Court Hears Second Amendment Debate On City Ban

[Nickdfresh]

Having anything makes you a target for burglars, DFB...

Um, really GESC? No shit! You mean burglars (besides you, whom targets turds )target everybody and everything? They don't have specific hot-button items and prefer to ransack people with money? Guns are one of they most sought after booty aside from the obvious. Many find their way to criminals and to Mexican drug gangs, whom directly threaten U.S. national security.

[Nickdfresh]

Why should guns be registered anyway ??

I dunno. Maybe because they are a potentially hazardous item that can easily fucking kill people?

Just a theory though. I mean, we register motor vehicles, nurses, mechanics, hazardous materials, etc. So, it might just be appropriate to register items that can be used to go into a school and waste half of the eleventh grade...

[Nickdfresh]

Pretty sure it's just for the revenue.

Oh please, not even you're this stupid. Registrations are suspended all the time for law or safety violations...

Not unless I commit a crime with it. So it's crime that puts your family in danger. Go figure.

Do you think your family will be any safer if we register everything I could commit a crime with? It's already illegal to commit crimes.

More libertard horseshit...

I mean, why can't anyone just teach your children? I mean, even if they're a convicted child molester whose served his/her sentence, they haven't actually committed a crime until they molest your children...

[Nickdfresh]

Gun registration has historically been used for confiscation, and it does nothing to prevent illegal uses.

I'm pretty sure no legally registered guns have ever been confiscated within the United States. And the control and accountability of firearms does indeed inhibit access by criminals...

Incidentally, I actually believe this old guy SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN a pistol, and that there should be exceptions to city gun bans for those who feel threatened and have been the victims of criminals.

But let's not pretend that guns are no different than a Dewalt drill or an air compressor. That just insults everyone's intelligence. We restrict drivers and motor vehicles, I can't see why any sane person would think of firearms as any different...

[Nickdfresh]

MA has all these laws and many more. And since the laws have been in effect, gun crime has skyrocketed. The storage laws are strict to the point someone could kick my door in and stab/shoot me before I could even get to a gun (not that I could legally shoot them in my house anyway=Felony) Two sides to that issue also.

What point is it for MA or NY to restrict firearms when drug dealers can pay some college drop out asshole with no criminal record to walk into a gun store in VA and buy out the stock of assault weapons so Jamal can have his AK-47?

Again, comparing laws in states with more restrictions is silly when you have reckless states that allow universal ease of access to firearms and the free-for-alls known as gun shows...

[jhale667]

But let's not pretend that guns are no different than a Dewalt drill or an air compressor. That just insults everyone's intelligence. We restrict drivers and motor vehicles, I can't see why any sane person would think of firearms as any different...

Yeah, you can't really compare an air compressor to a multi-ton vehicle capable of taking out a family of four or guns that fire flesh-penetrating projectiles...

[Blackflag]

But let's not pretend that guns are no different than a Dewalt drill or an air compressor. That just insults everyone's intelligence. We restrict drivers and motor vehicles, I can't see why any sane person would think of firearms as any different...

What shitty arguments. First, can you name a single state that doesn't restrict guns more than it does motor vehicles? Say, one state that allows a felon or insane person to purchase a gun? You can't -- so what is the point of your comparison?

But even if your comparison had any merit, there is a reason firearms are different: you don't have a significant Constitutional right to own an air compressor (?) or a car. That's why you "would think of firearms as any different," as you so eloquently phrased it. It's a Constitutional right that implicates personal protection.

Hale, stop being Nick's dickrest and use your brain.

[Blackflag]

I'm pretty sure no legally registered guns have ever been confiscated within the United States.

Ever? Your arguments are just wall-to-wall shit. Off the top of my head, if you're accused of domestic violence, states with registration will check if you have any guns and take them away. Just one example.

[jhale667]

Hale, stop being Nick's dickrest and use your brain.

Oh, I'm "emulating" Nick now? I wish dumbasses like you and Brie would settle on who it is I'm supposedly borrowing from, how am I supposed to keep it straight if you can't?
Constitutional right aside, you can't compare guns to cars and air compressors, as neither of the latter items are specifically designed to kill people...

And there is the argument to be made that the founding fathers couldn't have anticipated Uzis....

[Blackflag]

Constitutional right aside, you can't compare guns to cars

Then why are you agreeing with somebody who's comparing the registration of guns to the registration of cars, dumbass?

He's also the one who brought up air compressors, which as you pointed out, has fuck all to do with guns.

[LoungeMachine]

Why anyone is arguing with someone too stupid to move out of Yakima is beyond me....



I'm starting to see why he "lives" there. Trailer rent is cheap.

and pickin' season is coming up.......

G'night Jimbob

[Igosplut]

I'm pretty sure no legally registered guns have ever been confiscated within the United States. And the control and accountability of firearms does indeed inhibit access by criminals...

That's because there never HAS been gun registration in the US. Other than fully auto guns that have already been mentioned. And those Are more heavily regulated than any other.

But let's not pretend that guns are no different than a Dewalt drill or an air compressor. That just insults everyone's intelligence. We restrict drivers and motor vehicles, I can't see why any sane person would think of firearms as any different...

The simple truth of that is that gun rights are written into the constitution, while obviously motor vehicles are not. Most all states treat (or regulate) Motor vehicle licensing as a "privilege while it's universally accepted that it is a "right" to bear arms..

[Seshmeister]

But the second ammendment was written hundreds of years ago when as an American you were also allowed to keep slaves and rape their children.

I don't get this quasi religious worship of the text.

Robertson v. Baldwin

In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated:

“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;..."

Since your Constitution England on whose common law it was based have enacted much stricter guns laws basically restricting people to hunting rifles/shotguns only subject to a quite difficult to get license.

You could argue that such a strict law could also be enacted by States in the US without being in contradiction of of the Second Amendment following the decision of the court in the case above.

The whole point of a handgun is that it is convenient and easy to conceal. A proper 'militia' would surely be armed with (hunting)rifles.

[Igosplut]

What point is it for MA or NY to restrict firearms when drug dealers can pay some college drop out asshole with no criminal record to walk into a gun store in VA and buy out the stock of assault weapons so Jamal can have his AK-47?

Again, comparing laws in states with more restrictions is silly when you have reckless states that allow universal ease of access to firearms and the free-for-alls known as gun shows...

I get your point, but it is a valid comparison for the fact it shows that draconian laws have the opposite affect. We (the states with the strictest laws) suffer a huge rise in gun-related crime just from the fact "now there's nothing to fear". A good example is Florida a few years back. There was a rash of violent gun related robbery's of tourists driving rent-a-cars from airports. Florida has just enacted a "right to defend/carry" which many southern states have (which means in the face of a life threatening crime, you have the legal right to use deadly force to defend yourself.) This is a specific law that many states won't pass (in fact if I shoot someone in my house in MA. threatening my life, I not only do not have that right, Now I've committed a felony worst than the guy who broke in and threatened me). When they finally got the guys, they asked why they targeted that group of people. The answer was "Simple, we knew they were from out of state and wouldn't be armed"...

[Igosplut]

But the second ammendment was written hundreds of years ago when as an American you were also allowed to keep slaves and rape their children.

I don't get this quasi religious worship of the text.



Since your Constitution England on whose common law it was based have enacted much stricter guns laws basically restricting people to hunting rifles/shotguns only subject to a quite difficult to get license.

You could argue that such a strict law could also be enacted by States in the US without being in contradiction of of the Second Amendment following the decision of the court in the case above.

The whole point of a handgun is that it is convenient and easy to conceal. A proper 'militia' would surely be armed with (hunting)rifles.

And it also has been argued that the right was to be protected from governments and "threats to the people". I can get the texts but it's rather long.