Arbitrarily restricting firearms sales does infringe on our rights.
We have a right not only to own and possess firearms, but to sell and trade them as well.

You can regulate them when necessary, but that does not include restricting who can sell them.
In fact, it is not clear how you can justify regulating who you sell them to, as long as they are of age.


If criminals should not be allowed firearms, then we would have to disarm all the lawyers, car salesman, the politicians, etc.
The reality is that if people are too violent to be trusted with firearms, then I would not want them to even have access to a gallon of gasoline.
They need to be locked up.

No newspaper can legally decide not to handle firearm ads.
They are required to as part of retaining their license as a newspaper and having community service content.

No that looks good the way it is. No official recognition of any religion so that all person are freely and equally able to believe in the way they wish to. Now I would like to see it made criminally illegal to teach creationism/intelligent design in science class.

I also do not see any problem with requiring permits for protests, pride parades or rallys or anything like that.

I see nothing at all in there that prohibits the government from restricting the types of firearm, how they are acquired, or stored. Nothing. All it says is that you have the ability and permission to possess a firearm.

The rest of them seem to be pretty common sense and useful as they stand.
Its just the second admentment that the gunnuts get all rabid over wanting to interpret so loosely its sick.

I have never heard of that before. And besides this is not a "newspaper" in that they tell news. It is more like a free (to the public) classified ads section that is several pages long that is tossed out in the driveway once a week. It carries the local grocery store ads and used car ads and everythign but firearms. They will not accept them.

__________________
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of
a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

– George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

The amendment doesn’t specifically say any old belief system can be exercised. So long as the government doesn’t establish the religion, there’s nothing that prohibits them from restricting types of beliefs that can be practiced, right? You’d still be perfectly free to practice religion, with no government interference, as long as you’re practicing some form of Christianity.


Any disagreement with the government is, at least in a theoretical sense, anarchic, thus it isn’t peaceful. The amendment doesn’t specifically say any old thing can be circulated. It shouldn’t be a problem if the government restricts what can be distributed in public to just those opinions that are favorable to the government. The Founding Fathers never could have foreseen the advent of the Internet. It should be perfectly fine for the government to restrict the printing of negative opinions of their actions to being published on hand-operated printing presses and not allow those publications to be circulated, right?


There’s an uproar anytime the government encroaches on our rights. Too bad you haven’t noticed any of the threads discussing the Patriot Act.

If freedom of religion, or freedom f the press had been eroded over the years the same way the right to bear arms has been, you’d be talking about the religious nuts, or the free-press nuts. Either that or, as I suspect the case would be, you’d be one of those nuts. The thing about the Second Amendment is that the right to bear arms has been under nearly constant assault, using the same kinds of arguments I used above, for the last 75 years, and all we keep hearing is “we need more laws”. The gun laws that are already on the books aren’t being enforced, so what good will it do to pass a few more laws that won’t be enforced?

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

It's always the same mistake that liberals make about their gun concerns.

Since the people who think that using a gun for "fun" or "sport" is a weird past-time, it always boggles their minds how weirdos like Von Brunn acquired their gun, and how it would seem that sensible laws ought to correct such things.

Always the wrong questions, liberals.

It's not a law that will keep weirdos from getting guns and using them, it is education.

America is a country of people who think like children. Always short-sighted and lacking sacrifice. The question isn't "How do so many unsavory characters in America get guns?", but rather "Why are Americans more apt to using their guns on each other than any other nation on earth?".

Answer: Fear and Paranoia.

Look at Von Brunn. 88 years old. That's not a coincidence. He's been waiting practically his whole life to do this thing. Pray that America doesn't have some fucked-up militia of 88 yr-olds about to go fucking gangbusters on all people who aren't particularly like them.

It's all fear and paranoia. This isn't the first time this year that killers have left evidence that they sincerely believed that Obama and the gov't were coming to take their guns.

Gun sales from November to April of this year skyrocketed from the previous year. Ammo sold out in Oklahoma apparently.

The big three incidents in recent months I think are just a taste of something worse. If that many more guns and ammo have been purchased over the last few months out of fear and paranoia (despite the fact that these stupid fucktards are now allowed to roam national parks while being armed) than the stats must follow that a few nuts are out there and ready to act.

All out of fear and paranoia.

I wish the right-wing in America had adults left in it who could help calm things down, but with idiots at the helm like Newt and Rush and Dick and Beck allowing a platform for this kind of stupid thinking, we're going to see more Tim McVeigh dudes and Von Brunn weirdos acting out because they think things about Obama on down that simply aren't true.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

Anyone who believes that stricter enforcement of laws, or stricter laws, would've kept this nut from getting a gun is an idiot...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

That ruling was on the basis of federalism, not the Second Amendment.

As for the rest of your arguments, like I said, take it up with Scalia. None of us here wrote the decision.

Edit: Actually, that applies to Rahmota, too. The Court ruled that requirements for storage that make a gun useless for its lawful purpose do violate the 2A.

So anyone who doesn't think and act as you do is a "stupid fucktard"?

Wow.

A ruling about age restrictions on firearms possession wouldn’t necessarily need to be a Second Amendment argument, either. Simple possession of a firearm is also a non-economic activity.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

Correct, which means the regulation of commerce clause shouldn't apply. However, such a law could be passed at the state level, which means that the only impediments would be state constitutional restrictions, and the Second Amendment. (Unless, as someone said way back, the 2A is not incorporated by the 14A, which makes zero sense to me.)

I actually am in complete disagreement with the Court's interpretation of the 2A, which it seems to me tosses the original military purpose of it out the window and makes it instead a right to keep and bear arms for certain nonmilitary purposes. Especially since Scalia's opinion opens the door to banning exactly the weapons that might be best kept and borne for militia use. But -- their opinion has force, mine does not. It's now the law.

Could you go into a little detail about why that is so? If the law in this guy's case had been strictly more enforced on him then this guy wouldn't have been able to have a gun at all

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Short of preemptive arrest or regular search for illegal possessions, how do you suggest laws being enforced better than by arresting those who break them after they've done so?

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Not allowing exceptions to laws that make those laws nearly unenforcable might help.

Going by the logic under which guns are sold peer to peer and at gun shows I should be able to sell prescription drugs legally on the street corner, as long as they were legally prescribed to me.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

I see huge problems with requiring permits for protests, pride parades or rallys or anything like that.
That is exactly what they do in China, and simply refuse to grant permits for anything the government does not like.
No one has ever been convicted of failing to have a permit for a political protest yet, in this country.
We don't want to start now.

The second amendment did specifically prohibit the federal government completely. The whole point was to allow states to decide what they wanted for their militia themselves. And in reality that meant military grade weapons, including cannon. So current federal laws on things like machineguns, are totally wrong. That must be on the state by state level, in order to be legal.
It does not say that you only must have the ability, but that the federal government shall no INFRINGE. That means no federal restraint at all.

As for papers, a commercial flyer would not be the same. But actual newspapers that had editorial content, are required to follow a number of community access regulations. They can not censor or discriminate against user content. But actually I think even these flyers should be prevented from discriminating against firearms as well.

Peer to peer gun sales are not illegal and can not ever be illegal because gun ownership must always be legal.

There is no Constitutional or inherent right to own or possess prescription drugs, so there is no similarity.

The reason is that Constitutional rights like firearm ownership and possession can never need to be granted by government, because they are inherent.

*sigh* I am a firearms owner. I am proud to say that all my firearms are legally and responsibly bought from a firearms store so that I am aware they where not stolen no laws where violated and all the firearms where properly registered with the local LEO. Why is it that simple reasonable restrictions are so damn hard for people to accept? You cannot get away with doing whatever you want when you want it. I mean that simple lesson should have been taught in kindergarten.

__________________
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of
a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

– George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000