Posted on 01/20/2008 5:31:20 PM PST by Copernicus
What a disgusting thing to say! Tells me all I need to know about you...you’re vile. When responding to someone I usually quote what I’m replying to but in this case I won’t quote such a vile personal attack.
Wake Up America!!
As a gunsmith and gunstore owner I feel completely betrayed by the new party of the left. I would expect this from the far-left, but the “conservative” party has gone so far to the left that I feel they are beyond repair. I’ve washed my hands of them. They’ll not get another vote from me.
The restrictions on the 1st Amendment that you cite are in the nature of punishment (either civil or criminal liability) for the violation of the rights of others. They are absolutely NOT in the nature of prior restraint. The DOJ wants to maintain the power of the government to restrict/effectively ban certain weapons BEFORE a person even buys them. A perfect example is a post-5/19/1986 full auto firearm: you and I simply cannot buy them. That you could buy an otherwise identical firearm that was registered on 5/19/86 shows the clear intent of the law: to drive up prices so that only wealthy collectors could afford full autos, and to make sure that the number of them is limited.
The 1st Amendment equivalent of such prior restraint would be the forced removal of your tongue prior to entering a movie house, on the theory that you might yell "fire!" when, in fact, there was no such fire, and thereby criminally endanger others.
I guess that I must have grown up in a different country, one in which law-abiding citizens were assumed not to be criminals, and were not prohibited from exercising their most basic right because some control freaks with power think that they MIGHT commit a crime with a firearm.
Good point. It can additionally be argued that the Constitution's provision for letters of marque is an implicit acceptance or approval of non-governmental people/entities possessing warlike armaments....
They also had cannons and warships. They also used tons of blackpowder when they mined under fortifications and blew them up. The first submarine was developed during the Revolutionary War, though the attempt to attach a mine to the underside of a ship was unsuccessful.
The Second Amendment protects "arms" not "firearms".
I did read it; it’s not talking about nuclear weapons or tanks. It talks about stuff like handguns. The administration does not want the USSC to favor the 2A.
It's called "the amendment process". You don't expect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to just automatically adjust itself to changing conditions, do you?
And what do you think are the chances that the super-majority of Congress and the super-majority of state legislatures that are needed to amend are going to ratify an amendment permitting the outlawing of some rifles because they have a bayonet lug?
If there are restrictions that the people of the US will approve to the protected right to keep and bear arms we will never know as long as a simple majority is allowed to infringe the right.
Right. Well, possibly right. Ditto for bans on arms not metal detectable. This is the solicitor's concern.
Ok. That's not solely what is at stake here, and as others have pointed out, revoking the right to arms as part of the penalty doesn't seem to be unreasonable for certain criminals, not much different from MEgan's law.
If someone initiates a personal attack on me, as he did, they need to be fully prepared for an extreme elevation of invictive in return.
If you want to talk about prior restraint, that's a different discussion.
It's not the Hunley - from the Civil war?
The Second Amendment protects "arms" not "firearms".I don't see what your point is as it pertains to this case or to the test the appeals court has created.
It’s not that simple. They don’t want it to support it in such a way that it throws out all of the current federal and state restrictions all at once.
Er, now that I remember - it isn't talking about handguns, it's specifically talking about machine guns and handguns that cannot be detected in metal detectors, and it also discusses preventing certain criminals from accessing weapons. You may agree or disagree with these limitations, but the brief isn't just about handguns.
“More likely all these Big government folks fear free citizens would hamper their agenda for a global socialist utopia.”
I think you’re right. I have had a heartening experience lately though, in that I met a couple of “kids” on a new job that are staunch gunnies. They are both 21 years old and are what I would consider squishy in some areas but they are passionate about 2A rights and have even started their own gun club.
Maybe there’s hope yet.
That would be one way to pursue this. Maybe a good one.
You don't expect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to just automatically adjust itself to changing conditions, do you?
I don't think it needs to, nor does it need to be frequently amended to adjsut itself to changing conditions. I think the constitution is fine as it is and if interpreted correctly and with original intent in mind, can continue to work just fine. Re: 2nd amendment, the 'militia' language in the text suggests the right to bear arms doesn't apply to a group of Islamic extremists manufacturing, distributing, and posessing suicide vests.
Then this is nonsense because there aren't any firearms that fall into this category. There are some mines that are mostly non-metallic for obvious reasons.
If you want to talk about prior restraint, that's a different discussion.
What is a broad gun ban of any kind, other than prior restraint? Isn't that what's at issue in this case? Isn't the DOJ memo an attempt to retain this power on the federal level by calling it "reasonable restraint?"
Sorry, “reasonable restrictions”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.