View Full Version : House passes measure expanding gun rights
Quick! Buy ammo and hide your weapons before the evil Dems come and take them away! :up:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/20/house.guns/index.html
GoldenRivet
05-20-09, 09:17 PM
Why is this a big deal?
we have the right to carry concealed loaded firearms anywhere we want already :06:
CaptainHaplo
05-21-09, 08:47 AM
GR - no you don't. Federal park lands were exempted, then put into play by a Bush executive order if I recall correctly. That was then terminated by Obama, and now there is a movement on to legislate it (as should have been done the first time).
GoldenRivet
05-21-09, 09:44 AM
GR - no you don't. Federal park lands were exempted, then put into play by a Bush executive order if I recall correctly. That was then terminated by Obama, and now there is a movement on to legislate it (as should have been done the first time).
I'm using the "Ted Nugent" interpretation of the constitution. :haha:
"The second amendment to the constitution is my concealed handgun permit"
-SWCowboy.
05-21-09, 01:56 PM
I'm using the "Ted Nugent" interpretation of the constitution. :haha:
"The second amendment to the constitution is my concealed handgun permit"
x2 - I live by it, my handgun is always in my car and i don't hold a ccw permit.
Platapus
05-21-09, 05:21 PM
Hopefully this will kill the crap about Democrats not being Pro-gun. There are many Democrats who are pro-gun, just like there are many Republicans who are anti-gun.
It all depends on the individual not the political party.
Hopefully this will kill the crap about Democrats not being Pro-gun. There are many Democrats who are pro-gun, just like there are many Republicans who are anti-gun.
It all depends on the individual not the political party.
I believe that this is the direction at present and i'm glad to see it. However one bill does not negate 40 years of Democrat promoted and supported anti-gun efforts. The Dems have taken a first step in the right direction. We'll have to see if the trend continues.
nikimcbee
05-21-09, 07:19 PM
...so what does the fine print say in the bill? I trust no-one in DC now. This congress is all about passing stuff w/o reading anything.
"anti-gun" is as silly as "pro-war" or "pro-abortion". I'm for the freedom of women to choose if they want to have an abortion. I'm not a supporter of actual abortions. I see them as a sad, terrible occurrence. I also think WWII was justified, but I'm not a fan of war. As a liberal, I'm not "anti-gun", I just think there are gun control measures that should be taken to decrease gun related violence and homicide, and accidental death. I don't think it's at all out of line to review an amendment that came into effect in 179 frikkin 1. In fact I think it's incredibly reasonable given the changes in availability, technology and functionality in firearms. If this makes me "anti-gun", whatever. What are you, "pro-gun related violence"? :yeah:
GoldenRivet
05-21-09, 08:29 PM
...so what does the fine print say in the bill? I trust no-one in DC now. This congress is all about passing stuff w/o reading anything.
there is a speed reader that knows :doh:
SUBMAN1
05-21-09, 09:31 PM
Nooooooo! Is it Aprile 1st? Can't be! :o
About time they start coming to their senses. Somehow I feel this is some form a diversion, or an attempt to keep their jobs. Time will tell.
-S
Diversion? Do tell, my conspiratorial little friend.
As a liberal, I'm not "anti-gun", I just think there are gun control measures that should be taken to decrease gun related violence and homicide, and accidental death. I don't think it's at all out of line to review an amendment that came into effect in 179 frikkin 1. In fact I think it's incredibly reasonable given the changes in availability, technology and functionality in firearms. If this makes me "anti-gun", whatever. What are you, "pro-gun related violence"? :yeah:
You are in favor of further gun control measures. Check
You don't think much of the 2nd Amendment. Check
In the absence of any actual pro-gun opinion you may have, I think it's certainly reasonable to assume that you are indeed "anti-gun".
Again, are you "pro-gun related violence"?
SUBMAN1
05-22-09, 09:09 AM
Are you implying something?
GoldenRivet
05-22-09, 09:49 AM
Again, are you "pro-gun related violence"?
Im pro-gun
in my opinion there is no gun related violence... only violence.
just as in a hit and run murder with a vehicle is not car related violence it is simply... violence period.
I have long since agreed that guns dont kill people... people kill people.
furthermore, i am AGAINST repeat offenders of any crime... I am however strongly in favor of DEAD offenders.
Validity afoot. However, there is violence related to guns, anyway you cut it. There is, without question, and by default, "gun related violence".
Alas, we lose the point. Calling Liberals "anti-gun" because they favor stronger restrictions on the use, ownership, and availability of assault rifles is an absurd notion. One in which, when the roles are reversed, say, calling conservatives pro-war, or anti-womens rights, all of a sudden becomes a crime to conservatives. In other words, if you favor the war in Iraq, I will not insist you are some blood thirsty war mongering mad man, I'll just disagree with the premise and execution of said war. If you believe abortion should be outlawed, I won't assume you a women hating religious freak who wants to strip the rights of patients and diminish our ability to choose. I'll assume we won't ever agree on the issue. That being the case, don't refer to me as "anti-gun", as if im in favor of rounding up all your precious pea shooters and stripping you of your 2nd ammendment rights. "Anti-gun" is simply one of the many pathetic auto labels generated by republicans, because some liberals favor restrictions on the use, ownership, and availability of assault rifles or other weapons specifically designed for the eradication of human life in high and efficient numbers and means. I have a long history with firearms of the sporting type. (Shotguns, rifles). This kind of proves a point, doesn't it? Here I am, a gun owner for many many years of my life, and I'm "Anti-gun" because I don't subscribe to some our resident conservative's idea of what that exactly means. This is what we call "pigeon holing". It's a sign of small thinking.
Platapus
05-22-09, 01:24 PM
One of my problems with the "assault" weapon ban is that it bans things that are not assault weapons.
It should be named the "ban anything that remotely looks like an assault weapons but is functionally not even close to an assault weapon act"
Enigma brings up a good point. For some people the choices seem to be only
1. Pro-Gun
2. Anti-Gun
Are there really the only choices a person can have? This dichotomy philosophy needlessly divides people who may have more in common then different.
antikristuseke
05-22-09, 01:32 PM
Yes platipus, but just creating a false dichotomy saves time that would otherways have to be spent on thinking.
Again, are you "pro-gun related violence"?
Sure, if it's legal violence. Break into my house and I would have no problem at all putting some extra holes in you and neither would the cops.
Yeah. A regular Clint Eastwood.
So, status check. I am still, "anti-gun", and you are "pro-legal violence".
Got it. :88)
Kapitan_Phillips
05-22-09, 04:53 PM
Nothin' wrong with Clint. :cool:
OneToughHerring
05-22-09, 05:00 PM
Yea, I'm like anti-gun but pro-violence. Kinda like Bill Hicks was against the troops but pro-war. :)
GoldenRivet
05-22-09, 07:36 PM
One of my problems with the "assault" weapon ban is that it bans things that are not assault weapons.
My problem with the assault weapons ban is...
that it keeps me from buying the same weaponry available to a military unit.
My colt 45 or Baretta 9mm would do fine to protect me from the average joe blow home intruder... but what should i do when a military force invades? or our own becomes belligerent?
any law abiding U.S. Citizen should be capable of walking into a gun shop and buying an M249 SAW with all the accessories.
hell if you could afford it, and store it and maintain it... you should be legally allowed to go right up to General Dynamics and purchase a FULLY operational M1 Abrams with ammo and all IMHO.
CaptainHaplo
05-22-09, 07:38 PM
Just out of curiosity - exactly how does gun control legislation make society safer?
It seems to me that a druggy, or gang member, or robber, murderer etc, that would use a gun isn't going to be all that disturbed by breaking a gun law in the process....
On the other hand, regulating guns among the law abiding citizenry does nothing to reduce so called "gun crimes" - as its not law abiding citizens that commit such crimes.
Now I can see the reasoning in limiting firearms to law abiding citizens, and having laws that restrict criminals from having them.
But as is often stated and rarely thought on with seriousnes...
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.
Kapitan_Phillips
05-22-09, 08:07 PM
My colt 45 or Baretta 9mm would do fine to protect me from the average joe blow home intruder... but what should i do when a military force invades? or our own becomes belligerent?
Isnt that what your army/National Guard is for? :-?
GoldenRivet
05-22-09, 11:36 PM
Isnt that what your army/National Guard is for? :-?
on paper perhaps.
but if the __________ Army lands troops on U.S. soil I'm going to be there along with every other gun owner i know.
Aramike
05-23-09, 01:35 AM
Yeah. A regular Clint Eastwood.
So, status check. I am still, "anti-gun", and you are "pro-legal violence".
Got it. :88)Did it ever occur to you that certain acts of violence may be legal for a reason? :oops:
I am proudly "pro-legal violence". Should someone break into a home and threaten an innocent family, I am definitely in support of using violence to defend said home.
Should someone break into a home and threaten an innocent family, I am definitely in support of using violence to defend said home.
Well, you miss the point rather dramatically, but yeah, I'd agree with the above. The point was the foolish/childish need for some to pigeon hole, and label everyone with a differing opinion to their own. Ex: me = "anti-gun". Again, small minds....
SUBMAN1
05-23-09, 01:34 PM
Enigma is either not telling you the whole story on Assault or Sporting rifles, or is ignorant of the facts. You can count the number of times they have ever been used in a crime on your fingers practically. The official number - 00.4% of crimes that used a gun have used such a weapon, and that weapon has always been a Sporting rifle, not a leagally owned Assault rifle. Not even registering as 1% on the scale!!!!
Rifles, including .22 to .308, are used in only 4% of crimes. The reason? They are simply not practical.
The biggest offender of crimes that had a gun present are handguns. A self defense weapon. A weapon that is easily concealed. This ranks in above 90% for handguns of various types.
The final number - legally owned Assault rifles. People don't seem to realize that there are hundreds of thousands of legally owned assault rifles, that are fully automatic, in civilian hands. They are expensive now because of stupid laws forbidding any 'new' assault rifles getting into civilian hands. An M-16 will cost you about $12,000 instead of about $1200 as it should cost. If you are inclined to own a turret mounted mini-gun (Yes, you heard me correctly), those are running around $400,000 these days, when it should be about $50K. Anyway, cost is another thread, but the statistic for civilian owned assault rifles used in a crime? 0%!!!! Only one documented case of someone committing suicide with one, so this doesn't count.
So why is it that these are attacked? The government is scared of sporting rifles is why. It has nothing to do with protecting the civilian population. It has to do with the government removing your ability to remove the government. Nothing more. It just isn't practical to walk down the street to commit a crime with an AK-47 under your shirt (looks a little bulky I would say! :D) when you can put a hood approved 9mm in there instead! :DL
-S
PS. I have a friend that bought an M-60. I still need to go try that. Maybe this summer.
PPS. I hope a crazy that wants to shoot me does so with an AK-47 instead of a shotgun for example - my statistics for getting shot multiple times with the AK? 74%. It wasn't designed to kill but was designed to wound. Same statistic for a 12 guage with buckshot 00 or 01? 30%. Why aren't we going after shotguns then? Because the AK looks ugly, thats why.
PPPS. All these statistics are independent party and contained in this forum with links 20 times over through the years. I'm not going to bother with it because I"m too lazy to search when you can do it yourself. They are all in the general thread so limit your search there is you are so inclined and please share with the rest of us when you find it. THanks.
Ok Sub, explain to me why my posts, which merely mentioned restrictions on assault weapons in passing, means I have to go dig up all the statistics, reports, etc etc? My posts have to do with terminology, and pigeon holing of ideas. How does this make me ignorant of the facts, or not telling the whole story on assault weapons? I'm not trying to convince anyone of my views on assault weapons anywhere on this thread. So, do tell, what the hell are you whining about?
SUBMAN1
05-23-09, 01:59 PM
Ok Sub, explain to me why my posts, which merely mentioned restrictions on assault weapons in passing, means I have to go dig up all the statistics, reports, etc etc? My posts have to do with terminology, and pigeon holing of ideas. How does this make me ignorant of the facts, or not telling the whole story on assault weapons? I'm not trying to convince anyone of my views on assault weapons anywhere on this thread. So, do tell, what the hell are you whining about?
That's the point. Why are you targeting Assault weapons or Sporting rifles in your posts? Why did you bring them up? A lot of posts spun off your idea. Probably up to 4 or 5. That is why I wrote the above post.
Why are we banning anything? Do people realize tank guns exist in peoples arsenals? Can't recall ever hearing of one being used for a crime, but those are banned to.
Final point is, there should be no weapons bans as you suggest. As we have already seen, they just aren't practical to use to rob ones local grocery store or to mug you in the park. Crud, they aren't even practical for your local hitman!
The idea of banning just gets under my nerves. Give me a valid reason and maybe. I'm still waiting for one.
-S
PS. BB. Need to go mow the lawn. Wife put some damn stuff on it that turns it into a forest in less than a week! :o That stuff needs to be banned!
Kapitan_Phillips
05-23-09, 02:16 PM
PS. BB. Need to go mow the lawn. Wife put some damn stuff on it that turns it into a forest in less than a week! :o That stuff needs to be banned!
Dont you have napalm for home defense too? :O:
CaptainHaplo
05-23-09, 02:25 PM
As a presidential candidate - I support Gun Control.
Its called:
"One Shot - One Kill"
Is there any better way?
Platapus
05-23-09, 02:56 PM
As a gun owner I fully support gun control
Weaver stance
Good sight picture
Breath control
Gentle pressure on trigger
Gun control is essential!
Kapitan_Phillips
05-23-09, 04:04 PM
on paper perhaps.
but if the __________ Army lands troops on U.S. soil I'm going to be there along with every other gun owner i know.
As far as I know, no-one has the capability or desire to invade America. If I recall correctly, the closest anyone has ever got since the 1800's was the Aleutian Islands by the Japanese.
Perhaps the biggest enemy of America is the Americans within it.
Platapus
05-23-09, 04:22 PM
Perhaps the biggest enemy of America is the Americans within it.
We have met the enemy and he is us? - Walt Kelly
SUBMAN1
05-23-09, 06:44 PM
Dont you have napalm for home defense too? :O:
Thats just jello gas right? I guess I could make some but the wife would use it on me for destroying the lawn!
SUBMAN1
05-23-09, 06:45 PM
As far as I know, no-one has the capability or desire to invade America. If I recall correctly, the closest anyone has ever got since the 1800's was the Aleutian Islands by the Japanese.
Perhaps the biggest enemy of America is the Americans within it. The politically correct ones. That is the biggest enemy to Western civ there is.
-S
Highbury
05-23-09, 08:27 PM
I own guns and I am not anti-gun at all.
That said, my 4 year old knows beyond a doubt that no foreign power will invade the US. He is a smart kid but a moron could figure that out. The real underlying reason for all of these people wanting assault weapons whether they admit it or not, is they are cool. Many things are cool, but I don't think the public at large should have access.
Trust me, National Defense does not rely on you and your buddies. There is no justifiable need for assault weapons.. and as for walking around with concealed firearms.... I already have a penis between my legs, don't need one on my hip or under my coat. Self defense you say? How often have you guys that pack been in a gun fight to protect hearth and home? uh huh.....
Platapus
05-23-09, 09:09 PM
How often have you guys that pack been in a gun fight to protect hearth and home? uh huh.....
well one time when I was not carrying, I came home and interrupted a young man helping himself to my belonging. He was carrying though.
I was very fortunate that he was not interested in killing me (this was 28 years ago) I don't know how criminals are these days.
Is that "uh huh" enough?
GoldenRivet
05-23-09, 09:23 PM
it only takes once.
i know a man who has a Concealed handgun permit who is a very good friend of mine... he is a 67-68 year old Vietnam veteran and has been forced to draw his .45 on three occasions.
each occasion resulted in a peaceful outcome (the would be robbers/muggers running away)
you dont have to be in a movie scene like shoot out once a month to justify carrying a hand gun... it only takes needing that pistol ONCE to justify it permanently.
Highbury
05-23-09, 10:26 PM
well one time when I was not carrying, I came home and interrupted a young man helping himself to my belonging. He was carrying though.
I was very fortunate that he was not interested in killing me (this was 28 years ago) I don't know how criminals are these days.
Is that "uh huh" enough?
LOL, ok so let me get this straight. He had a gun, you didn't, there was no shooting. If you had been armed do you think it would have ended the same? No, probably not. it is pretty likely that in a standoff between two armed men one of you would have been shot, probably killed. So your lack of a gun helped it end in a peaceful outcome.
Also, for the price of a nice firearm you could get a year or more of monitored security for your home, and he would not have been in there anyways. And again, nobody gets shot.
But if you feel that a firefight would have been a better resolution then oh well.. have fun at Nascar.
GoldenRivet
05-24-09, 12:37 AM
highbury... its that attitude that gives us something called "repeat offenders"
they get off with a slap on the wrist, they might serve a year or two in prison, and they get out early and go back to the same raping, stealing and murdering...
i dont like "repeat offenders"
i like "dead offenders"
peaceful outcome be damned... if i walk into my home and there is a robber or child molester or rapist in my house - the "justice system" will be the very least of his worries.
sorry, but these sh*t heads should be laying on the cold concrete in a clotted pile of their own gray matter.... if you think that having a living criminal commit 100 crimes is better than a dead criminal committing one... have fun at the ballet
SUBMAN1
05-24-09, 01:34 AM
Highbury is one of those people we label as a victim. A victim does not like people who are capable of defended themselves. Its a psychological condition that if you take away the ability to be a victim, then they lose their identity. You will not be able to overcome this, so don't bother responding.
-S
Highbury
05-24-09, 02:35 AM
LOL dude, I own firearms and would certainly not classify myself as a victim, but thanks for your opinion. All I am saying is I don't see the need for people to have military-grade assault weapons, or to carry a sidearm.
As for defending your home with firearms, I can certainly agree with that. Defending yourself with with a sidearm, I don't buy it but I agree it is debatable. But when someone says they need to be armed in case of foreign invaders in the US.... umm yeah.. anyone who wants assault weapons knows damn well it is just because they are, I admit, f**king sweet! That is why I play alot of combat sims... and after playing those sims I certainly don't want John Q. Public able to buy that sh*t!
GoldenRivet
05-24-09, 03:31 AM
we shall simply have to agree to disagree then.
I think that responsible, liable, moral, John Q Public with no criminal record should be able to own ANY firearm he or she wishes to own.
Be it an 1873 model colt peacemaker or a fully automatic MAK-90.
be it for collector purposes, or for home defense, or in case killer space elephants descend upon the planet it makes no difference what the reasoning is because you dont need a reason when you have a right.
but rest assured - i have the right - and i have the paperwork in order and at my house we have pistols, rifles, shotguns, fully automatic assault rifles, knives, sharp sticks, rocks and foul language and the intent to use any or all of them to defend home, property and family.
Kapitan_Phillips
05-24-09, 05:54 PM
highbury... its that attitude that gives us something called "repeat offenders"
they get off with a slap on the wrist, they might serve a year or two in prison, and they get out early and go back to the same raping, stealing and murdering...
i dont like "repeat offenders"
i like "dead offenders"
peaceful outcome be damned... if i walk into my home and there is a robber or child molester or rapist in my house - the "justice system" will be the very least of his worries.
sorry, but these sh*t heads should be laying on the cold concrete in a clotted pile of their own gray matter.... if you think that having a living criminal commit 100 crimes is better than a dead criminal committing one... have fun at the ballet
What attitude? highbury had some good points. Its a long fricken stretch between owning a firearm and actually using it to kill someone. I seriously doubt anyone here could do that. *waits for the smegstorm*
GoldenRivet
05-24-09, 06:17 PM
any man is capable of killing another under the right circumstances.
robbing me blind, molesting my children and/or raping my wife are just a few of those circumstances which would result in my personal justification of deadly force.
anyone who has ever been in a situation where it will be "him or me" who will die - has always chosen the other guy to be the one to bite the bullet.
CaptainHaplo
05-24-09, 08:15 PM
Or - if they didn't - they aren't around to tell us about it now. :up:
CastleBravo
05-24-09, 08:58 PM
House passes measure expanding gun rights
The guns are bad, guns are good argument is an old one and very few are swayed one way or the other on the inter-web, so I will leave it alone. I’d like to confine my reply to the thread title, specifically the words ‘expanding…rights’ For a moment suspend the ‘gun’ in the middle and replace it with any right which is near and dear to you. If you’d like, use speech as the middle word.
A disclaimer here before I proceed. I am a citizen of the United States and as such will be basing my reply, as it continues, on that fact. I am aware that this is a multi-national forum and as such disagreements may occur. Bear with me because I am ignorant of many national, cultural, economic and political differences, so I will not attempt to delve into them.
Here goes………..
Imbedded in the US Declaration of Independence is this phrase;
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
I have bolded two parts which I think relevant to any discussion about rights, and how they were perceived in the time when the US became a Republic. (I know this isn’t a governing document but it does give insight into the thinking of the people who started modern democracies)
Men (super-set men, all humans) are given rights by their Creator, not by their, or any government, or group of governments.
So you see the US Congress is in no position to expand anything. The right is given by the creator, and protected from government intervention by the US Constitution. If anything the congress denied people of the right guaranteed.
Now back to my original thesis…add in speech to the missing word, and deny that speech in ….. lets say WashingtonDC for 20 years. Then allow it again. Is that an expansion or re-establishment of what was ‘rightfully” had from birth?
I think what is often missed is the underlying right of self defense.
SUBMAN1
05-25-09, 12:18 PM
LOL dude, I own firearms and would certainly not classify myself as a victim, but thanks for your opinion....
I certainly doubt it. Maybe you own a BB gun.
-S
CaptainHaplo
05-25-09, 12:26 PM
Welcome aboard CastleBravo, and good post as well.
The real question is that in that declaration, when it said the unalienable rights being "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", does it qualify that the "right of free speech" or "right to own a gun" are part of the three specifically defined?
GoldenRivet
05-25-09, 01:12 PM
Welcome aboard CastleBravo, and good post as well.
The real question is that in that declaration, when it said the unalienable rights being "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", does it qualify that the "right of free speech" or "right to own a gun" are part of the three specifically defined?
no, these are not specifically defined.
not until the United States Constitution is given the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
but one should be made aware that the Declaration of Independence only makes the case for America's Independence... it by no means serves to define our actual rights after becoming independent, that is the function of the Constitution which DOES specifically define the rights to own a gun or exercise freedom of speech.
besides even if we were to interpret the declaration that way we DO HAVE "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
havnt you ever spoken to a United States Marine? most any will tell you
"Happiness is a belt fed weapon."
Platapus
05-25-09, 01:46 PM
Castlebravo,
What if there is no creator? Does that mean that there are no rights? I hope not.
One has to keep in mind what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was. It was a document intended for the citizens of the colonies to garner their support for the Revolution with the secondary purpose of garnering support by third party countries.
You will notice that when it came time to document the foundations of our governmental system, the wording changed from the flowery language of the Declaration to the more exact language used in the Constitution.
Absent from the Constitution are any claims of divine inalienable rights, only statements restricting what the Federal government can and can't do, with statements acknowledging the power to establish other rights to the states and ultimately to the individual.
People create rights. Groups of people (local/state/federal governments) establish rights and their respective freedom/restriction.
In the United States there is not a single "right" that is not infringed to some degree.
A society can't thrive on completely unrestricted "rights" of the people -- that would be called anarchy.
I believe your statement
So you see the US Congress is in no position to expand anything... is inaccurate. All levels of our governance have the capability (and some would say responsibility) to expand or restrict rights within the limitations of our Constitution and laws.
The Federal Constitution defines and restricts the actions and power of the Federal Constitution. Each individual state is free to impose further restrictions or further freedoms as long as they do not conflict with the same restrictions and freedoms in the Federal Constitution (14th Amendment et al). Each state has their own Constitution to define and restrict the actions and power of the State government.
This is why we are still the United States of America and not the United Federation of America. (although I fear we are moving toward a Federation, but that is for another thread) :nope:
While the Federal Government cannot infringe on the "right" to bear arms, an individual state can. The recent SCOTUS decision concerning gun ownership in Washington DC, could only have happened because DC is not a state but a federal district.
This is why there are drastically different gun laws in different states. For example, Virginia is a "shall issue" state concerning CCW while just over the line Maryland is an " only in your dreams" state concerning CCW.
This is also why, for citizens, there is no Federal CCW permit, but individual states have chosen to have reciprocity with other select states.
Residents of Maryland can not cite the Second Amendment as a way of overturning Maryland state laws (believe me, they have tried).
This respect for the sovereignty of states has been recognized by the courts to the extent that the provisions of the 14 Amendment are limited to persons within that specific state.
Your question
Now back to my original thesis…add in speech to the missing word, and deny that speech in ….. lets say WashingtonDC for 20 years. Then allow it again. Is that an expansion or re-establishment of what was ‘rightfully” had from birth?
Is one of semantics. From a practical standpoint there is little difference between a right that is expanded or re-established. In both cases there is a difference between "then" and "now".
Academically, the difference would be a matter of history.
If a level of a right had never existed before the change then the right was expanded. This is represented in the law discussed in this thread. Previously, citizens, regardless of what laws the individual state had, could not carry firearms in a Federal Park. This right to carry firearms was expanded to now include Federal Parks.
If the level of a right had existed but had changed and is now being changed back to the exact same level as before, then that right was re-established.
I can't think of a case where a constitutional right was taken away and then given back. Even the 18th Amendment/21st Amendment did not affect any "right" only a form of commerce. It is possible that some cases concerning Writ of Habeas Corpus might be an example but I am not sure of that.
The take away is that rights are never ever binary. The reality is that every single right has gradations and these can and will change based on time, culture, external effects, laws, and society.
And what changes these gradations are people, either individually or in groups.
Platapus
05-25-09, 01:48 PM
"Happiness is a belt fed weapon."
I thought Happiness was a warm gun (The Beatles) or
Happiness was a warm puppy (C. Schultz)
:D
GoldenRivet
05-25-09, 04:48 PM
I thought Happiness was a warm gun (The Beatles) or
Happiness was a warm puppy (C. Schultz)
:D
:haha:
you have the right to both of those as well.
Yeah. A regular Clint Eastwood.
So, status check. I am still, "anti-gun", and you are "pro-legal violence".
Got it. :88)
Funny, from my seat i see the status check as you're anti-constitutional rights and i'm pro self defense. :up:
CaptainHaplo
05-25-09, 09:00 PM
Status check:
I am anti-gun - for those who have demonstrated via felony crime that they are no longer able to be reasonable and responsible enough to have a firearm.
I am anti-gun - for those who have severe mental issues that are fully documented, and could thus pose a safety hazard to society at large.
I am pro-gun ownership for the average person who wishes to excersize their constitutionally defined right to own a firearm provided they have no issues as listed above.
And before someone makes the argument that this will not stop an enraged husband from shooting his wife - your right. But take his gun away - and he will stab her, strangle her, whatever. Either way, she is dead. Violence will always be an issue in society - regardless of what weapons are available. Guns are not the problem - people are.
Highbury
05-25-09, 09:09 PM
I certainly doubt it. Maybe you own a BB gun.
-S
Where do you come off with these suppositions about people you don't know? No I don't own a BB gun, but I don't own assault weapons or handguns. I have 4 different hunting rifles and two vintage collectables (both were my Grandfather's). I stopped buying hunting rifles when I stopped hunting with rifles and got into bow hunting. I only buy them as tools, not toys.
Stealth Hunter
05-26-09, 05:53 AM
Oh you silly white people, clinging to your religion and your guns.:haha:;)
GoldenRivet
05-26-09, 11:50 AM
Oh you silly white people, clinging to your religion and your guns.:haha:;)
nice thread closer :nope:
Kapitan_Phillips
05-26-09, 01:17 PM
Oh you silly white people, clinging to your religion and your guns.:haha:;)
I have neither! :timeout:
Stealth Hunter
05-26-09, 01:21 PM
I have neither! :timeout:
:yeah:
Stealth Hunter
05-26-09, 01:22 PM
nice thread closer :nope:
You just had to do that, didn't you?
CastleBravo
05-28-09, 03:50 PM
Now the press is under attack. This was the point of my original reply. Where are the rights when government is concerned?
Brenda Lee, Reporter, Dragged Kicking And Screaming From Near Air Force One
Brenda Lee, a reporter for the Georgia Informer Brenda Lee, a reporter for the Georgia Informer
The Georgia Informer describes itself as "a black newspaper for Georgia."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/brenda-lee-reporter-dragg_n_208772.html
GoldenRivet
05-28-09, 03:59 PM
describes itself as "a black newspaper for Georgia."
this is a whole other issue IMHO
if there were a news paper that described itself as a "white newspaper for Gerogia" there would be hell to pay.
CastleBravo
05-28-09, 04:04 PM
this is a whole other issue IMHO
if there were a news paper that described itself as a "white newspaper for Gerogia" there would be hell to pay.
When it comes to the press I and everyone else am and should be color blind. Alas, that isn't the case. But the First Amendment guarantees alone is worth protecting, which is the role of the Second Amendment guarantees.
Platapus
05-28-09, 06:46 PM
Education occured. Don't mess with the Secret Service or other Presidential security.
Common. Citizens. Can't. Just. Walk. Up. To. The. President. And. Hand. Him. A. Packet.
Now Ms. Lee, please write that 500 times and turn it in to your teacher.
CastleBravo
05-28-09, 06:54 PM
Education occured. Don't mess with the Secret Service or other Presidential security.
Common. Citizens. Can't. Just. Walk. Up. To. The. President. And. Hand. Him. A. Packet.
Now Ms. Lee, please write that 500 times and turn it in to your teacher.
But if you read the article she has white house press credentials. Which means she has been vetted. This is a first amendment issue which by extension is a second amendmet issue, not to mention a violation of rights by the Obama admin.
These are just my thoughts. I'm probably wrong.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/progress.gif
Platapus
05-28-09, 07:37 PM
I am not sure what White House Press Credentials allow someone to do, but I would doubt it allows people to walk up to the President and hand him a packet.
I don't think there are too many people authorized to hand the president a packet without it being checked first.
People who have direct access to the President have Presidential Access authority.
The Secret Service is not likely to confuse Press Credentials with Presidential Access.
I could be wrong and the USSS does make mistakes.
CastleBravo
05-28-09, 08:53 PM
I am not sure what White House Press Credentials allow someone to do, but I would doubt it allows people to walk up to the President and hand him a packet.
Your correct, it may be another embarassing Joe the Plumber moment. Where Mr. Obama has to field an ackward question he has no teleprompter to address. LOL
Platapus
05-29-09, 05:51 AM
Your correct, it may be another embarassing Joe the Plumber moment. Where Mr. Obama has to field an ackward question he has no teleprompter to address. LOL
Huh? What did that have to do with the conversation?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.