Acceptable actions of Congress concerning gun laws

[P5 Guy]

Camp One

What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?

 

[Radiki]

What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?

I don't think that was ever the part argued. I believe it was the definition of people and militia. and what arms are.

 

[Perldog007]

Camp One idealistically. I do however submit to restrictions, have in the past, and will continue to do so.

One of those weenies who believes in working for change and all that other touchy feely stuff we children of the 70's tend to go for.

 

[Pat H]

These arguments about mythical absolute rights that are so holy that no restrictions at all can be legislated against them are getting tiresome.

Intrinsic rights are absolute, there's no "argument" about it. Only those wishing some methodology of rights infringement create such arguments.

There are some reasonable limits to free speech (libel, etc.)

No, that's not an infringement upon a right, since rights cannot extent into and occupy someone else's intrinsic rights. I have the intrinsic right to swing my arm, that does not mean I have the right to swing my arm into your head. I still have an absolute, intrinsic right to swing my arm. Rights are self limiting because of their nature.

and even religion (can't do human sacrifice)

That is true, but it's not based on authorization of power to government. Human sacrifice is limited by the right of the victim to life. The freedom of religion does not include the right to harm another.

and there will be to the 2nd amendment as well. As long as law abiding citizens can effectively arm themselves the intent and spirit of the law has been upheld.

The Second Amendment protects the right to be armed with any arm, government intervention in that freedom to be armed is forbidden by it.

If there is no law limiting what I can sell and where I can sell it, then I CAN setup my vending machine with welding firing pins on SKS rifles across the street from elementary schools.

You can set up gun sales on your own property across the street from an elementary school, but you cannot contract with a minor (which is what a agreement to sell is) for anything not authorized by the parent (or surrogate). If I found that you sold something to my child that I did not want him to have, I could sue you, without regard to what that is. We moderate that in our society somewhat, but the truth is that I can sue anyone for contracting to sell to a minor child without my permission.

The point about once a prisoner is released from prison they should get all of their rights back is valid, I just personally don't agree with it.

After serving the full sentence.

For one thing, right or wrong most prisoners are currently released on probation, which means they are effectively still under control of the state.

Probation is a part of a sentence, that's why I stated in a prior post full completion of sentence.

They have very few rights during this period -- you don't even have to get a warrant to search their premises, because for all practical purposes they are still in jail.

I know this, most folks do.

I think rights should be restored to the majority of people released from prison, even including voting rights. But the best way to retain your rights is just to to commit a felony, which doesn't seem like too much to ask.

The focus of this thread acceptable levels of restrictions on firearms access by government.

There are NO acceptable levels of restriction by government on the right to be armed. Accept any level then all levels become acceptable.

 

[crashm1]

"Camp One idealistically. I do however submit to restrictions, have in the past, and will continue to do so.

One of those weenies who believes in working for change and all that other touchy feely stuff we children of the 70's tend to go for."

Ditto, which means I haven't made a machine gun or sawn a barrel of under the legal limit so far and buy my toys from people I trust to have come by them legally. I'm getting cranky about the machine gun thing lately since it is unlikely I will ever have the cash to buy a legal M-16 or FAL.

 

[Perldog007]

The machine gun thing does not bother me personally, only as a concept. My favorite assault rifle is the Swedish Mauser, any of them. Runner up the Ishapore SMLE .308.... YMMV.

Personally think it sucks that machine guns are regulated. Criminals get cocaine into the country by the metric ton. But taking away our most effective defense tools will stop them. Oh yeah. Where did I set my kool aid down????

 

[Garand Illusion]

Pat ... I still don't agree with you, but you make an intelligent argument.

There are NO acceptable levels of restriction by government on the right to be armed. Accept any level then all levels become acceptable.

But an absolutist would argue that even you find some restrictions acceptable.

i.e. -- what do you define as a child? That term is not defined in the constitution. 13? 18? Many young teenagers got married back then. If congress gets to define that term, maybe they should set it at age 45?

And why do the rights of the COTUS not apply to these children you have somehow defined, since the constitution does not? It doesn't say ... "Shall not infringe for those of drinking age or greater."

Also ... your argument that religious human sacrifice is rightfully prohibited because of the "right to life of the victim." But where is that right enumerated? And if I choose to die, i.e. if I WANT to be crucified or stoned to death or whatever, have I not the right to choose to do that? If I choose to do something or have something happen to me, how am I not the victim?

But the bottom line is ... if I say that registering machine guns is acceptable to me, in NO WAY does that mean that I am accepting a total ban on arms. I don't want my neighbor or anyone else to be able to own WMD or artillery (well, I guess the latter under some circumstances). But I do want him to own just about any other type of firearm he can afford.

Life is not all or nothing. Just like laws about libel are a slippery slope (knowing that you can be stricken of your property if you cannot prove what you say to be true, even though you know it to be true, IS an inhibitor on speech) so are laws about guns.

But Like it or not we're going to live on that slippery slope. The only countries with more free gun laws are probably not good places to live. Like maybe Somalia.

The constitution is a model to follow, not a straight jacket. A damn fine model, to be sure. But in any case, the amendments were purposely written with sparse verbiage to protect the concept while allowing the fine points to be dealt with through legislation.

 

[anygunanywhere]

Also ... your argument that religious human sacrifice is rightfully prohibited because of the "right to life of the victim." But where is that right enumerated?

Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.

The Constitution and BOR do not list all of our rights. We have rights that are not enumerated.

You can kill yourself if you want to. Nothing here has been stated that prevents you from doing so. Like Pat states, your rights are self limiting. If you want to end it all, have at it.

You do not want any infringement to off yourself, why do you want to infringe on the 2A?

Anygun

 

[stevelyn]

The only laws regarding guns that should exist should be for misuse. Since things like murder, assault, reckless endangerment and damaging property of others are already against law, any gun law would be redundant and should be stricken.

It shouldn't whether any of the above crimes are committed with a gun, hammer, bat or motor vehicle.

Possession and carriage of an inanimate object shouldn't rise to the level of being an offense against society.