So you believe that state laws banning the sale, use, and possession of automatic firearms (like the CA law) should be challenged in a Federal Court?
In a word, yes. A ban of an entire class of firearms is a prohibition, not a regulation. As such, it should be found to be a violation of individual rights. Regulation would be a limit on magazine capacities, possibly a limit on the number of full-auto weapons an individual could legally own (which would require registration of full-auto weapons - no problem for me, there) or, perhaps, a ban against certain, specific makes, models, etc. Simply because the Supreme Court hasn't made such rulings doesn't mean that they shouldn't have - or shouldn't in the future. Of course, with that we are getting more into the area of my own belief and opinion than any clear, factual or legal backing.
It is interesting to note that a majority of the current Supreme Court justices seem to support an 'individual right' reading of the Second Amendment. Also, I agree that the outcome of the D.C. case will be interesting. As D.C. is not a state, this might or might not have a great deal of impact on state-level bans and regulations. It could, however, point out the unconstitutional nature of any and all Federal gun control measures.
I actually started to mention this very thing - and how it changed States rights relative to Federal law - in my post. The only reason I didn't was because I feared it would take us on a tangent.
I suppose it IS a tangent, given that its more history than current precedent. Just perspective material, really.
This modern Supreme Court appears far more focused on what foreigners think about us than what our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution have to say about it.
I've never believed that anyone can comprehend the majesty of their vision - and the reverence they held for Liberty - without noting that it was designed from day one around the core belief that FREEDOM of the individual was what needed defending, while the LIMITS of government were what needed defining.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
There is a case currently in the Supreme Court challenging Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns. Since this is not a state it will be interesting to see how the current court rules. This case will be very influential in future gun rights legislation regardless of its outcome. I think the case is being heard sometime this summer... not sure exactly...
The case is Heller v. DC, and you're in luck - the decision is widely expected to be released next week.
I've never believed that anyone can comprehend the majesty of their vision - and the reverence they held for Liberty - without noting that it was designed from day one around the core belief that FREEDOM of the individual was what needed defending, while the LIMITS of government were what needed defining.
I agree 100%. The Founders did seem to concentrate on States rights vs. a centralized federal government. However, I believe that this was largely because they thought that it would be easier for a large, powerful central government to oppress the individual than for a state or local government - the members of which would (theoretically) be 'close' enough for the maligned individuals to throttle (literally or figuratively) to do the same. For the Founders, in my belief, the ultimate measure of a nation was not how long it could stand, how large it could grow or how powerful it could become but, instead, the amount of personal liberty, freedom and independence enjoyed by its individual citizens. Further, I believe that the Founders thought that such individual freedoms were limited only when they caused real, actual harm to others (not potential or 'what if' harm.) In other words, with all the prohibitions, regulations, limitations and the like under which we live today, our Founders might not even recognize the nation they helped to launch. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that if Jefferson, Washington, Madison and others were around today, the revolution would have already started.
Not to fall into a rut, the second American Revolution was defeated when the Confederacy was gutted by the Union.
Since then, the worst fears of the Founding Fathers regarding the abuses of a Federalist government have come to pass.
Now the final bastion against Federal tyranny (the Constitution) is under attack by those entrusted with GUARDING it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB02GT
I agree 100%. The Founders did seem to concentrate on States rights vs. a centralized federal government. However, I believe that this was largely because they thought that it would be easier for a large, powerful central government to oppress the individual than for a state or local government - the members of which would (theoretically) be 'close' enough for the maligned individuals to throttle (literally or figuratively) to do the same. For the Founders, in my belief, the ultimate measure of a nation was not how long it could stand, how large it could grow or how powerful it could become but, instead, the amount of personal liberty, freedom and independence enjoyed by its individual citizens. Further, I believe that the Founders thought that such individual freedoms were limited only when they caused real, actual harm to others (not potential or 'what if' harm.) In other words, with all the prohibitions, regulations, limitations and the like under which we live today, our Founders might not even recognize the nation they helped to launch. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that if Jefferson, Washington, Madison and others were around today, the revolution would have already started.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
I dont mean to offend anyone but I cant believe people are actually voting for this guy. Theres just way too many unanswered questions about him. He has no American Pride he has outwardly said he isnt patriotic about this country. I am very conservative and I believe exactally what our forefathers believed but political party aside IDC if your conservative, liberal, or independent if you dont have respect for the flag or this country get the **** out!!! Let alone become President.
AGREE....................... he is such a empty suit - con-man
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuflehundon
Actually the Brady bill only changed the way guns came from the factory. And limited the ammo capacity for handgun magazines. I bought a post ban M4A3, the only difference was it didn't have a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug. Till I bought it, took it to a gun smith and had him put those parts on. The Brady bill was useless and very poorly written, dumbest law we've had in a while.
When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have Guns.
When Guns are outlawed, I will be an Outlaw.
Amen.........................
McCain and Cindy for pres...................
__________________
To few to mention, actually to lazy to
07 Mustang GT Vert, 5 sp - Redfire His Toy
08 Chevy Silverado 5.3L ExtCab-Deep Ruby Metallic
05 Mustang V6 Coupe, 5 sp - Redfire(Her Toy)
08 Hyundai Elantra - Dark Gray (Her Daily)
Me - Her Toy. Proud member of the MrV. PPR Club
On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama! Friday, June 06, 2008
On the Second Amendment,
Don’t Believe Obama!
The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms. Print PDF version But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.
FACT:Barack Obama voted to allowreckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1 FACT:Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2 FACT:Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3 FACT:Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2 FACT:Barack Obamasupports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4 FACT:Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5 FACT:Barack Obamasupportsgun owner licensing and gunregistration.6 FACT:Barack Obamarefused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case. FACT:Barack ObamaopposesRight to Carry laws.7 FACT:Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8 FACT:Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9 FACT:Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10 FACT:Barack Obamavoted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11 FACT:Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12 FACT:Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13 FACT:Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2 FACT:Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14 FACT:Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9 FACT:Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9 FACT:Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9 FACT:Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
Are spears / knives/ razors, glass bottles, included ?
McCain fo Pres
Actually, some British politicians (with political opinions similar to Obama's), are proposing just that. Laws against sharp knives. I posted it about a week ago in the Hot Zone...
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
I never said the founding fathers were anti gun, how retarded is that statement.... and don't bring up the holocaust right now, that's neither here nor there, and as someone who lost a lot of family in the holocaust I take great offense to that.
What I'm saying here is not crap I'm making up. The Supreme Court Justices are the ones who interpret the Constitution, not the President, and not the Congressmen and Senators. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment for hundreds of years has been that it is a states right. Study the Philadelphia Convention and the pressures the founders were under to obtain ratification and it should start making sense.
If you really believe a state does not have the right to regulate guns then try challenging a gun law in Federal Court... it will most definitely be shot down.
Maybe I have to say this in simpler terms for you to get the point, but I doubt you will because you have already made up your mind. Saying this in simpler terms for someone to says.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by gphasagt
No one individual is guaranteed any right to carry a weapon by the Constitution.
That is as accurate as people who say “the holocaust never happened”
Starting to get my point?
There are records, newspapers and eye witness accounts of the holocaust, there are also records, newspapers and eye witness accounts of the founding fathers “infatuation” (as Michael Moore might say) with guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gphasagt
It is the 50 states who are guaranteed the right to arm their citizens how they please and regulate those weapons accordingly. That is how the 2nd Amendment reads, and how it was meant to be interpreted when it was written so many years ago.
You say this then point to a federalist paper to prove your point and JB posted the paper and where is your proof? Its not their, then you say his interpretation is wrong, read Federalist 10 to prove your point, well here it is ..... The Federalist #10
It talks of the difference between a democracy and a republic, two types of government, just what does the Federalist have to do with your argument? Nothing I can see, please explain this...........
And The Supreme Court Justices are NOT to “interpret the Constitution” if you read more on “the spirit” of the constitution many of the founders greatly feared the Judicial rewriting the constitution to meet their own wants...which has been happening for decades. The Supreme Court is to judge laws by the constitution, I'll post more on this later when I have time to better state this.
And for the record you CAN own a fully auto machine gun, you CAN own a “sawed” off shotgun or a short barreled rifle, they have never banned ANY of them, you just have to have the proper permit.
So a ban on a 17 round pistol mad is a violation of the constitution.
__________________
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
Maybe I have to say this in simpler terms for you to get the point, but I doubt you will because you have already made up your mind. Saying this in simpler terms for someone to says.....
That is as accurate as people who say “the holocaust never happened”
Starting to get my point?
There are records, newspapers and eye witness accounts of the holocaust, there are also records, newspapers and eye witness accounts of the founding fathers “infatuation” (as Michael Moore might say) with guns.
You say this then point to a federalist paper to prove your point and JB posted the paper and where is your proof? Its not their, then you say his interpretation is wrong, read Federalist 10 to prove your point, well here it is ..... The Federalist #10
It talks of the difference between a democracy and a republic, two types of government, just what does the Federalist have to do with your argument? Nothing I can see, please explain this...........
And The Supreme Court Justices are NOT to “interpret the Constitution” if you read more on “the spirit” of the constitution many of the founders greatly feared the Judicial rewriting the constitution to meet their own wants...which has been happening for decades. The Supreme Court is to judge laws by the constitution, I'll post more on this later when I have time to better state this.
And for the record you CAN own a fully auto machine gun, you CAN own a “sawed” off shotgun or a short barreled rifle, they have never banned ANY of them, you just have to have the proper permit.
So a ban on a 17 round pistol mad is a violation of the constitution.
It is not the Constitution that gives you the right to carry a weapon. You're state laws give you that right and can take it away without violating the 2nd Amendment.
Federalist 10 was written to help push the arguement for the need for a new government. The Artilces of Confederation were flawed and states were not well united as one. Fighting often occured between states over land and such things. The Federalist papers were all written to explain why they were writing a new constitution and to convince people to ratify it (the papers were written for New York because at the time it was the state that separated the large and small states, and additionally had the largest and most sucessful economy) The smaller New England states were fearful of take over and oppression from larger states and the representatives from all of the states worried that a large corrupt central government with an army could turn on the people. Thus the 2nd Amendment was written to allow states to arm their people in defense against other nations and if needed other states. The 13 states acted like individual countries under the Articles. Federalsit 10 was helpful in explaining how the states could be unified but separate. It also spoke of factions. I presented this information hopefully to allow you all to try and understand how unsafe the government would be if people were allowed to freely possess weapons without giving the states any authority to control them. If it was the central government who armed the people, the states would feel far less safe than if it was them authorizing their own militias to keep down factions while still being safe from a government turned tyrannical.
__________________
2005 Mustang GT - ROUSH CAI, FRPP Stingers, Silverhorse Blackout Panel, Brushed "Aluminum" Dash Kit, chrome American Racing ROGUE wheels 20x8.5 with 255/35/20 Yokohama S.Drive tires, ROUSH rear springs
There are records, newspapers and eye witness accounts of the holocaust, there are also records, newspapers and eye witness accounts of the founding fathers “infatuation” (as Michael Moore might say) with guns.
I never said that though. That is why I am pretty much giving up on this thread. Alexander Hamilton (who also wrote some of the Federalis papers) was the biggest gun lover around back then.... hell the guy died in a duel... All I have said is that it is the states who allocate and permit the use of weapons and that they are protected by the 2nd Amendment in doing that. <--- There are plenty of records, eye witness accounts, and newspapers to back that up. Hence why I presented Supreme Court cases as examples of states being protected by the 2nd Amendment in creating gun laws.
I have proven that point with factual evidence that cannot be disputed. If you think any of what I said pertaining to my arguement that the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as a states' right by historians, judges, and intellectuals, is not factual, then I am clearly wasting my time.
And all this bullshit about "Say it enough until it's true" is exactly what I should be saying about those of you who do not believe my statement. What is in bold is all I have been saying and all I have proven. Do not start putting words into my mouth that are not there. You clearly do not understand my position on gun rights (mainly because I have yet to say anything about it) and do not get that I have just presented facts about what the 2nd Amendment means to stifle the common misconceptions that sadly many of you have succumb to.
Like I said before: I am not the person who should be teaching you these things. Do the research on your own or ask someone well educated in the subject. I am through dealing with this thread because sadly the respondents thus far have yet to accept fact.
__________________
2005 Mustang GT - ROUSH CAI, FRPP Stingers, Silverhorse Blackout Panel, Brushed "Aluminum" Dash Kit, chrome American Racing ROGUE wheels 20x8.5 with 255/35/20 Yokohama S.Drive tires, ROUSH rear springs
Very interesting and informative thread.I will not vote for Obama,i have too many issues with his policies.As far as guns go,i am a gun owner and believe i should be able to own any type as long as i have the proper permits and such.Seems like there are alot of politicians who would prefer us to have no guns,no gas guzzling cars,etc...while they are riding in a big limo,followed by a SUV with armed guards.....thats is my 2 cents worth....
__________________
Cherish those around you,for at the blink of an eye,they can be gone.
I have proven that point with factual evidence that cannot be disputed. If you think any of what I said pertaining to my arguement that the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as a states' right by historians, judges, and intellectuals, is not factual, then I am clearly wasting my time.
You are wasting your time because you are arguing with educated people. You say Federalist 46 confirms your point, JB posted it it dose not. You then say Federalist 10 explains what Federalist 46 “really” meant. It dose not, its not even the same topic. You explain what the Federalist papers are, look back I have been quoting them and giving people here the same information for the last 6 years. Both of these papers have been posted here, everyone can read for themselves they don't say what you claim because its in black and white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gphasagt
U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876,The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.
Yep rock solid, cant argue that....oh wait, what was the very next sentence?
Everyone lets take a look...............
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
Oh wow when you look at the whole thing it takes a different meaning, Wow how that works.
U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876 is cited in hundreds of pro gun briefs and web sites because it confirms that the right to bears arms (along with other rights it talks of )was a long established right long before the constitution was written, it is one of the “unalienable Rights” you know the rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. That is why it is not granted by the constitution, the right is beyond the scope of the constitution to give.
Lets look at all it says about the second amendment................
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.
The people in the complaint claimed the Clan.......................
had an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the 'right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.'
the court did not here this part (that is why they called it defective, not relating to their case) of the case as it was a state matter for the state to protect its citizens if fellow-citizens were violating.
__________________
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
- Her Toy. 
Voter Information 
