Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

HobbieMan · 01-10-2017, 11:32 PM

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

HobbieMan · 01-10-2017, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

But they can't avoid the phrase "well regulated" and Scalia's opinion specifically talks about place restrictions. So it is far, far from clear that there is any right for any private individual to have a gun or ammunition in any part of an airport, even under the wildest gun nut jurisprudence one can imagine.

"Shall not be infringed". NO other INDIVIDUAL right, which is what the Bill of Rights is about, not government's rights but the rights of the people and the states, is worded as strongly as that.

"Well regulated militia" = "well-trained militia" and ready to muster in an organized manner. Until 1934, there were no restrictions at all on any weapons known to mankind in the U.S. Time to return to that freedom, rather than communist BS like you're spouting.

grean · 01-11-2017, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HobbieMan

"Shall not be infringed". NO other INDIVIDUAL right, which is what the Bill of Rights is about, not government's rights but the rights of the people and the states, is worded as strongly as that.

"Well regulated militia" = "well-trained militia" and ready to muster in an organized manner. Until 1934, there were no restrictions at all on any weapons known to mankind in the U.S. Time to return to that freedom, rather than communist BS like you're spouting.

Could you Legal Eagles please explain how our enjoyment of 1st ammendment is the same from state to state but states can treat the 2nd so differently?

Scribe · 01-11-2017, 05:13 PM

Thanks for the kudos...

...I'm a conundrum.
...I think "recreationals", hobbying, and all guns should be legal to all. Anything you can place on a shelf and leave - and it does nothing by itself - in my eyes, should be legal.

Now, laws about what happens once it is picked up, and used to harm another.... see, different feelings. That's exactly my feeling on the First and Second Amendments. You have a right to hold a gun, and hold an idea...

However, once you discharge a gun at a person in violence... or discharge an "idea" at a person or group in violence, then there are responsibilities, possible penalties, and laws should be there to protect others.
(Damn - that might be the most profound thing I've ever written on a board! lol)

Also, I think carrying swords should be legal...

SCRIBE has extensive training in Sabre, Foil & Epee'... lol

grean · 01-12-2017, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribe

Thanks for the kudos...

...I'm a conundrum.
...I think "recreationals", hobbying, and all guns should be legal to all. Anything you can place on a shelf and leave - and it does nothing by itself - in my eyes, should be legal.

Now, laws about what happens once it is picked up, and used to harm another.... see, different feelings. That's exactly my feeling on the First and Second Amendments. You have a right to hold a gun, and hold an idea...

However, once you discharge a gun at a person in violence... or discharge an "idea" at a person or group in violence, then there are responsibilities, possible penalties, and laws should be there to protect others.
(Damn - that might be the most profound thing I've ever written on a board! lol)

Also, I think carrying swords should be legal...

SCRIBE has extensive training in Sabre, Foil & Epee'... lol

How Crazy are you? How can you possibly think that me minding my business and you yours, and as long as doing that doesnt hurt others, the government staying out of it, is a good idea? Crazy, man, just crazy......

grean · 01-12-2017, 08:33 AM

LOL

Scribe · 01-12-2017, 08:48 AM

What a concept, huh grean?

mediavolume · 01-12-2017, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

How Crazy are you? How can you possibly think that me minding my business and you yours, and as long as doing that doesnt hurt others, the government staying out of it, is a good idea? Crazy, man, just crazy......

LOL. Do you really want the government in your business even when you are doing nothing? You should turn yourself in now. You are doing harm by being on this site.

Disease, child prostitution, drugs, woman abuse, kidnapping and more may not be directly associated with this site and eccie does its best to disassociate from it. Still our money will make it to these disgusting parts of our society.

The only reason you think the way you do is that you believe you have the right to tell someone else to do something by asking the govt to force them. You having that belief is imposing on my rights but I bet you think you are just helping me.

Worry about yourself and stop trying to fix other people by passing laws.

TexTushHog · 01-13-2017, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

Could you Legal Eagles please explain how our enjoyment of 1st ammendment is the same from state to state but states can treat the 2nd so differently?

Because no one seriously thought the 2nd Amebdment plausibly created an individual right until the past 30 years or so. Even the 'NRA was pro gun control in the 1960's. And, even nutty originalists like Scalia in Heller don't believe that any judicially created individual right isn't subject to broad State regulation. If it weren't, the amendment would be a suicide pact. It says "arms," not guns. Can you posses an anti-aircraft missile? A5,000 oh. Smart bomb? A nuclear warhead? Apparently some nitwits in this thread write as if they think that's what it means.

grean · 01-13-2017, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Because no one seriously thought the 2nd Amebdment plausibly created an individual right until the past 30 years or so. Even the 'NRA was pro gun control in the 1960's. And, even nutty originalists like Scalia in Heller don't believe that any judicially created individual right isn't subject to broad State regulation. If it weren't, the amendment would be a suicide pact. It says "arms," not guns. Can you posses an anti-aircraft missile? A5,000 oh. Smart bomb? A nuclear warhead? Apparently some nitwits in this thread write as if they think that's what it means.

I am not certain that is the case, sir.

Many of the founders and other writers of that time, including ones quoted in this thread, wrote many pages on the right to bear arms. In fact, and please dont make look it up, but can if needed, at one point post revolution, it was mandated that every man own a firearm. I think that law passed after the bill of rights passed but before it was ratified. Given that it was an individual mandate, how could it not also, given the ratification of #2 around that same time, be an idividual freedom?

Moreover, and even if somehow it was not considered to be at the time, in the late 1800's after the 14th was passed, it was at least thought by some that the 2nd should be extended to individuals. Again can look up the case if anyone needs it. It was rejected then but I believe after Heller, another case Mcdonald vs Chicago, using an argument similar to the 1800's case, the SCOTUS ruled it should be incorporated based on the 14th.

Because of that how is it still treated differenlty that #1?

Im not saying we should get to have nuclear briefcases or even RPGs. Scribe should be able to walk around with his sword, though.

I also dont feel everyone needs a gun. The only gun I own is between my legs... I do think everyone should be able to get one or ten if they choose. We need to do better on the "gun ho" mentality and see #2 as an aweful but quite needed burden. It isnt for individual self defence.

It is for that tragic circumstance where our government begins to oppress its people. Today we will never see a day where it happens on such a scale where an uprising of the people is promted. RBG, I pray is right, in that she feels it is an obsolete amendment. I hold to an older motto, however: si vis pacemn, para bellum.

Is it not better to have and not need, than to need and not have?

Lets move away from legality and look at it more conceptually.

The idea to prevent the government from regulating firearms came from old prosciption acts in England over Scotland. (Think Braveheart, "they will not let us train with weapons, so we train with stones") The founders saw standing armies against an unarmed populous as something they could never allow.

Now the army today does have RPGs smartbombs and other things that go BOOM. Id prefer at least a semi auto rifle over a few pebbles in an makeshift sling shot.

rexdutchman · 01-13-2017, 09:33 AM

^^^^^^^ 1000% correct "is better to have and not need then not to have"

mediavolume · 01-13-2017, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

Could you Legal Eagles please explain how our enjoyment of 1st ammendment is the same from state to state but states can treat the 2nd so differently?

Thats because you are wrong as usual. Many states restrict free speech. Heres some recent ones.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...2N2JMRIeH2VDTw

themadwelder · 01-14-2017, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribe

Thanks for the kudos...

...I'm a conundrum.
...I think "recreationals", hobbying, and all guns should be legal to all. Anything you can place on a shelf and leave - and it does nothing by itself - in my eyes, should be legal.

Now, laws about what happens once it is picked up, and used to harm another.... see, different feelings. That's exactly my feeling on the First and Second Amendments. You have a right to hold a gun, and hold an idea...

However, once you discharge a gun at a person in violence... or discharge an "idea" at a person or group in violence, then there are responsibilities, possible penalties, and laws should be there to protect others.
(Damn - that might be the most profound thing I've ever written on a board! lol)

Also, I think carrying swords should be legal...

SCRIBE has extensive training in Sabre, Foil & Epee'... lol

Good thoughts, altho I suck at using a soword...dammit.

Scribe · 01-14-2017, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by themadwelder

Good thoughts, altho I suck at using a soword...dammit.

I'm actually pushing through a Bill that removes guns from the USA completely but mandates swords on all civilians and Police... big cutlasses! Not that I think it will limit the violence, but the freakin YouTube footage - phenominal!

It'll look like scenes from the StarWars cantina or Pirate movies!

mediavolume · 01-15-2017, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribe

I'm actually pushing through a Bill that removes guns from the USA completely but mandates swords on all civilians and Police... big cutlasses! Not that I think it will limit the violence, but the freakin YouTube footage - phenominal!

It'll look like scenes from the StarWars cantina or Pirate movies!

Sounds wonderful but you will look like the moron with a saber and i will shoot you like indiana jones. I'll make a funny face or a funny comment to the camera for ya.