Gun control debate (merged)

#28,951
#28,951
Jxn Vol said:
I’m not wrong. What does infringe mean to you? Do you like to be controlled? What does freedom and liberty mean to you. Don’t take offense to what I’m saying. Take a step back and research where we are as a country and where we came from.

We are not as free as we used to. Which is sad. It’s as sad as being concerned about a run in with a cop while you are being free and pursuing happiness.
Click to expand...
I think what he meant was what you are ready to argue in your defense won't necessarily keep you out of cuffs at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and hog88
#28,952
#28,952
hndog609 said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. They signed onto the big contract and agreed to what was stated therein. At that point you have the Federal Constitution and STILL have the option of adding whatever you wanted as long as it didn't conflict the the big one you just signed.
Click to expand...

You have 50 homeowners who create a HOA. They grant it certain enumerated rights. As an extra layer of security, just in case the HOA tries to go beyond those enumerated rights granted to it, homeowners also draft a Bill of Rights to specifically guarantee homeowners' personal freedoms and rights. How does the HOA Bill of Rights now apply to you the homeowner?
 
#28,953
#28,953
hndog609 said:
I think what he meant was what you are ready to argue in your defense won't necessarily keep you out of cuffs at the time.
Click to expand...
I know what he meant. I progressed the conversation past that by my comments. But thanks for bringing us back a step or 2
 
#28,956
#28,956
volgr said:
You have 50 homeowners who create a HOA. They grant it certain enumerated rights. As an extra layer of security, just in case the HOA tries to go beyond those enumerated rights granted to it, homeowners also draft a Bill of Rights to specifically guarantee homeowners' personal freedoms and rights. How does the HOA Bill of Rights now apply to you the homeowner?
Click to expand...
Firstly (and obviously) we aren't discussing an HOA. 2nd and more germane to the topic you are literally arguing backwards. Even if we tried running with this flawed analogy the Constitutional BOR (in this thread we're addressing the 2A) is precisely there to limit infringements on personal freedom. You get that, right? If you're going to get any traction with your argument you're going to have to sign up with the idea personal freedoms and rights are something the States should have carte blanche control over. Is that really what you're espousing? If anything it's been way more problematic that the federal government is more and more willing to draw power unto itself by skirting the Constitution as best it can, not by adherence.

Look, there are things that simply aren't in the Constitution. There's a whole amendment addressing this fact. States do (and should) have no small degree of discretion. They signed onto a deal where that discretion isn't without limits. Honestly if what is being given up by the states is more power in restricting the freedoms of it's citizens I'm going to be in favor of how that plays out way more often than not.
 
#28,957
#28,957
hndog609 said:
Firstly (and obviously) we aren't discussing an HOA. 2nd and more germane to the topic you are literally arguing backwards. Even if we tried running with this flawed analogy the Constitutional BOR (in this thread we're addressing the 2A) is precisely there to limit infringements on personal freedom. You get that, right? If you're going to get any traction with your argument you're going to have to sign up with the idea personal freedoms and rights are something the States should have carte blanche control over. Is that really what you're espousing? If anything it's been way more problematic that the federal government is more and more willing to draw power unto itself by skirting the Constitution as best it can, not by adherence.
Click to expand...

The Federal Gov't is analogous, for this example, to a HOA. Sovereign States came together and created a General Gov't by granting it certain enumerated rights. No different than a HOA.


is precisely there to limit infringements on personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are almost there, if you add at the end, "by the Federal Gov't".
 
#28,958
#28,958
The HOA analogy is ridiculous.

States created a Federal government to ensure national security, infrastructure, and the protection of certain rights that were not to be infringed upon at States' discretion. (See the article posted earlier in this thread)
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, InVOLuntary and hog88
#28,959
#28,959
GroverCleveland said:
When the Constitution was ratified, many of the states had laws establishing religious practices, for instance requiring church attendance on Sundays. Most of these were repealed by the early 1800s, but apparently no one at the time thought much about it. Not like today, where such a proposition would engender much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair.
Click to expand...
right, I know some conflicts have existed, just they never got challenged so the Supreme Court never had a reason to step in and really weigh in on State Constitution > US Constitution inside said state.

nowadays the interstate commerce clause reads pretty big when brought up.
 
#28,960
#28,960
volgr said:
The Federal Gov't is analogous, for this example, to a HOA. Sovereign States came together and created a General Gov't by granting it certain enumerated rights. No different than a HOA.




Yeah, you are almost there, if you add at the end, "by the Federal Gov't".
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be 50 members of the HOA writing this Constitution. It would have been 13 writing it and ratifying it, and then the other 37 had to accept the US Constitution to join. but as pointed out, the US is not an HOA.
 
#28,961
#28,961
volgr said:
The Federal Gov't is analogous, for this example, to a HOA. Sovereign States came together and created a General Gov't by granting it certain enumerated rights. No different than a HOA.




Yeah, you are almost there, if you add at the end, "by the Federal Gov't".
Click to expand...
To your first part no, it isn't. I've no interest in going over all the checks and balances and ways in which the Founders worked to LIMIT the government's scope. Basically the entire point of an HOA is to place limits on what you can do. It's a little frustrating I have to keep going back to this but what part about the Constitution being empowered to limit government infringements, including those below the Federal level, gives you problems? You have an issue with freedoms being protected at the highest level possible?

As to the 2nd part yes and no. Again, not everything is covered at the Federal level. (And shouldn't be) Go to the 10th. I like States Rights being a thing. What IS covered under Article VI and the US Constitution applies to the States.
 
#28,962
#28,962
How do these people even get to be judges?

The state supreme court concluded: "We reject Wilson's constitutional challenges. Conventional interpretive modalities and Hawaiʻi's historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution. In Hawaiʻi, there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public."
Click to expand...

Hawaii Rejects Second Amendment Interpretation in Landmark Decision
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, GroverCleveland, StarRaider and 1 other person
#28,963
#28,963
hog88 said:
How do these people even get to be judges?



Hawaii Rejects Second Amendment Interpretation in Landmark Decision
Click to expand...
I'm too busy to look very hard at the moment but isn't this just a matter of the State having the ability to enforce permit requirements? It would be one thing if he were looking for relief in obtaining a permit. (You may only have a permit if you chop down the biggest tree in the forest with...a herring) My quick read made it sound like he was trying to argue Bruen made all states permitless carry.
 
#28,964
#28,964
hndog609 said:
I'm too busy to look very hard at the moment but isn't this just a matter of the State having the ability to enforce permit requirements? It would be one thing if he were looking for relief in obtaining a permit. (You may only have a permit if you chop down the biggest tree in the forest with...a herring) My quick read made it sound like he was trying to argue Bruen made all states permitless carry.
Click to expand...

Yes, this was over the guy carrying sans permit but I highlighted the statement that makes me question how these people can be judges. "and Hawaiʻi's historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution." this one line IMO goes beyond a ruling that the state is within it's rights to require a permit to carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and GroverCleveland
#28,965
#28,965
hog88 said:
Yes, this was over the guy carrying sans permit but I highlighted the statement that makes me question how these people can be judges. "and Hawaiʻi's historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution." this one line IMO goes beyond a ruling that the state is within it's rights to require a permit to carry.
Click to expand...
OK, I read a little more. Even just a cursory drive by made it apparent that court could not possibly have ever read Heller or Bruen. That or they are just pretending they never happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and hog88
#28,968
#28,968
hog88 said:
Yes, this was over the guy carrying sans permit but I highlighted the statement that makes me question how these people can be judges. "and Hawaiʻi's historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution." this one line IMO goes beyond a ruling that the state is within it's rights to require a permit to carry.
Click to expand...
I was confused by this as well. I thought this was just about permitless carry, but the legalese seems they are signalling much more, at least IMO the way it read to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#28,973
#28,973
Another national embarrassment, courtesy of GOP morons. Apparently, the pro-gun Republican governor was running for his life today.
That, at least, was a positive.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top