![]() |
The OK case - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: The OK case (/Thread-The-OK-case) |
RE: The OK case - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. You have a right to own a firearm. It doesn't mean that a firearm seller has an obligation to sell to you. Go find another person who will. You thinking that's a constitutional violation is the same people who think their first amendment rights of free speech are being violated when people criticize what they say. You have the right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean people can't make fun of you for it, or your employer can't fire you for it. Is a permit to own a grenade launcher preventing you from exercising your 2nd Amendment right? Do you think people should be required to have a permit to own a grenade launcher? RE: The OK case - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017 I need a license from the Georgia Composite Medical Board to take care of patients. My personal information including my home address is available via their website to anyone who wants to look it up. Why should I be required to have a license to do my job? RE: The OK case - TheLeonardLeap - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 04:13 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is a permit to own a grenade launcher preventing you from exercising your 2nd Amendment right? I just don't like the money required to get them. "Sorry, but you can't do this unless you are rich." I'm all for common sense on a permit for destructive devices like that, but $371? C'mon son. Then you have "renewal fees" of no less than $165, and up to $1,500. RE: The OK case - TheLeonardLeap - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 04:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I need a license from the Georgia Composite Medical Board to take care of patients. My personal information including my home address is available via their website to anyone who wants to look it up. Yes, because being a medical professional and prescribing potentially lethal medications to thousands/tens of thousands of patients while also being relied upon to catch life threatening illnesses as early as possible is TOTALLY the same as a guy who wants to inherit his father's .22 LR and plink some cans in his backyard with his son. Why'd you have to go and take the decent conversation that Holl and I were having and have to take a bit 'ol argumentative false equivalence shit on it? RE: The OK case - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 04:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because being a medical professional and prescribing potentially lethal medications to thousands/tens of thousands of patients while also being relied upon to catch life threatening illnesses as early as possible is TOTALLY the same as a guy who wants to inherit his father's .22 LR and plink some cans in his backyard with his son. Oh, so you think I need a license because I might kill somebody? RE: The OK case - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 04:22 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I just don't like the money required to get them. If the money is a sticking point, I would suggest a person could obtain the necessary permit by providing a service in lieu of money. Something along the lines of community service as an example. RE: The OK case - GMDino - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The resistance to a registry is due to the perception that registration is the last step before confiscation. Despite the bemused skepticism of people like xxlt the progressive states have shown that such concerns are rooted in some reality. Also, anti 2A types have published such lists on the internet in the past. Might as well make a map of which houses criminals should try and burgle. That doesn't make sense. People say they have guns for self defense. I see those jokes about "My neighbor doesn't believe in guns...rob his house instead". Why would anyone knowing you have a gun make it more likely your house would targeted? (Universal "you" & "your"...not you specifically.) And I maintain that with a population of 300 million plus there's still no way anyone is going to disarm American citizens. I mean, who would do it? RE: The OK case - Belsnickel - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 03:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: First, I'd argue the founders didn't have these arms in mind, so for me it gets tricky with the constitution in its first stages here. I reach that point often. I could make the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't actually guarantee the right to private ownership. That was, in fact, the way the law was interpreted for well over a century. The Second was interpreted as the right to join the military. The thing a lot of people claim to hate, judicial activism, is what made the Second mean the individual right to firearm ownership. RE: The OK case - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't make sense. Because the number one item thieves look for when burglarizing a house are firearms. If a person stayed home all day every day, then yes, they'd have nothing to worry about. Seeing as most people leave their home on a frequent basis that's not the case. Quote:(Universal "you" & "your"...not you specifically.) It would never happen. Even if all guns were made illegal tomorrow the vast majority of them would never be turned in. The problem is that the chipping away at gun owner's rights continues to happen in numerous states. When you turn millions of previously law abiding people into criminals with the stroke of a pen you're doing something wrong. There have been too many lies from the anti 2A side for gun owners to ever believe them. RE: The OK case - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017 (04-03-2017, 01:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But as to the bigger point: The weapon matters little. (04-04-2017, 12:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Using a firearm that may not have the stopping power to prevent an intruder from harming you and or your family is a bad choice Seems as if you're claiming the type of weapon matters despite your previous contradictory statement. RE: The OK case - bfine32 - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 11:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Seems as if you're claiming the type of weapon matters despite your previous contradictory statement. Unless., of course, in your failed attempt at Gotcha one of the quotes was speaking about what categorizes something as a "weapon of war" and the other quote talked about what weapon(s) one may use to defend their home and family. RE: The OK case - bfine32 - 04-05-2017 A point that just struck me: When the debate was about SSM on this board those opposed would go to extremes with examples such as: "Can I legally marry a goat?" or "Can I marry my mom?" Now we are seeing in the weapons for home defense folks using such extreme examples as: "Can I use Sarin Gas?" or "Can I use a grenade launcher?" Just food for thought I we return to "As The Board Turns" RE: The OK case - bfine32 - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 10:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could make the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't actually guarantee the right to private ownership. That was, in fact, the way the law was interpreted for well over a century. The Second was interpreted as the right to join the military. The thing a lot of people claim to hate, judicial activism, is what made the Second mean the individual right to firearm ownership. I think it would take a lot more judicial activism to interpret the 2nd as stating it doesn't allow individual citizens the right to own weapons uninfringed. RE: The OK case - Belsnickel - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it would take a lot more judicial activism to interpret the 2nd as stating it doesn't allow individual citizens the right to own weapons uninfringed. It took quite a while for the individual right to own firearms to become the interpretation of the Second by the courts. Changing the interpretation is judicial activism. RE: The OK case - BmorePat87 - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 01:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It took quite a while for the individual right to own firearms to become the interpretation of the Second by the courts. Changing the interpretation is judicial activism. Despite not being a gun owner, I am in the camp that the current interpretation of an individual's right is the correct one for the time that we live in, but, yea, the Court's interpretation that it protect's the individual's right, not the States' right from the Federal government, is less than a decade old. The English Bill of Rights clearly defined a right to own guns separate from any discussion of a militia. The 2nd Amendment then purposely added that point of a militia. Older versions of it elaborate on the militia too. Of course, to me, this is a case where we need to stretch the meaning of it for today's time. If we're using the definition of judicial activism of merely "overturning laws and previous precedent" then obviously going back to an older precedent would be activism as you're overturning a newer one. One could make the argument that reversing activism is not itself activism but restraint. RE: The OK case - Belsnickel - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 02:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Despite not being a gun owner, I am in the camp that the current interpretation of an individual's right is the correct one for the time that we live in, but, yea, the Court's interpretation that it protect's the individual's right, not the States' right from the Federal government, is less than a decade old. The English Bill of Rights clearly defined a right to own guns separate from any discussion of a militia. The 2nd Amendment then purposely added that point of a militia. Older versions of it elaborate on the militia too. Of course, to me, this is a case where we need to stretch the meaning of it for today's time. But if the Second was never interpreted as individual protection until a decade ago, then it is activism that turned it towards that. Whatever the English Bill or Rights said, it wasn't the judiciary that put the militia bit in there, it was the legislature. But you are correct, going back to the previous precedent now would be activism. I am just having my fun with people who are typically pro-individual right to bear arms and anti-judicial activism by pointing out a fault in their logic since "judicial activism" is not something either ideological side has a monopoly on benefiting from and its use is usually inappropriate when used. That is why I am using the very basic and broad definition for my posts. Now I have explained it all and the fun has been ruined. ![]() RE: The OK case - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A point that just struck me: Then there is the crowd who claim anything can be used as a weapon, including a rock, who are worried their guns might be taken away. Why? If anything can be used as a weapon, can't you MacGyver a spud gun? There is the crowd that doesn't want gun control because laws don't work, but they want to outlaw abortion. There is the crowd who doesn't want gun licenses to own a weapon designed to intentionally kill someone, but believe I should have a license to write a prescription so I don't accidentally kill someone. Prescription pads are a tool. Prescription pads don't kill people. People kill people. There is the crowd who is against gun registries because they are afraid their home will be burgled or their guns will be confiscated. Meanwhile, my home address has been available online at the Georgia Composite Medical Board's website and anyone can burglarize my home when they see me at work and after 12 years no one has shown up at my door to confiscate my stethoscope. Since you used the grenade launcher example, why is an AR-15 acceptable for civilian use, but a grenade launcher isn't? Maybe I want to use a smoke round to screen my movement? Who are you to tell me what weapon I should or shouldn't have? Hell, I might step in a hole and break my leg while hunting and could really use an illum round to mark my position at night for the SAR team. RE: The OK case - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it would take a lot more judicial activism to interpret the 2nd as stating it doesn't allow individual citizens the right to own weapons uninfringed. A weapon like a grenade launcher? RE: The OK case - fredtoast - 04-05-2017 (04-05-2017, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A point that just struck me: And whenever the "marry a goat" argument was brought up it was immediately crushed by a simple phrase we all agree on, i.e. "consenting adult". Now please tell me whwer the clear line is between what is allowed to be owned without w permiot and what is. If you think that it is a silly argument then show it is silly by proposing a simple definition we can all agree on. RE: The OK case - fredtoast - 04-05-2017 If you want to follow the Constitution regarding gun rights then you should be a member of the volunteer militia if you want your rights to own a gun protected. Of course being a memeber of a militia requires that your name be placed on a list. |