2nd Amendment takes a hit...

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by The Other David, May 13, 2005.

  1. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,509
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    DGH,

    ...doesn't the fact that it's a military weapon bolster a ban argument rather than the other way around?

    I don't think so. Why would you think that?

    As for the direction and breadth of this conversation, I asked you what you thought of the 50 caliber bans.

    I think they are just as silly as any other kind of gun ban.

    David
     
  2. Skunked

    Skunked Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    787
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL & Berrien County, GA
    Why do you keep letting that guy hijack threads. Before he played Lucy+football to your Charlie Brown; wasn't the discussion about state vs federal?
     
  3. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,509
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    Skunked,

    I'm old (really), and he moves the goal post often, but as long as I can keep him from scoring while scoring a few on my own I will continue to play.

    Besides, he owes me a case of Shiner beer!

    David
     
  4. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    I guess nothing. Once you've already concluded that all civilians are entitled to all military hardware, the argument over this particular item is over. That's not a particularly thoughtful position to take, IMO, but like I said, what you think about the Second Amendment is not the law in this country, so I'm not sure it really matters. Another 'ask a stupid question' lesson learned.
     
  5. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,509
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    DGH,

    You're right. What I think about it, as well as what you think about it, are good for rhetoric and debate, but little else. We'll see what the SCOTUS thinks about it probably before the decade is out. Then we can rehash why the one side (mine!) won and the other lost. Or we can talk about fishing, beer, boats, women, and hunting.

    Or we can debate the value of whatever new legislation is brewing.

    David
     
  6. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    Umm, not sure I follow you David. What I think about the Second Amendment is an accurate portrayal about the state of the law.

    The Second Amendment has never been applied to the States via the Fourteenth. The Second Amendment has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court as describing an individual right. There is currently a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals regarding whether the right is so-called individual or collective (although at like 5 to 1 in favor of collective, it's not much of a split). In a nutshell, those are the facts.

    I have said all along that I do not know which regarding collective or individual, that there are excellent arguments both ways, but that it doesn't matter. Whatever way the Supreme Court decides to go, we will end up with a right that not unlimited, therefore allowing the government to regulate firearms, so long as such regulations are reasonable. It will preserve the status quo, and it will mean the Second Amendment is just like every other right enumerated in the Constitution. I don't see anything to argue with here. I don't see that I have anything to lose.
     

Share This Page