GOP governor vetoes gun bill

Skeptical wrote:
I might get flack from some 2nd Amendment rights folks but I support the governor's veto.

As much as I am a staunch supporter the 2nd Amendment gun rights I can acknowledge and accept the need for logical control/restrictions when warranted.

What are your thoughts on this article?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/politics/rick-snyder-bucks-nra-vetoes-gun-bill/index.html

BladeRunner wrote:Based on the 2nd Amendment, I think all citizens have the right to own ANY firearm, ALL firearms available to the military.

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Based on the 2nd Amendment, I think all citizens have the right to own ANY firearm, ALL firearms available to the military.

That's funny, I thought the Second Amendment was very clear on the right to own a gun being well regulated.  I would assume our forefathers would agree those who choose to be abusive to their family are certainly subject to regulation.  It would take a pretty mindless gun nut to say otherwise.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government") and the Constitution of New Hampshire (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind")

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Based on the 2nd Amendment, I think all citizens have the right to own ANY firearm, ALL firearms available to the military.

That's funny, I thought the Second Amendment was very clear on the right to own a gun being well regulated.  I would assume our forefathers would agree those who choose to be abusive to their family are certainly subject to regulation.  It would take a pretty mindless gun nut to say otherwise.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Based on the 2nd Amendment, I think all citizens have the right to own ANY firearm, ALL firearms available to the military.

That's funny, I thought the Second Amendment was very clear on the right to own a gun being well regulated.  I would assume our forefathers would agree those who choose to be abusive to their family are certainly subject to regulation.  It would take a pretty mindless gun nut to say otherwise.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing here mentioning the right to own a gun being well regulated, it does mention a well regulated militia.

But then, the actual intent of the author(s) of this has been cussed and discussed long before any of us here were even thought of!.

Thing to keep in mind the 2nd Amendment does not GIVE the right to have a gun ... rather it preserves a natural right

Dr. Jones wrote:I guess you were an idiot would be more accurate, but by God she was exercising her Second Amendment right.  I'm sure this is the type of stupidity they had in mind when they gave us the right to protect ourselves.  Who is going to protect us from ourselves?  At least I won't have to worry about her anymore.  One down, thousands more to go.


Mom killed when son grabs her gun in Walmart
http://www.cnn.com//2014/12/30/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/index.html

BladeRunner wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Based on the 2nd Amendment, I think all citizens have the right to own ANY firearm, ALL firearms available to the military.

That's funny, I thought the Second Amendment was very clear on the right to own a gun being well regulated.  I would assume our forefathers would agree those who choose to be abusive to their family are certainly subject to regulation.  It would take a pretty mindless gun nut to say otherwise.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing here mentioning the right to own a gun being well regulated, it does mention a well regulated militia.

But then, the actual intent of the author(s) of this has been cussed and discussed long before any of us here were even thought of!.

Thing to keep in mind the 2nd Amendment does not GIVE the right to have a gun ... rather it preserves a natural right

Dr. Jones keeps getting this mixed up as he has said in the pas that this is a government given right:

https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t1425-congratulations-you-re-an-idiot

Dr. Jones wrote:I guess you were an idiot would be more accurate, but by God she was exercising her Second Amendment right.  I'm sure this is the type of stupidity they had in mind when they gave us the right to protect ourselves.  Who is going to protect us from ourselves?  At least I won't have to worry about her anymore.  One down, thousands more to go.


Mom killed when son grabs her gun in Walmart
http://www.cnn.com//2014/12/30/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/index.html

He obviously just doesn't get it.

Skeptical wrote:Well, you must be aware there are those who think all rights are bestowed on the populace by man and can't comprehend there are rights man does not have the capability or authority to grant.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Based on the 2nd Amendment, I think all citizens have the right to own ANY firearm, ALL firearms available to the military.

That's funny, I thought the Second Amendment was very clear on the right to own a gun being well regulated.  I would assume our forefathers would agree those who choose to be abusive to their family are certainly subject to regulation.  It would take a pretty mindless gun nut to say otherwise.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing here mentioning the right to own a gun being well regulated, it does mention a well regulated militia.

But then, the actual intent of the author(s) of this has been cussed and discussed long before any of us here were even thought of!.

Thing to keep in mind the 2nd Amendment does not GIVE the right to have a gun ... rather it preserves a natural right

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Based on the 2nd Amendment, I think all citizens have the right to own ANY firearm, ALL firearms available to the military.

That's funny, I thought the Second Amendment was very clear on the right to own a gun being well regulated.  I would assume our forefathers would agree those who choose to be abusive to their family are certainly subject to regulation.  It would take a pretty mindless gun nut to say otherwise.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing here mentioning the right to own a gun being well regulated, it does mention a well regulated militia.

But then, the actual intent of the author(s) of this has been cussed and discussed long before any of us here were even thought of!.

Thing to keep in mind the 2nd Amendment does not GIVE the right to have a gun ... rather it preserves a natural right

The SCOTUS would disagree with you.  We hammered this out on the gun thread over on the GPV.  I'm sure you read it.

Paquette wrote:

Skeptical wrote:Well, you must be aware there are those who think all rights are bestowed on the populace by man and can't comprehend there are rights man does not have the capability or authority to grant.

You might want to tell that to the guy who thinks there's a "need for logical control/restrictions".

Dr. Jones wrote:
We hammered this out on the gun thread over on the GPV.  I'm sure you read it.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Based on the 2nd Amendment, I think all citizens have the right to own ANY firearm, ALL firearms available to the military.

That's funny, I thought the Second Amendment was very clear on the right to own a gun being well regulated.  I would assume our forefathers would agree those who choose to be abusive to their family are certainly subject to regulation.  It would take a pretty mindless gun nut to say otherwise.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing here mentioning the right to own a gun being well regulated, it does mention a well regulated militia.

But then, the actual intent of the author(s) of this has been cussed and discussed long before any of us here were even thought of!.

Thing to keep in mind the 2nd Amendment does not GIVE the right to have a gun ... rather it preserves a natural right

The SCOTUS would disagree with you.  We hammered this out on the gun thread over on the GPV.  I'm sure you read it.

Please provide a link to the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights that mentions the right to own a gun being well regulated, as you claim.

Clicker wrote:The meaning of "regulated" has no bearing in the interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.  They are in fact two separate statements.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Dr. Jones wrote:As made very clear by the SCOTUS most recently in the landmark decision of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, regulation is something that should be expected by all gun owners.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

As you can see the widely overused phrase "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean what you think/want it to mean, according to the highest court in the land.

Sorry for the inconvenience...

   

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Skeptical wrote:In spite what those who are anti gun think and sometime say publicly the following opinion comments are offered. (although not uttered here yet)

I think it safe to say most, if not all conscientious 2nd Amendment supporters are fully aware the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT STATE, "the right to own a gun being well regulated" as one person has tried to tell us.

AND

I think it safe to say most, if not all conscientious 2nd Amendment supporters are aware of and accept the right (have a gun) belongs to individuals,[5][6] and that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.

One would like to think so, but that doesn't fit the "shall not infringe" mantra that we so frequently hear from gun enthusiasts.


PLUS

I think it safe to say most, if not all conscientious 2nd amendment supporters do not want those people having a demonstrated history of violent/irrational behavior/actions and/or other documented disposition to violence to have unrestricted access to guns.

That's not the position taken by the NRA in this case.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:In spite what those who are anti gun think and sometime say publicly the following opinion comments are offered. (although not uttered here yet)

I think it safe to say most, if not all conscientious 2nd Amendment supporters are fully aware the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT STATE, "the right to own a gun being well regulated" as one person has tried to tell us.

AND

I think it safe to say most, if not all conscientious 2nd Amendment supporters are aware of and accept the right (have a gun) belongs to individuals,[5][6] and that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.

One would like to think so, but that doesn't fit the "shall not infringe" mantra that we so frequently hear from gun enthusiasts.


PLUS

I think it safe to say most, if not all conscientious 2nd amendment supporters do not want those people having a demonstrated history of violent/irrational behavior/actions and/or other documented disposition to violence to have unrestricted access to guns.

That's not the position taken by the NRA in this case.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

Jammer wrote:A brief history regarding the drafting of the second Amendment begins with the fact that the first congress delegated the task of drafting the Bill of Rights to James Madison.  He did not begin with a blank piece of paper but relied on several versions offered by various states.  From that, Madison’s first proposal for the 2nd Amendment was:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.  

This was modified by the House so that the militia clause came before recognizing the actual right.  The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.

Amendment 2 finally passed the House in its present form.  When Amendment 2 went to the Senate, actions there confirm the Founders intent that this was clearly an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms by rejecting a proposed Senate amendment.  There was a move in the Senate to add an amendment that would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to “bearing for the common defense”.   Thus there is zero doubt that the 2nd Amendment as intended by the Founders is an INDIVIDUAL right for every American to keep and bear arms.

Richard Henry Lee stated:  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”