It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.
You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one. I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people. What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.
So all of this hubbub and we only slightly disagree on the issue, lol. Well, it was entertaining I guess
We disagree on high capacity magazines as well.
I would say that I more so disagree on "how" some states have tried to ban magazines. Clinton banned "high capacity" magazines and it just resulted in new small, virtually undetectable "pocket pistols" being created as a consequence. I just read that a "speed loader" was created to align with California's laws regarding undetachable magazines, allowing someone to quickly spring-load a full permanently attached magazine. My issue is with knee jerk policies that do little to actually add to public safety and often result in undesirable consequences, such as law abiding citizens suddenly being prosecuted for something they previously purchased legally. I draw the line at mass confiscation of property or anything that leads in that direction. Not to mention that there are tons and tons of "large capacity magazines" already in the hands of the public and I do not see any way of actually policing such a statute.
Again, no mention of "assault rifle"??? Anyone else surprised by CNN's usage of "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and not "assault rifle". I can only assume it is because this incident does not meet their "ban assault rifle" standards.
Again, no mention of "assault rifle"??? Anyone else surprised by CNN's usage of "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and not "assault rifle". I can only assume it is because this incident does not meet their "ban assault rifle" standards.
You could also consider that they're using language as it's presented to them, both in this situation and in gun control stories. It's a pretty common thing with journalists.
Again, no mention of "assault rifle"??? Anyone else surprised by CNN's usage of "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and not "assault rifle". I can only assume it is because this incident does not meet their "ban assault rifle" standards.
You could also consider that they're using language as it's presented to them, both in this situation and in gun control stories. It's a pretty common thing with journalists.
I still find it telling that the term "assault rifle" is used whenever someone uses an AR-15 for ill intent, yet when someone uses it for self-defense, it's all the sudden an "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle".
Again, no mention of "assault rifle"??? Anyone else surprised by CNN's usage of "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and not "assault rifle". I can only assume it is because this incident does not meet their "ban assault rifle" standards.
You could also consider that they're using language as it's presented to them, both in this situation and in gun control stories. It's a pretty common thing with journalists.
I still find it telling that the term "assault rifle" is used whenever someone uses an AR-15 for ill intent, yet when someone uses it for self-defense, it's all the sudden an "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle".
A lot of that probably has to do with the fact that the people who want this gun gone, besides the fact that they only use that term to fit their narrative, know nothing about it. Like the fact they think that AR stands for "assault rifle". Or when Congressman Alan Grayson went on CNN after the Orlando nightclub shooting and said "the AR-15 can fire off 700 rounds per minute..". And a lot of people just hear that and take it as fact without actually learning that neither of those statements are true.
Again, no mention of "assault rifle"??? Anyone else surprised by CNN's usage of "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and not "assault rifle". I can only assume it is because this incident does not meet their "ban assault rifle" standards.
You could also consider that they're using language as it's presented to them, both in this situation and in gun control stories. It's a pretty common thing with journalists.
I still find it telling that the term "assault rifle" is used whenever someone uses an AR-15 for ill intent, yet when someone uses it for self-defense, it's all the sudden an "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle".
A lot of that probably has to do with the fact that the people who want this gun gone, besides the fact that they only use that term to fit their narrative, know nothing about it. Like the fact they think that AR stands for "assault rifle". Or when Congressman Alan Grayson went on CNN after the Orlando nightclub shooting and said "the AR-15 can fire off 700 rounds per minute..". And a lot of people just hear that and take it as fact without actually learning that neither of those statements are true.
I totally agree. I, and when idiots like the one in the video below are trying to create regulations...it makes me cringe. https://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0
It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.
You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one. I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people. What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.
I had completely misinterpreted your arguments. Was surprised to hear you own a gun because I've always thought you were saying the constitution does not grant us the right to own guns.
It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.
You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one. I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people. What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.
I had completely misinterpreted your arguments. Was surprised to hear you own a gun because I've always thought you were saying the constitution does not grant us the right to own guns.
Just that it doesn't grant absolute rights, I do believe in controls for the betterment of society. I wouldn't have a problem with citizens having a maximum number of firearms of particular types, I don't have a problem with controling aspects like magazine size, etc
I do believe in people owning appropriate firearms for hunting and self-defence, and the advantage that gives our country in apocalyptic scenarios.
It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.
You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one. I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people. What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.
I had completely misinterpreted your arguments. Was surprised to hear you own a gun because I've always thought you were saying the constitution does not grant us the right to own guns.
Just that it doesn't grant absolute rights, I do believe in controls for the betterment of society. I wouldn't have a problem with citizens having a maximum number of firearms of particular types, I don't have a problem with controling aspects like magazine size, etc
I do believe in people owning appropriate firearms for hunting and self-defence, and the advantage that gives our country in apocalyptic scenarios.
I pretty much agree with most of that. Who knew....we agreed all along.
It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.
You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one. I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people. What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.
I had completely misinterpreted your arguments. Was surprised to hear you own a gun because I've always thought you were saying the constitution does not grant us the right to own guns.
Just that it doesn't grant absolute rights, I do believe in controls for the betterment of society. I wouldn't have a problem with citizens having a maximum number of firearms of particular types, I don't have a problem with controling aspects like magazine size, etc
I do believe in people owning appropriate firearms for hunting and self-defence, and the advantage that gives our country in apocalyptic scenarios.
I pretty much agree with most of that. Who knew....we agreed all along.
Once we got into the details I bet you would find me too restrictive.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Hopefully, one day, people will realize that "Gun Free Zones" encourage attacks rather than prevent them.
Fish in a barrel.
I just took a conceal carry class. I don't plan to carry all the time, but would like to if I am hiking/camping, driving cross state. I haven't checked if this is true, but the instructor told us after the Aurora Movie theater shooting (near Denver) the law changed a few times from what was known as "sign is law." Meaning if someone has an establishment and they post a sign requesting no firearms be brought in, then it is "law" for that establishment making it illegal to conceal and carry even if you have a permit. The theater had such signs, which are actually fairly common. Legislature debated the possibility that someone could have been armed, but was afraid to stop the threat, or that others could have been armed but chose to leave their gun at home knowing they would be breaking the law. We were told it changed a few times back and forth, and is currently not law, meaning if you have a permit to carry, even if the establishment says no guns allowed, you can still conceal and carry. Like I said, I didn't do research on the matter, that is what the instructor told us. But I thought it was interesting.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I carry everywhere, I don't care about signs.
But it also depends on the State, most make it a misdemeanor if you don't leave when asked and they will charge you with trespassing. Now when I see a sign I usually spend my money elsewhere, but sometimes I need to get somewhere else, like a mall, and I carry anyway.
Comments
My issue is with knee jerk policies that do little to actually add to public safety and often result in undesirable consequences, such as law abiding citizens suddenly being prosecuted for something they previously purchased legally. I draw the line at mass confiscation of property or anything that leads in that direction. Not to mention that there are tons and tons of "large capacity magazines" already in the hands of the public and I do not see any way of actually policing such a statute.
Carry on.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gold-Rifle-Shape-Black-Ink-Ballpoint-Pen-Stationery-Office-Ball-Point-Novelty-/322133503909?_trkparms=5373:0|5374:Featured
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1oz-Perth-Mint-Gold-Bar-9999-Fine-in-Assay-/331552798974?_trkparms=5373:0|5374:Featured|5079:6000000583
Perhaps the interstate system, or the space race?
Anything?
I wouldn't have a problem with citizens having a maximum number of firearms of particular types, I don't have a problem with controling aspects like magazine size, etc
I do believe in people owning appropriate firearms for hunting and self-defence, and the advantage that gives our country in apocalyptic scenarios.
I haven't checked if this is true, but the instructor told us after the Aurora Movie theater shooting (near Denver) the law changed a few times from what was known as "sign is law." Meaning if someone has an establishment and they post a sign requesting no firearms be brought in, then it is "law" for that establishment making it illegal to conceal and carry even if you have a permit.
The theater had such signs, which are actually fairly common. Legislature debated the possibility that someone could have been armed, but was afraid to stop the threat, or that others could have been armed but chose to leave their gun at home knowing they would be breaking the law.
We were told it changed a few times back and forth, and is currently not law, meaning if you have a permit to carry, even if the establishment says no guns allowed, you can still conceal and carry.
Like I said, I didn't do research on the matter, that is what the instructor told us. But I thought it was interesting.
But it also depends on the State, most make it a misdemeanor if you don't leave when asked and they will charge you with trespassing. Now when I see a sign I usually spend my money elsewhere, but sometimes I need to get somewhere else, like a mall, and I carry anyway.
A sign will never protect you.