The CT shooting and gun control

• Cleveland Buck

  

  BoatShoes;1393136 wrote:You consistently act like the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed up upon in any way whatsoever because it is a fundamental right/liberty and "cannot be infringed upon" as you've consistently written. That is not the case. Fundamental rights/liberties can be infringed upon and when they are, under due process clause jurisprudence the standard of review is strict scrutiny but the courts will uphold the infringement if there was a compelling interest in doing so and it's narrowly tailored. Point being, fundamental rights can be infringed upon and it's a tradeoff against the compelling interests of Congress to determine when they can be. Which you suggested it is not.

  In your ever so educated opinion, please define what a right is? If you need permission to do something, do you have the right to do it?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1393244 wrote:I disagree. Not only can they be regulated but they are.

  Sure they can be regulated. In exactly the same way that women can be raped. Not legally, but by overwhelming force.
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1393248 wrote:Sure they can be regulated. In exactly the same way that women can be raped. Not legally, but by overwhelming force.

  Arms are legally regulated today. I don't think you will find current legislation that's in place that has been ruled unconstitutional by the ultimate court.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1393249 wrote:Arms are legally regulated today. I don't think you will find current legislation that's in place that has been ruled unconstitutional by the ultimate court.

  The Constitution is the ultimate court. Nowhere did it give the federal government/Supreme Court the authority to ignore what it says or interpret what it says.
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1393252 wrote:The Constitution is the ultimate court. Nowhere did it give the federal government/Supreme Court the authority to ignore what it says or interpret what it says.

  The Constitution isn't a court. It doesn't rule. It's simply a definition. Without interpreting it, there's no way to know what it says. Are you suggesting all interpretations by the Supreme Court are unconstitutional?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1393255 wrote:The Constitution isn't a court. It doesn't rule. It's simply a definition. Without interpreting it, there's no way to know what it says. Are you suggesting all interpretations by the Supreme Court are unconstitutional?

  There's no way to know what it says? You can't read it? It's very clear.
  
  Do you know what powers the Constitution grants the Supreme Court?
  
  The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
  
  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
  
  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
  
  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
  
  Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
  
  The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
  
• Con_Alma

  When we read we interpret. That's the point.
  
  It appears that the judicial powers granted the court exist with matters arising under the constitution. The second amendment seems to fall under such a definition. I am aware of no rulings against existing regulation of arms.
• Con_Alma

  "(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission."
  
  This is one manner that arms are constitutionally regulated...legally
  http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
  
  
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1393286 wrote:"(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission."
  
  This is one manner that arms are constitutionally regulated...legally
  http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
  
  

  Fair enough. This does indeed provide that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Under the same, free speech can be restricted (this site is an example).
  
  This one was interesting:
  
  (14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1393286 wrote:"(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission."
  
  This is one manner that arms are constitutionally regulated...legally
  http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
  
  

  All rights are limited by the equal rights of others. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about limiting our right to own guns, not keeping them off of someone else's property.
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1393297 wrote:All rights are limited by the equal rights of others. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about limiting our right to own guns, not keeping them off of someone else's property.

  That may be what you are talking about. I am speaking of the ability to regulate arms. We can and we do.
• Con_Alma

  "...All citizens above the age of majority would have to be presumed able- bodied unless they or the state petitioned a court to rule otherwise and it granted the petition. However, it would be constitutional to require a reasonable test of competence to citizens below the age of majority, and to issue credentials to those qualifying which they would be required to show when answering calls of the militia or, if the right to keep and bear arms were included among the rights disabled by minority, when bearing arms...."
  
  Here's another manner that we regulate.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1393313 wrote:That may be what you are talking about. I am speaking of the ability to regulate arms. We can and we do.

  I never said you can't or don't.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."
  ~ Adolf Hitler 1935
  
  That registration list came in handy.
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1393319 wrote:I never said you can't or don't.

  Con_Alma wrote:
  They can be regulated, they can be restricted, the can be managed in the legislated process of society's desires,. They cannot not be eliminated from use by the people.
  
  Nothing I wrote in my post was wrong that you quoted. It's not a liberty issue. It's a rights issue.

  Cleveland Buck wrote:They can't. Not legally under the Constitution anyway. Not that it matters. When is the last time the likes of you gave a **** about what the Constitution says? The Constitution is the law the government must obey, but if we can't enforce the law then I guess it isn't.

  
  
  Then I don't understand what you meant by your response..."They can't. Not legally under the Constitution anyway".
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1393296 wrote:Fair enough. This does indeed provide that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Under the same, free speech can be restricted (this site is an example).
  
  This one was interesting:
  
  (14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.

  That entire paper from the Constitution Society was interesting. Maybe the City of Chicago could carry out the actions defined in section 14!!!!
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1393326 wrote:[/I][/COLOR]
  
  Then I don't understand what you meant by your response..."They can't. Not legally under the Constitution anyway".

  I should rephrase it then. They can't legally regulate our right to keep and bear arms, but they can and do physically do it anyway.
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1393328 wrote:I should rephrase it then. They can't legally regulate our right to keep and bear arms, but they can and do physically do it anyway.

  I guess I can stomach that. It's clear the manner that we keep and bear arms can be regulated, however.
• majorspark

  

  Con_Alma;1393255 wrote:Are you suggesting all interpretations by the Supreme Court are unconstitutional?

  He is alluding to judicial review. Where the SCOTUS found the power in the constitution to annul acts of the other two co-equal branches of the federal government by a simple 5-4 majority and hold sole and final authority over the interpretation of the constitution.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI&feature=youtu.be
  
  GUNS (Virtual State of the Union)
  
  
  BRAVO!
• BoatShoes

  Cleveland Buck;1393323 wrote:"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."
  ~ Adolf Hitler 1935
  
  That registration list came in handy.

  Not surprisingly this little nugget of "history" that you plucked off of Ronpaulforums never happened.
  
  http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf
• pmoney25

  

  BoatShoes;1393810 wrote:Not surprisingly this little nugget of "history" that you plucked off of Ronpaulforums never happened.
  
  http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

  Well he did say this
  
  "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke
• Con_Alma

  majorspark;1393387 wrote:He is alluding to judicial review. Where the SCOTUS found the power in the constitution to annul acts of the other two co-equal branches of the federal government by a simple 5-4 majority and hold sole and final authority over the interpretation of the constitution.

  You got that out of me saying they can be regulated and him saying they can't????? Hmmmm.
  
  I think we worked through alright.
• majorspark

  

  Con_Alma;1393858 wrote:You got that out of me saying they can be regulated and him saying they can't????? Hmmmm.
  
  I think we worked through alright.

  Yes.
• Con_Alma

  I had already accepted the power of the Court as final authority before claiming not only can we regulate but we already do.