh,uh.
Yes I did, and Heller was purposefully a very narrow decision with the goal of gaining Kennedy's vote. There are MANY issues it does not address, but it does define the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Now, that means it comes with all the trappings of any other right. SCOTUS affirmed this right, and it should be and perhaps will be followed to its logical conclusion.
In other words, as with all other rights, "reasonable restrictions" exist only where my right intrudes upon another's. As a member of this forum, it should be obvious to you that merely carrying a loaded firearm is not intrusive upon the rights of other citizens. Why should this only apply to handguns? It comes down to "prior restraint."
Like all the anits, I'd expect a counter explaining the "reasonable restrictions" on the 1st Amendment, such as the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, or the similar "permits to assemble in a public place." Again, prior restraint is key here. None of these "restrictions" apply to someone before an illegal act is committed. For instance, people are not muzzled upon entry to a theater because they might yell "fire" during the film. Permits are issued to demonstrators because they are interfering with commerce and freedom of movement. Similarly, no one has the right to tell me what I can and can't carry on my person or in my vehicle just because I MIGHT commit a crime/hunting violation with it.
This argument has NOTHING to do with tactical advantages/disadvantages of a long arm. At that point, it's another CC vs. OC argument. Shotguns are a very viable means of defense, BTW.
No matter what the actual facts are you have already made up your mind as to what the 2A is about, whether the SCOTUS says so or not. Nothing will change your mind until one of the reasonable restrictions get your butt tossed in the can. So there is no point arguing with you, because you are beyond logic and into feelings and what you believe, regardless of the actual facts.
|
Dr. Fresh
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:56 am |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: kparker wrote: maclean,
The ban on loaded long guns in vehicles really was aimed at hunters, and poachers in particular who shoot from their vehicles.
So why don't they just make poaching, and hunting from in/on a vehicle, illegal?
Oh, wait.... don't tell me this is Yet Another Case Of Banning Innocuous Behavior Because Other People Did Something Wrongtm? Bleah, put me down as another vote for getting rid if it! (Not that the climate in Olympia is particularly favorable at the moment; but as soon as it is, then heave-ho!)
Wrong again. They did it because the morons were shooting themselves or others in the vehicles while either being stupid or loading or unloading. The way the law is written it is even illegal to lean a loaded long gun up against a vehicle.
Regardless, it is a violation of my RKBA.
Wrong, when you buy the hunting license you agree to hunt under the states rules. There is no right to hunt so it is not a RKBA issue.
I'm not talking about hunting. I'm talking about my 2nd Amendment right to carry a longarm, which is much more important and relevant than carrying a handgun with regard to protection of liberty. I do not hunt and I do not have a hunting license.
I don't want to burst your bubble but the state already restricts your right to carry a handgun along with the restricting the long guns. If you don't believe it try driving around in your car without a CPL with a loaded handgun. That's a restriction and a long gun is not in most cases a viable weapon for day to day self defense. If you don't hunt or have a hunting lcense, then what are the long guns for and why would you need them loaded in your vehicle? Oh yeah, where in the 2A does it define what qualifies as a weapon? I being the devil advocate here but your reasoning is flawed.
My logic is not flawed. In fact, it's very simple. All of these restrictions violate my 2nd Amendment rights. In accordance with the 2nd Amendment, I should be able to carry any weapon I am able to.
Also, a long gun is the single best defensive weapon available. The only reason I don't carry a shotgun instead of a handgun is because it's too big. Handguns always have been, and always will be, last ditch and/or convenience weapons. They are the first choice for defense in America because they can be carried easily, not because they are more effective.
Did you read Heller vs DC? If so you would have read the the SCOTUS says reasonable restrictions are acceptable. So regardless of what you believe, the guys that decide what the 2A say your right is not absolute. Live with it or file your own suit. A rifle is the best defensive weapon in a car? Not in any tactical or self defense course I ever attend or by any logic I can think of. But then I'm old and may not have thought this out very well, NOT! A subgun maybe but a full sized rifle, uh,uh.
Yes I did, and Heller was purposefully a very narrow decision with the goal of gaining Kennedy's vote. There are MANY issues it does not address, but it does define the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Now, that means it comes with all the trappings of any other right. SCOTUS affirmed this right, and it should be and perhaps will be followed to its logical conclusion.
In other words, as with all other rights, "reasonable restrictions" exist only where my right intrudes upon another's. As a member of this forum, it should be obvious to you that merely carrying a loaded firearm is not intrusive upon the rights of other citizens. Why should this only apply to handguns? It comes down to "prior restraint."
Like all the anits, I'd expect a counter explaining the "reasonable restrictions" on the 1st Amendment, such as the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, or the similar "permits to assemble in a public place." Again, prior restraint is key here. None of these "restrictions" apply to someone before an illegal act is committed. For instance, people are not muzzled upon entry to a theater because they might yell "fire" during the film. Permits are issued to demonstrators because they are interfering with commerce and freedom of movement. Similarly, no one has the right to tell me what I can and can't carry on my person or in my vehicle just because I MIGHT commit a crime/hunting violation with it.
This argument has NOTHING to do with tactical advantages/disadvantages of a long arm. At that point, it's another CC vs. OC argument. Shotguns are a very viable means of defense, BTW.
No matter what the actual facts are you have already made up your mind as to what the 2A is about, whether the SCOTUS says so or not. Nothing will change your mind until one of the reasonable restrictions get your butt tossed in the can. So there is no point arguing with you, because you are beyond logic and into feelings and what you believe, regardless of the actual facts.
Are you talking about the facts of the government's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, or what it actually means? If SCOTUS had ruled the 2nd to be a collective right, would you just sit back and accept it?
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:00 am |
|
| What you or I think the 2A means is not only irrelevant but means less than nothing. The only thing that counts is what the SCOTUS says it means and that's it, regardless of what the Founding Fathers meant it to say.
|
Dr. Fresh
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:59 am |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: What you or I think the 2A means is not only irrelevant but means less than nothing. The only thing that counts is what the SCOTUS says it means and that's it, regardless of what the Founding Fathers meant it to say.
If that is truly what you think, I am greatly saddened. It means what it says.
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: What you or I think the 2A means is not only irrelevant but means less than nothing. The only thing that counts is what the SCOTUS says it means and that's it, regardless of what the Founding Fathers meant it to say.
If that is truly what you think, I am greatly saddened. It means what it says.
Not legally it doesn't say that now and until the revolution when the people finally take the power back from the government it won't mean what it says.
|
Dr. Fresh
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 10:11 pm |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: What you or I think the 2A means is not only irrelevant but means less than nothing. The only thing that counts is what the SCOTUS says it means and that's it, regardless of what the Founding Fathers meant it to say.
If that is truly what you think, I am greatly saddened. It means what it says.
Not legally it doesn't say that now and until the revolution when the people finally take the power back from the government it won't mean what it says.
My whole argument is that the law against having a loaded firearm in your car is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. You spent tons of time telling me it was not, and now you're saying it is, but that it doesn't matter? I knew that all along. Just because it's protected by the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean it won't get you in trouble. That was never my argument.
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 12:41 am |
|
Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: What you or I think the 2A means is not only irrelevant but means less than nothing. The only thing that counts is what the SCOTUS says it means and that's it, regardless of what the Founding Fathers meant it to say.
If that is truly what you think, I am greatly saddened. It means what it says.
Not legally it doesn't say that now and until the revolution when the people finally take the power back from the government it won't mean what it says.
My whole argument is that the law against having a loaded firearm in your car is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. You spent tons of time telling me it was not, and now you're saying it is, but that it doesn't matter? I knew that all along. Just because it's protected by the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean it won't get you in trouble. That was never my argument.
Like I said, what you and I believe is totally irrelevant. We don't get to determine what the law or Constitution says. The courts do decide and that's what we have to live with. What the Founding Fathers meant is also irrelevant because the courts, depending on their make up, which is totally wrong, changes what the laws and the Constitution says. Total BS, but I am a realist and know I dont get what I what, but what the power that be allow. That's a reality and believe that you can live otherwise is just insane.
|
Dr. Fresh
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 05:07 am |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: Dr. Fresh wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: What you or I think the 2A means is not only irrelevant but means less than nothing. The only thing that counts is what the SCOTUS says it means and that's it, regardless of what the Founding Fathers meant it to say.
If that is truly what you think, I am greatly saddened. It means what it says.
Not legally it doesn't say that now and until the revolution when the people finally take the power back from the government it won't mean what it says.
My whole argument is that the law against having a loaded firearm in your car is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. You spent tons of time telling me it was not, and now you're saying it is, but that it doesn't matter? I knew that all along. Just because it's protected by the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean it won't get you in trouble. That was never my argument.
Like I said, what you and I believe is totally irrelevant. We don't get to determine what the law or Constitution says. The courts do decide and that's what we have to live with. What the Founding Fathers meant is also irrelevant because the courts, depending on their make up, which is totally wrong, changes what the laws and the Constitution says. Total BS, but I am a realist and know I dont get what I what, but what the power that be allow. That's a reality and believe that you can live otherwise is just insane.
Believe me, I am aware of this. I only suggested that the ban on loaded guns in cars was unconstitutional and should be repealed.
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 05:33 am |
|
Dr. Fresh wrote: Believe me, I am aware of this. I only suggested that the ban on loaded guns in cars was unconstitutional and should be repealed.
I agree with you there. I would like the courts to look at all the proof the Founding fathers left to tell us what they meant with the Constitution and use that as a guideline rather than their personal political views, which is patently wrong.
|
irfner
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 01:22 am |
|
There is a broader problem with discussion on the second amendment. In the constitution the term 'the people' always refers to rights of individual citizens. If the court rules that "the people' is a collective term for the second amendment then it could be a collective term everywhere else. So freedom of speech etc. could be viewed as a collective right available only to specific groups not an individual one.
There is in this country a means to change the constitution. The left knowing they would fail at that hopes to impose change (Obama) through the courts and legislation. And they won't stop at the second amendment. They will use treaties and the UN to help redefine the constitution.
|
Lonnie Wilson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 02:13 am |
|
irfner wrote: There is a broader problem with discussion on the second amendment. In the constitution the term 'the people' always refers to rights of individual citizens. If the court rules that "the people' is a collective term for the second amendment then it could be a collective term everywhere else. So freedom of speech etc. could be viewed as a collective right available only to specific groups not an individual one.
There is in this country a means to change the constitution. The left knowing they would fail at that hopes to impose change (Obama) through the courts and legislation. And they won't stop at the second amendment. They will use treaties and the UN to help redefine the constitution.
For the love of the gods and all that is holy, please quit spreading the lie that treaties override the constitution.
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that 1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution. 2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
|
Current time is 08:47 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 |
|
|
|
