Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by NYCmitch25, Feb 9, 2013.

Page 18 of 18
  1. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you refuse to answer the simplest of questions...............you are not debating. you are only bashing.
    Guess I stand with the rest and you have proven our point.
    I still have my guns, and they will remain with me. If SCOTUS had figured that you were correct, I wouldn't have them now.
    That is proof that your argument is fallacious and not worthy of any further comment. btw, I am outside of that 16- 45 years old that would be called upon to form up a citizen's militia.
     
    stjames1_53, Feb 20, 2013
    #426
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions where no militia service is any requirement to establish such rights.
     
    danielpalos, Feb 20, 2013
    #427
  3. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The District of Columbia vs Heller 2008 clearly state in the decision ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia". Is there some part of that you don't understand?
     
    Professor Peabody, Feb 20, 2013
    #428
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, how did that Court reach that conclusion. What was the line of reasoning developed that shows why our Second Amendment secures rights in private property, which are already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process?
     
    danielpalos, Feb 20, 2013
    #429
  5. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

    Not that it matters. Considering this is your original assertion....

    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia"
     
    Professor Peabody, Feb 20, 2013
    #430
  6. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This ruling was in "error"; rights in even controversial forms of private property are secured in State Constitutions and are available to the People via due process (see the federal Dred Scott decision).

    Our federal Congress is delegated the power to Arm the Militia of the United States, therefore, our Second Amendment cannot secure rights in private property for the Militia of the United States and is more in keeping with the terms, "keep and bear".
     
    danielpalos, Feb 20, 2013
    #431
  7. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not exactly. If you want, I'll explain my position and answer your question in full, right after you answer the questions I asked you.
    Like I said, conversations like this are not supposed to be a one way street.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Feb 20, 2013
    #432
  8. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would state constitutions have any bearing on federally asserted rights?
     
    Meta777, Feb 20, 2013
    #433
  9. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'd be happy to, as soon as you go back and respond to all of the comments that you previously edited out of my several posts. Until then I'll only respond to the parts of your comments that I feel like responding to, the rest will be edited out as if you never even typed them.
     
    tomfoo13ry, Feb 20, 2013
    #434
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Due Process; our federal Government is limited to those powers, specifically enumerated as delegated to our federal Congress in our federal Constitution.
     
    danielpalos, Feb 20, 2013
    #435
  11. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll respond to anything you want, but not if you're going to ignore direct questions.
    If you expect me to go back and respond to something I haven't responded to yet:
    1: Make sure to let me know its something you want me to respond to, either by asking for a response or posing it as a question.
    2: When I start to respond to it, don't tell me I'm talking to myself or that my direct responses to your questions are off topic or making the topic too long.
    3: When I make responses that contain direct questions, don't ignore the questions, or the entire post by quoting it and commenting on something else.

    If you go back and respond to all the posts you ignored using method 3, again I'll respond to anything you want me to.
    Until then, just remember this discussion is not supposed to be a one way street.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Feb 20, 2013
    #436
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of due process or limits on federal power makes it so that state constitutions affect rights in the federal constitution?
    You said that rights of private property are secured in State Constitutions and are available to the People via due process,
    but why exactly does that matter when talking about federal rights?

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Feb 20, 2013
    #437
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It must be a due process issue since the Second Amendment does not specifically enumerate any rights in private property, for the Militia of the United States.

    State Constitutions declare rights to acquire and possess private property, even in the class called Arms, to be inalienable or indefeasible.

    The general government is limited to those objects to which it is delegated the power.
     
    danielpalos, Feb 20, 2013
    #438
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,633
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, some would argue that the second amendment is an enumeration of a right to a certain type of private property,
    and I believe Supreme Courts in the past have agreed with that view.

    But the part I'm still confused about is why due process or rights on the state level have anything to do with the federal rights?
    I understand state constitutions declare rights to private property, but what I want to know is why that matters to federal rights?
    If the states didn't enumerate rights to private property, would the federal government then be allowed to?
    Do the states have some sort of exclusive authority to declare such rights, is the federal government prohibited from doing so?

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Feb 20, 2013
    #439
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't have to enumerate any specific rights as all rights are already assumed to be protected. The fact that some wanted to specifically enumerate a few of them due to the pressure to deny some of the most basic rights is only an example of the continued pressure by some to deny rights of others.
     
    Hoosier8, Feb 20, 2013
    #440
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Most people are citizens in the several States.

    Our Second Amendment says nothing of the sort since keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, especially for the Militia of the United States; because, our federal Congress is delegated the power to Arm the Militia of the United States.

    Our federal Constitution provides for a separation of powers. Only those powers specifically delegated to the general government are enumerated to it; the rest of the powers are retained by the States or the People.

    All States secure rights, privileges, and immunities. The federal government is bound to respect them due to Article 4, Section 2.

    The federal government is only sovereign in those objects which it is delegated that power. Providing for the common defense and general welfare are examples. Immigration and naturalization are other examples.
     
    danielpalos, Feb 21, 2013
    #441
  17. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the Bill of Rights are Individual in nature and designed to be that way. They are irrespective for corporations or groups. It cannot be applied in any other manner. There are no SCOTUS rulings that support the Right as applied to groups, only to the Individual.
     
    stjames1_53, Feb 21, 2013
    #442
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Only Individuals who are entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia" enjoy a Second Amendment exemption from State laws regarding gun control in favor of federal regulations as prescribed by our federal Congress.
     
    danielpalos, Feb 21, 2013
    #443
Page 18 of 18

Share This Page