What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I have no problem with leaving conceal-carry up the states. If SCOTUS were to rule that it isn't a "Constitutional" right, wouldn't that just mean that each state would be free to decide how to handle the issue?
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I have no problem with leaving conceal-carry up the states. If SCOTUS were to rule that it isn't a "Constitutional" right, wouldn't that just mean that each state would be free to decide how to handle the issue?
Click to expand...

Not sure. But if it did, it could send a strong message disconnecting handguns and the Constitution, and just the act itself could change public opinion resulting in many states limiting it significantly.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The Sicatoka said:
"... keep and bear ... shall not be infringed ... " ring any bells?

The statistics say that folks with concealed carry permits are some of the most law-abiding out there, even moreso than police officers. (That last part was just for Flag. ;) )
Click to expand...

Ahh...John Lott. Do a wiki on him, you'll get a picture of just how accurate the guy is.

I know what your definition is of 'keep and bear', the courts, who are afterall Constitutional experts, may not agree.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

5mn_Major said:
Ahh...John Lott. Do a wiki on him, you'll get a picture of just how accurate the guy is.

I know what your definition is of 'keep and bear', the courts, who are afterall Constitutional experts, may not agree.
Click to expand...

You know that John Lott is not the only man doing these studies, right? There's a whole group of economists looking at this subject, he just started it all.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

unofan said:
You don't have the right to bear a grenade launcher, for instance.
Click to expand...

Love how you libs like to ignore them muslims and their grenade launchers.

They won't be so quick to come in blazing away and shouting "Allah Akbar" if we're packing our own.

We the People established the Constitution to form a more perfect union, not a more pussified one.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The Sicatoka said:
"... keep and bear ... shall not be infringed ... " ring any bells?

The statistics say that folks with concealed carry permits are some of the most law-abiding out there, even moreso than police officers. (That last part was just for Flag. ;) )
Click to expand...

How is this law abridging the right to bare arms? Oh wait it isnt. It only says that Conceal/Carry is not protected by the Constitution...which it isnt. Did you actually read the decision or are you acting on the talking points again?

And I didnt editorialize on whether conceal/carry is a good thing so your little sidebar isnt really on point either but I will give you credit for research.

Pretty weak effort I expect more out of you.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

burd said:
Love how you libs like to ignore them muslims and their grenade launchers.

They won't be so quick to come in blazing away and shouting "Allah Akbar" if we're packing our own.

We the People established the Constitution to form a more perfect union, not a more pussified one.
Click to expand...

In the US, people have grenade launchers?

I REALLY doubt that conceal and carry would have any impact on a person who is carrying and intend to use a grenade or rocket launcher.

Last time I noted- people who have weapons as you suggest are dealt with via our very armed military. In other countries.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

alfablue said:
In the US, people have grenade launchers?

I REALLY doubt that conceal and carry would have any impact on a person who is carrying and intend to use a grenade or rocket launcher.

Last time I noted- people who have weapons as you suggest are dealt with via our very armed military. In other countries.
Click to expand...

A man should be allowed to conceal and carry grenade launchers and emoticons.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

alfablue said:
In the US, people have grenade launchers?

I REALLY doubt that conceal and carry would have any impact on a person who is carrying and intend to use a grenade or rocket launcher.
Click to expand...

But my conservatives friends tell me the purpose of the Second Amendment is that the people can outgun the US military, so it is unconstitutional to limit my right to have nuclear weapons.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Handyman said:
How is this law abridging the right to bare arms?
Click to expand...

Hey, if you want to wear a red-neck wife-beater t-shirt feel free. You have the right to bare arms.

I have the right to keep and bear (as in carry) arms. If I choose to bear them concealed while in public*, who am I harming? Note: I also bear the burden of being responsible for their proper and safe handling.


*I do have my ND Class I Concealed Weapons License. Notice "Weapons". ND has a list of "dangerous weapons" that I am allowed to carry concealed that is rather humorous to read: switchblade or gravity knife, machete, scimitar, stiletto, sword, dagger, or knife with a blade of five inches [12.7 centimeters] or more; any throwing star, nunchaku, or other martial arts weapon**; any billy, blackjack, sap, bludgeon, cudgel, metal knuckles, or sand club; any slungshot; any bow and arrow,crossbow, or spear; any weapon that will expel, or is readily capable of expelling, a projectile by the action of a spring, compressed air, or compressed gas, including any such weapon, loaded or unloaded, commonly referred to as a BB gun, air rifle, or CO2 gun; and any projector of a bomb*** or any object containing or capable of producing and emitting any noxious liquid, gas, or substance.

** They made me a ninja! :D

*** I have no idea what they mean here, but Kep won't like it.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

burd said:
Love how you libs like to ignore them muslims and their grenade launchers.

They won't be so quick to come in blazing away and shouting "Allah Akbar" if we're packing our own.

We the People established the Constitution to form a more perfect union, not a more pussified one.
Click to expand...

Successful troll is successful? ;)
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The Sicatoka said:
"... keep and bear ... shall not be infringed ... " ring any bells?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you have the most nuanced understanding of the word infringed. It doesn’t mean simply to touch or to limit, as in may not touch or may not limit. It’s more subtle than that, and that specific word was used for a reason

: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

“obey or follow a law”, “to wrongly limit” – as in the police can’t just unilaterally decide to walk up to you and take your gun away for no reason, or decide that all guns must be turned into the police station within 24 hours, but that if a democratically elected government creates a law saying you can’t carry a gun in public, then you can’t carry a gun in public, as that would be a regulation not an infringement. And in that case, the police could walk up to you and take your gun away.

Additionally:
“A well-regulated militia” – this is the entire premise for the amendment, militia, not hunting, not self-protection, not firearm collection, militia. Yet you just want to ignore it. Why is that part not relevant? The entire amendment is only 27 words and you want to completely ignore 4 of them. That’s nice that you think you can do that to suit your purposes, but it’s not right, or intellectually honest.

And how do you read this so that the “well-regulated” part doesn’t mean that gun ownership can be regulated? The logical and mental gymnastics you need to do to get to that position would be impressive, if they weren’t so disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt.

Bottom line, not infringed doesn't mean anything goes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top