Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PtldPlatypus said:
Precisely--SCOTUS holds that some things that you view as infringements are actually simply acceptable restrictions. It stands to reason, then, that other restrictions which you might also believe to be infringements (eg, unconstitutional) would also not be viewed as such by the Supreme Court.

This is why I see it as unreasonably dismissive when you say things like, "You are in favor of the infringement and therefore do not support the Constitution." According to prior SCOTUS rulings, one can be in favor of what you see as infringement and still support the Constitution, because it is simply your definition of "infringement" which differs.
Click to expand...
Thank you for saying what I was unable to voice correctly.
 
Valid reasons to take away someone's gun rights:

  • If you're muslim.
  • Had an abortion.
  • Kneeled during the national anthem.

Am I missing anything?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Your definition of "infringement" differs from the Supreme Court's, who specifically said in the Heller ruling that "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". There are acceptable and reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms, such as concealed weapons restrictions, licensure requirements, and prohibition of possession by felons.
Click to expand...

You do realize the Supreme Court ruled that escaped slaves had to be returned to their masters and that separate but equal was ok.

You also cited the acceptable and reasonable limitations, which are not outright bans nor specific types of weapons.

"There are acceptable and reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms, such as concealed weapons restrictions, licensure requirements, and prohibition of possession by felons."

Felons is the only prohibition, and that's after due process.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
You do realize that it is the Constitution itself that imbues the SCOTUS with the right and responsibility to interpret the Constitution
Click to expand...

Ok, that is enough. I have no intention of ever attempting to convince you that I have read the Constitution.
But I see river appreciated your snark. So I guess you gained something.

I will leave you with one last thought. The definition of infringed;
1 Go against, as of rules and laws
2 Advance beyond the usual limit

If you believe the Court has the job of doing the above in the name of interpreting, then we certainly disagree. As that would mean we have a worthless document and a worthless process.

Good day.
 
MarAzul said:
The definition of infringed;
1 Go against, as of rules and laws
2 Advance beyond the usual limit

If you believe the Court has the job of doing the above in the name of interpreting, then we certainly disagree. As that would mean we have a worthless document and a worthless process.

Good day.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to hear that you believe that the fact of the Constitution allowing the Supreme Court to define the language therein renders the Constitution worthless. I respect the Constitution enough to wholeheartedly disagree with that notion.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So what about dishonorable discharges from the military? That's the feds taking away someone's gun rights for life.

Good? Bad? Unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

MarAzul said:
Usually the negative discharge is the result of the military justice system. So in that sense not much different than the courts taking your rights.
But I am not an expert and do not know the whole store. We had a JAG person in the forum at one time?
Click to expand...

Seems like the military is violating the constitution when it takes someone's gun rights away. And that means we need to get more weapons so we can fight the military for violating the constitution. And yet Trump just increased the military's spending so that must mean he supports the military's taking of citizens gun rights. And Trump is part of the government so that means we even need more guns to remove him along with removing the military.

We're going to need a lot of guns.
 
i79m9tazash01.png
 
Further said:
I am shocked that @MarAzul , @MARIS61 and others who are ardent Trump supporters and extremely opposed to any increase in gun legislation aren’t irate at Trump right now for stabbing them in the back.
Click to expand...
Probably because they know that whenever Trump comes up with the rare wacky “liberal” idea he never follows through in the end.....
 
Imagine for a moment the 2nd amendment didn't exist, and that we were trying to draft it from scratch today. What should it say?

I might be wrong but I suspect that even those who don't want any changes to the rights would agree that the language should be clarified so that there is no ambiguity?

barfo
 
barfo said:
Imagine for a moment the 2nd amendment didn't exist, and that we were trying to draft it from scratch today. What should it say?

I might be wrong but I suspect that even those who don't want any changes to the rights would agree that the language should be clarified so that there is no ambiguity?

barfo
Click to expand...

Everyone but socialists get guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top