Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Revolution Starts: Confiscation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    looks like it is being challenged already:

    Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-dfr-assault-weapon-ban-lawsuit-tl-0412-story.html


    Lawsuit challenges Deerfield's assault weapons ban: 'It flies in the face of state law'

    © Copyright Original Source

    Which is why we need to repeal and replace, ya know, like republicans did with healthcare , the 2nd amendment with more sensible language.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Which is why we need to repeal and replace, ya know, like republicans did with healthcare , the 2nd amendment with more sensible language.
      Sometimes I think you actually study on how to say stupid things on theologyweb.

      Comment


      • #33
        Replace with what? I doubt anyone will actually be able to do anything, but for arguments sake it is done. What do you replace it with? You will have arguments on all sides. For all you know it could be replaced and the ban on machine guns may be lifted. Replace with what? Name some policies.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
          Which is why we need to repeal and replace, ... the 2nd amendment with more sensible language.
          Right. Maybe we need to strip out the language about militias since that seems to confuse low-info liberals like you and just have it read, simply, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Right. Maybe we need to strip out the language about militias since that seems to confuse low-info liberals like you and just have it read, simply, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
            Or perhaps the language about militias, about the need of well regulated militias, was actually included in the text for a reason.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Or perhaps the language about militias, about the need of well regulated militias, was actually included in the text for a reason.
              because when the British ARMY tried to put down the revolution, ordinary farmers banded together and fought them off.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Or perhaps the language about militias, about the need of well regulated militias, was actually included in the text for a reason.
                Obviously "well regulated" was intended to mean that the government could pass myriad laws banning the use of assault weapons, which fortunately is a clearly defined category of firearms.
                I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  because when the British ARMY tried to put down the revolution, ordinary farmers banded together and fought them off.
                  Yes, which is why the right was not to be infringed. But the fact that the right already existed, there was no law against it, doesn't make the right to keep and bear arms, as you have asserted, a natural right. The reason it was not to be infringed upon was not because it was a natural right, it was to protect the state. Different time, different circumstances. But the SCOTUS has already determined that the right is not unlimited, so nothing of the amendment actually has to be changed, all we have to do is decide the limits we want to put on it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                    Obviously "well regulated" was intended to mean that the government could pass myriad laws banning the use of assault weapons, which fortunately is a clearly defined category of firearms.
                    Take it up with the SCOTUS. Yes the government can regulate, or ban, the use of assault weapons. We've already done it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Yes, which is why the right was not to be infringed. But the fact that the right already existed, there was no law against it, doesn't make the right to keep and bear arms, as you have asserted, a natural right. The reason it was not to be infringed upon was not because it was a natural right, it was to protect the state. Different time, different circumstances. But the SCOTUS has already determined that the right is not unlimited, so nothing of the amendment actually has to be changed, all we have to do is decide the limits we want to put on it.
                      So basically because it was a right that they believed we already had by virtue of being human beings, that means that it wasn't a natural right?

                      Jim...

                      index.jpg

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Take it up with the SCOTUS. Yes the government can regulate, or ban, the use of assault weapons. We've already done it.

                        no actually they haven't
                        .

                        You can still own a machine gun.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          So basically because it was a right that they believed we already had by virtue of being human beings, that means that it wasn't a natural right?

                          Jim...

                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]27334[/ATTACH]
                          Where does it say that the FF believed that the right to bear arms was a natural right. If it were thought to be a natural right, then they wouldn't have had to even mention militias, or protection of the state in the amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is just a right that people had because there was no existing law prohibiting it, not because it was a natural born right. You're just making that part up.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                            no actually they haven't
                            .

                            You can still own a machine gun.
                            The Federal assault weapons ban was in place from 1994 until 2004 when it expired. So, yes we have already done it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Where does it say that the FF believed that the right to bear arms was a natural right. If it were thought to be a natural right, then they wouldn't have had to even mention militias, or protection of the state in the amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is just a right that people had because there was no existing law prohibiting it, not because it was a natural born right. You're just making that part up.
                              They didn't. In fact it was argued that the Bill of Rights was not even needed because the rights already belonged to the people. Smarter heads prevailed and insisted they be written down anyway. The Bill of rights doesn't give us rights, it is a list of limitations of governmental powers. We already had the rights because they were natural rights.


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                The Federal assault weapons ban was in place from 1994 until 2004 when it expired. So, yes we have already done it.
                                no. They only TRIED to ban the manufacture of vaguely defined "assault" weapons and "high capacity magazines". You could still own any made prior to 1994. But the law was so messed up and full of loopholes it was practically not even there.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:46 AM
                                0 responses
                                3 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by seer, Today, 04:37 AM
                                22 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by seanD, Yesterday, 04:10 AM
                                26 responses
                                141 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 05-01-2024, 04:44 AM
                                13 responses
                                88 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Ronson, 04-30-2024, 03:40 PM
                                10 responses
                                75 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Working...
                                X