Miami-Dade County Ordered To Allow Firearm and Ammo Supply Stores To Remain Open

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Well Bonded, Mar 31, 2020.

  1. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Following such logic, no individual should be allowed to leave their residence under any circumstances for the duration of the current crisis.
     
    Levant likes this.
  2. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Huh? Watchoo talkin about, Willis?

    Please quote where the Second Amendment says anything shall not be infringed other than the right to keep and bear arms.
     
    Well Bonded likes this.
  3. ChoppedLiver

    ChoppedLiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already did. You re-quoted it. It was the bolded part. And you added another (the third part).

    The only one left is "A well regulated militia", the first of the three.

    All of those three shall not be infringed.

    Commas matter.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  4. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it is quite explicit...

    Then again, you're preferring a modern interpretation of the written form as originally documented:

    Can you please tell me how to infringe on "being necessary to the security of a free state"? Or even how to NOT infringe on it? Of course I would happily accept your interpretation, including the grammatically ridiculous part, if it meant that the well regulated militia couldn't be infringed as well, such as by pretending that the National Guard equates to the constitutionally provided for militia. But, alas, you're wrong and the Second Amendment does nothing to protect the militia - though the Constitution defines it and contemporaneous writings clearly explain the definition so it was already protected and most certainly infringed with the claim that the Guard == the militia.

    Multiple commas in a sentence are sometimes used to separate a list, as you're pretending to interpret the Second Amendment. In this case, there must be a coordinating conjunction before the last item of the list to indicate that it was a list. Or, playing a cumulative role, commas add optional parts to a sentence. In the latter case, the sentence should still make sense and be valid if you remove optional parts.

    Which of these make sense:

    "A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is clearly not a list or it would have said, "A well regulated Militia and the right of the people..." It also was not intended that the right to keep and bear arms was an optional part, such as, "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."

    I kind of like: "Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." That would be a good, grammatically correct, interpretation.

    Or, how about this one: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I like that one.
     
  5. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I forgot to post a link to The Unabridged Second Amendment in my post above and it's too late to edit. The linked article dissects the sentence very well. You should read it.
     
  6. ChoppedLiver

    ChoppedLiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A firearm store is something that is necessary to the security of a free state.
    A firearm range is something that is necessary to the security of a free state.
    Firearm training is something that is necessary to the security of a free state.
    Firearm transportation is something that is necessary to the security of a free state.
    Firearm repair is something that is necessary to the security of a free state.
    Just to name a few. And they are not to be infringed upon.
     
  7. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That's absurd. The clause, "being necessary to the security of a free state", is an adjective clause, adding additional information about well-regulated militias. The only target of that clause is the well regulated militia. You won't find any contemporaneous writings (and no educated current writings) that suggest the Second Amendment limits anything that infringes on the security of a free state. It forbids infringements on the right to keep and bear arms... That's it.

    Consider the statement, "Bob, a poor man, shall be hung at dawn." Does that say that Bob and a poor man will be hung or does it say that Bob is a poor man.
     
  8. ChoppedLiver

    ChoppedLiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it was an "adjective clause" as you described in the quoted post and the "logic" you used from another post, then the Heller Decision wouldn't have happened. They would have ruled that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms would be tied to the militia.
    "Educated current writings" have shown how things were written in general as well as in the Constitution in those days.
    Judge someone/something by the criteria of their time, not ours.
     
  9. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m not against private gun ownership, but really? Every gun owner who has posted in this thread probably has at least 5 guns and a couple hundred rounds already stashed away. You could do without more for a couple of months?

    I say this not to restrict your second amendment rights but to point out that Doctors and Nurses are stretched to the breaking point right now and everything we can do to help them is more important than the social interaction of buying another gun and possibly adding to their virus burden... think of someone besides yourself for a change.
     
  10. BasicHumanUnit2

    BasicHumanUnit2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The frightening part is that almost 50% of voters actually did vote for Gillum. The vast majority of those votes coming from Jacksonville and WPB and Broward Counties. Areas of concentrated idiots.
    The same guy not a year later busted in a hotel room having gay sex while doing meth.
    (which is his business, but probably not a good set of values for public office..the meth anyway. I couldn't care less about his sexual preferences)

    And still, the left fights tooth and nail to get these types into power.
    Eventually they will and we will pay dearly for our failures.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
    FatBack and Well Bonded like this.
  11. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Based on interviews with FFL and people waiting in line a lot of the buyers are first time gun owners, which is one of the reasons ammo is driving choice, in many cases.

    Existing gun owners are not going to stand in long lines to pay inflated prices for another gun, in fact more and more of them are buying their guns on the internet where they can get some excellent deals, at prices below what a one up FFL pays for the same guns.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
    Levant likes this.
  12. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another pillar of the community.
     
    BasicHumanUnit2 likes this.
  13. BasicHumanUnit2

    BasicHumanUnit2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ditto
     
    Well Bonded likes this.
  14. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you not understand the issue here is access to firearms by people who did not own one or more,. prior to the onset of the current national emergency.
    Why should these people be denied access?
    How is denying them access necessary and effective?
     
    Levant and Well Bonded like this.
  15. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Take a look at the recent statistics involving NEW gun owners in these recent weeks. This isn't about me buying another gun to add to my safe, this is about first time gun owners having the ability to purchase a firearm if they so desire during a time of national crisis and possible civil unrest in the future.

    And since so many seem to be adamant about banning private sale then how else are these citizens supposed to purchase a firearm right now unless the gun stores are open?

    This is an election year, would you be in favor of us indefinitely suspending this years remaining Primaries and November election if the pandemic lasts that long? Or would you consider our nations elections to be "essential" during this time?
     
    Levant likes this.
  16. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could you imagine the howling that would come out of the left if Trump delayed the national elections?
     
    Levant and Nightmare515 like this.
  17. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There would be riots. Even if COVID-19 has a 90% fatality rate and was airborne and killing a million Americans per day, everyday, they would still claim that Trump used that as an opportunity to crown himself King.

    Am I advocating we suspend elections? Absolutely not. Merely pointing out the very apparent double standard in the country of treating the US Constitution as an a la carte menu whenever it's convenient.

    How many of those advocating for moving to a mail in ballot system would also support me being able to have an AK-47 mailed to my front door Amazon Prime style? We all know the answer to that question, but those not in favor always figure out a way to justify why THEIR proposal is OK but the other one isn't.
     
    Levant and Well Bonded like this.
  18. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sadly there was a time where that was possible, I had UPS deliver a very nice Thompson 1927 A-1 to my door and I wasn't a FFL at the time.
     
    Levant likes this.
  19. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup, and when such a proposal is made again and put up against the mail in ballot proposal the "counter-argument" will be so apparent that I don't even have to wait for anyone to come up with it.

    Having a bunch of folks in line or in close confines in the polling stations would go against the CDC recommendations of social distancing due to the current pandemic. However, in order to ensure we allow Americans to exercise their Constitutional Right to vote we propose mail in ballots. (AGREE!)

    Having a bunch of folks in line or in close confines in the p̶o̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ gun stores would go against the CDC recommendations of social distancing due to the current pandemic. However, in order to ensure we allow Americans to exercise their Constitutional Right to v̶o̶t̶e̶ bear arms we propose shipping firearms directly to customers. (DISAGREE!!!!)

    Why?

    Because background checks and proper ID and verification and children and stuff!

    Aren't yall the same people arguing that having to show ID to vote is disenfranchising and Unconstitutional? So...does that mean you don't have to have an ID to mail in a vote then?

    It's not the same!!!!

    oh ok.
     
    mtlhdtodd and Levant like this.
  20. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I believe mail in votes are valid, if one is properly registered in advance with a valid ID presented to the local SOE, no valid ID no vote, go get a valid ID and try again, likewise, I believe people should be able to order firearms on-line and have them shipped to their home or apartment (signature required), if the FFL transferring the firearm is able to get a NICS approval for the buyer.

    I can find no reason a prospective firearm buyer needs to go to a gun store and provide the same ID or such, and fill out a 4473, when it can be all done on-line.

    Go to the website, register your billing and shipping address (which should be the same to lower the chances of people buying firearms for prohibited transfers), provide a copy of a photographic ID, complete the on-line 4473 and if NICS kicks back a approval, ship the firearm to the buyer.

    If NICS denies the approval because the buyer is a felon, then forward that information to the local LEO to do a followup, just in case that felon already has a few firearms in their possession.

    I honestly believe no one should be allowed to vote, unless they can prove they they are a citizen, or not a felon without their rights restored, anything else dilutes the honest voters decisions as to who should be elected.

    Sadly the liberals and Democrats wish and work for the opposite of that, they understand without the devaluation of the legal voters, they will never be able to achieve their very incorrect values, damage to the country and their socialist goals.
     
    Levant likes this.
  21. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do as well for if the protocols you mentioned were in place and the law of the land. You are demonstrating consistency here which is what I respect. For many folks consistency gets thrown out of the window in favor of personal beliefs.

    How many who are in favor of a mail in voting system would be willing to also concede to allowing firearms shipped to my front door?

    The same folks who argue in favor of no voter ID largely argue in favor of background checks and ID requirements to purchase a firearm. If requiring someone to show ID to vote is considered disenfranchisement and an infringement on ones Rights then so is requiring me to show ID to purchase a firearm. If I shouldn't have to provide ID to prove myself as a lawful citizen to vote then I shouldn't have to provide ID and fill out a 4473 to prove myself a lawful citizen to purchase an AK-47. However, I can't think of a single time I have EVER heard someone who is anti-gun agree with that.

    It's the whole Constitution as an a la carte menu thing again. Only the 2nd Amendment gets this sort of treatment. If we treated other Amendments the way we do the Second there would be riots in the street. The fact that the Federal Government had to step in and say that firearm dealers were essential personnel is proof of that.

    Imagine if this was October or November and Governors tried to say that polling booths were considered non-essential and were not going to be open for the election. There would be RIOTS. But Governors can say that firearm dealers are non-essential and half the nation is like yeah no problem we don't like guns. Both of those things are Constitutional Rights and of equal value yet due to personal beliefs so many Americans just dismiss one of them and/or are perfectly ok with that particular Right being trampled on.
     
    Well Bonded and Levant like this.
  22. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Hillary went on record today saying Trump doesn't have the authority to delay the election - and she's right. So let's see what she and the Democrats are saying when, by late summer, the polls show Trump far ahead of Biden.
     
  23. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Voting is the only right that the Constitution explicitly permits revoking from criminals.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no rational argument against a on-line purchase where the seller runs the background check, sends the gun to the buyer via USPS, and the delivery person checks ID and gets a signature.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2020
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where does the constitution, explicitly, do this?
     

Share This Page