the government could regulate that. the issue about possession came from the challenge to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_S … ct_of_1990
Tu Stultus Es
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Govt does something right for once, extends 2nd Amendment nationwide
im also pretty sure its a felony to transport an unregistered firearm across state lines
Tu Stultus Es
5/4 decision...and Obama has at least one more appointment.
replacing one of those 4.Harmor wrote:
5/4 decision...and Obama has at least one more appointment.
what really pisses me off about the number of 5/4 decisions we've seen within the decade is the fact that these justices are allowing personal politics and ideology to decide really important cases and thats not what should be going on.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-06-28 17:38:26)
Tu Stultus Es
Well, that's happened a lot of the time throughout the entirety of our history.eleven bravo wrote:
replacing one of those 4.Harmor wrote:
5/4 decision...and Obama has at least one more appointment.
what really pisses me off about the number of 5/4 decisions we've seen within the decade is the fact that these justices are allowing personal politics and ideology to decide really important cases and thats not what should be going on.
Judges are supposed to be objective, impartial arbiters, but how many people (even among the educated and intelligent) really fit that description?
There's also the matter of perceiving whether or not a decision is out of principle or out of vested interests. Our own biases as observers affect our ability to rationally make these distinctions oftentimes.
For example, some would say that Brown vs. the Board of Education was judicial activism. Then, of course, there's the question of whether or not judicial activism is actually a bad thing.
Personally, I think the Court needs to be active on some things. Inevitably, vested interests and political biases play a part in interpretations, but as you said, it still serves a necessary balance to the legislative and executive branches.
My only real beef with the Supreme Court is the lifetime appointment aspect. Plessy vs. Ferguson probably would not have happened if the Court had been more recently appointed when taking on that case. It was the fault of older, more out of touch Justices that allowed separate but equal to ever be accepted as a ruling.
Many states don't have firearm registration, but you can still travel between some states with your unregistered firearm(s). This varies state to state.eleven bravo wrote:
im also pretty sure its a felony to transport an unregistered firearm across state lines
Registration of firearms and owners doesn't stop the firearm from being stolen, transferred or used in a crime. It's also usually a waste of time during an investigation. One reason I believe we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is to protect us from the government. I don't believe the government should have access to who, when and where firearms are owned, stored, transferred and possessed.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The main reason I support registration of both owners and sellers is due to the large amount of weapons stolen and illegally sold then used in crimes. That's also why I support guidelines regarding storing firearms under lock and key in the home when you aren't there. Perhaps you could build in a credit or other reward system for owners that maintain a positive record regarding the storage and for sellers asking for and providing all the legal requirements.
Requiring firearms to be locked up increases the cost involved in firearm ownership, which is a right in the US and the government shouldn't require you to purchase additional items or pay fees to exercise your right. I secure my firearms when not in use, because I want to make it as difficult as possible for a criminal to steal my stuff, that doesn't stop at firearms either. I agree that secure storage is a good idea, but I also think the government has no right to require it.
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2010-06-29 09:32:05)
It was a bit of a loaded question.eleven bravo wrote:
no it was a simple fucking question you dumb ass.
I mean, seriously? If he ever intends to buy a gun, firearms legislation is relevant to his interests.eleven bravo wrote:
do you even own a firearm?
not my point at all. my question was answered and the reason I asked it I feel was explained with the further post exchange between hurricat and iunnamednewbie13 wrote:
It was a bit of a loaded question.eleven bravo wrote:
no it was a simple fucking question you dumb ass.I mean, seriously? If he ever intends to buy a gun, firearms legislation is relevant to his interests.eleven bravo wrote:
do you even own a firearm?
Tu Stultus Es
The government shouldn't require a lot of stuff. It's unfortunate that a lot of gun owners are more irresponsible than you are, but it isn't just gun owners that pay for that irresponsibility. The sheer amount of illegally sold and stolen weapons used in crimes is a good enough reason for me to support the things I mentioned. The fact that the cost is increased or that owning a firearm is a right in the US is really irrelevant to that argument.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Registration of firearms and owners doesn't stop the firearm from being stolen, transferred or used in a crime. It's also usually a waste of time during an investigation. One reason I believe we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is to protect us from the government. I don't believe the government should have access to who, when and where firearms are owned, stored, transferred and possessed.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The main reason I support registration of both owners and sellers is due to the large amount of weapons stolen and illegally sold then used in crimes. That's also why I support guidelines regarding storing firearms under lock and key in the home when you aren't there. Perhaps you could build in a credit or other reward system for owners that maintain a positive record regarding the storage and for sellers asking for and providing all the legal requirements.
Requiring firearms to be locked up increases the cost involved in firearm ownership, which is a right in the US and the government shouldn't require you to purchase additional items or pay fees to exercise your right. I secure my firearms when not in use, because I want to make it as difficult as possible for a criminal to steal my stuff, that doesn't stop at firearms either. I agree that secure storage is a good idea, but I also think the government has no right to require it.
Registration of firearms/owners, and firearm safes do not stop crime involving firearms. We have all of those restrictions and then some. We have no land borders, and are literally on the way to nowhere, yet we still have gun crime. It is more focussed on hunting rifles/shotguns - this is a result of the graded restrictions on weapon types - but gun crimes do still occur with all types of firearms. Guns are stolen from shops & private residences, they are sometimes sold illegally over the counter, and despite the lack of land borders & geographic isolation, they're still smuggled into the country (usually via Russian fishing boats). Its not law-abiding citizens you have to worry about.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The main reason I support registration of both owners and sellers is due to the large amount of weapons stolen and illegally sold then used in crimes. That's also why I support guidelines regarding storing firearms under lock and key in the home when you aren't there. Perhaps you could build in a credit or other reward system for owners that maintain a positive record regarding the storage and for sellers asking for and providing all the legal requirements.
Did you read what I wrote? If you curtail illegal sales and require some type of weapons storage than you limit the ability for criminals to procure weapons in that way. It's criminals AND irresponsible gun owners/sellers you have to worry about. Of course people that want to do something are going to find the means to do it...that doesn't mean you don't try to make it more difficult for them.Pubic wrote:
Guns are stolen from shops & private residences, they are sometimes sold illegally over the counter, and despite the lack of land borders & geographic isolation, they're still smuggled into the country (usually via Russian fishing boats). Its not law-abiding citizens you have to worry about.
Two years ago the 2nd wasn't even confirmed as an individual right!
Now it applies to all levels of government--another big step!
The court has NOT defined what level of scrutiny they will give the 2nd. "Rational basis" is pretty much out, from both Mcdonald and Heller, so that leaves "intermediate" or "strict." A true "strict scrutiny" would kill a lot of the gun laws in the US, but "intermediate" may allow a whole lot to stand. That will be the next major step in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, IMO.
Now it applies to all levels of government--another big step!
The court has NOT defined what level of scrutiny they will give the 2nd. "Rational basis" is pretty much out, from both Mcdonald and Heller, so that leaves "intermediate" or "strict." A true "strict scrutiny" would kill a lot of the gun laws in the US, but "intermediate" may allow a whole lot to stand. That will be the next major step in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, IMO.
The government doesn't care if you have guns and ammo.
They control electricity. Three weeks without power and 99.9% of the population will line up and do exactly as they are told.
They control electricity. Three weeks without power and 99.9% of the population will line up and do exactly as they are told.
i dont think thats usm...LostFate wrote:
you know what Usmarine why don't you go an suck the governments dick?eleven bravo wrote:
i just hate the line you seem to be toeing about government being bad with the title of this thread.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
yes, I've fired a weapon. still not sure what that has to do with anything?
and come on GS. you know me better than that. I'm a major advocate of marriage equality and I think oil companies are the scourge of the earth. just because I'm for gun rights doesn't put me in the same group as Mitch and Shifty.
also, I advocate requiring training for anyone who wants a weapon or CCW. I don't think you should be able to stroll into CVS and get a gun.
anyway I gotta go to work.
if it wasnt for government, you wouldnt be here. and, we both know, there are a lot of people, especially in this forum, that would actually prefer it that way.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Wow, you actually give us 3 weeks?ATG wrote:
The government doesn't care if you have guns and ammo.
They control electricity. Three weeks without power and 99.9% of the population will line up and do exactly as they are told.
Does make the owner a bit more careful about storing his firearms, who he sells onto etc.Registration of firearms and owners doesn't stop the firearm from being stolen, transferred or used in a crime.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
That's mostly due to the 'liberal progressive' idea that judicial activism is an acceptable way to push an agenda.eleven bravo wrote:
replacing one of those 4.Harmor wrote:
5/4 decision...and Obama has at least one more appointment.
what really pisses me off about the number of 5/4 decisions we've seen within the decade is the fact that these justices are allowing personal politics and ideology to decide really important cases and thats not what should be going on.
notice I made no distinction between liberal and conservative. funny how you associate judicial activism with "liberal progressive" when you ignore the fact that the conservative side of the court is just as, if not more, activist in their decisions, only favoring "conservative" idealsDeadmonkiefart wrote:
That's mostly due to the 'liberal progressive' idea that judicial activism is an acceptable way to push an agenda.eleven bravo wrote:
replacing one of those 4.Harmor wrote:
5/4 decision...and Obama has at least one more appointment.
what really pisses me off about the number of 5/4 decisions we've seen within the decade is the fact that these justices are allowing personal politics and ideology to decide really important cases and thats not what should be going on.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-07-02 19:59:26)
Tu Stultus Es
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Govt does something right for once, extends 2nd Amendment nationwide