Lt./Gov Brown Called MDSF Extremists!

[Sveiks]

What will it take for Democrat gun owners to vote against Brown? Are his anti-gun ads enough?

No, i don't think his gun policies will turn off dems.. the fact that he is an idiot might... but not his stance on gun law.s

 

[Sveiks]

No. Read Locke. Even the judicial branch is limited.
Read Locke..

Locke...? the 17th century brit lawyer?

 

[Sveiks]

Seriously do some reading. Start with history. As in constitutional history Start with plessy.

please enlighten me.

i am very serious to know that Locke and Plessy have to say that is so clear on this issue that makes it a no brainer... While at the same time, the entire US Judicial system is split on this very issue? (i'm not being sarcastic here)

Current judges are going to rule on these issues, Judges that I would expect to have a decent grasp on the constitution... Hell even if they don't, they make the decisions.

and to me, given the fact that US Judges are not striking these gun lawns down right and left, leads me to believe that there is some middle ground on this issue... that again, should be debated. preferably in congress or in court, and not solely on this site.

 

[Brooklyn]

please enlighten me.

i am very serious to know that Locke and Plessy have to say that is so clear on this issue that makes it a no brainer... While at the same time, the entire US Judicial system is split on this very issue? (i'm not being sarcastic here)

Current judges are going to rule on these issues, Judges that I would expect to have a decent grasp on the constitution... Hell even if they don't, they make the decisions.

and to me, given the fact that US Judges are not striking these gun lawns down right and left, leads me to believe that there is some middle ground on this issue... that again, should be debated. preferably in congress or in court, and not solely on this site.

John Locke was an enlightenment philosopher. Plessy was a case. It will give you some idea about Judges. So will Dred Scott.

Knowledge does not come cheap. Wisdom dearer still.

But hubris is free. If it were I , I would invest some time before assuming that your view of what should be is of great concern.


I have already said you are free to seek middle ground and bring back the proposal. I am still willing to wait.

But still my question is not answered. What offer of proof should be required to restrict a fundamental right?

You remind me of ELIZA, Very strange.

 

[Sveiks]

John Locke was an enlightenment philosopher. Plessy was a case. It will give you some idea about Judges. So will Dred Scott.

Knowledge does not come cheap. Wisdom dearer still.

But hubris is free. If it were I , I would invest some time before assuming that your view of what should be is of great concern.


I have already said you are free to seek middle ground and bring back the proposal. I am still willing to wait.

But still my question is not answered. What offer of proof should be required to restrict a fundamental right?

You remind me of ELIZA, Very strange.

what proof do I have? none, since the people who who the constitution are dead. So, I'll look to Scalia (not exactly a flaming liberal)

Now, back to the Second Amendment. I’m sure that pro-gun extremists know very well about Scalia’s famous opinion in Heller (2008), which dramatically expanded gun rights. But even in that decision, Scalia himself said that Second Amendment protections could apply only to weapons “in common use at the time.” Chris Wallace asked Scalia in 2012 about semiautomatic weapons and extended magazines, and he said: “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”

http://theusconstitution.org/news/there-are-no-‘absolute’-rights

The Supreme Court case striking down the DC handgun ban said that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." The majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which was written by Scalia and joined by the Supreme Court's most conservative members, stated:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[...]
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Supreme Court has upheld gun restrictions. In his majority opinion, Scalia listed gun restrictions that the courts have long upheld as constitutional, including "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons," prohibitions on "the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons' " such as an M-16 rifle, and "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/05/13/scalia-agrees-with-kagan-that-second-amendment/164680

Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12#ixzz3GTAedYqC

But writing for the 5-4 majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia said the right to bear arms is not absolute. Scalia's words carry considerable weight because he is a conservative champion, and perhaps the high court's most ardent exponent of the right to bear arms.

​

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...t-unlimited/UPI-80201355648700/#ixzz3GTAt4s6G
[/INDENT]

yeah, I will admit that this isn't the proof you're referring to, and he may be referring to rocket launchers an such; it does support my point that 2A may not be as black and white as some of us hope.

But if Scalia if saying that Assault Weapons can have banns or regulations on them, then i'm sticking to my 'it isn't cut and dry'.

just something to chew onn and who/what is ELIZA?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

i was referring more to CCW than 'ownership'. i probably should have clarified.. my apologies.

So more people having ccw (permits) means there are more firearms in the "wrong" hands? Wow. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". How dare the little people exercise that right, because they aren't the "right" people, given the process required to obtain a ccw.

Don't know about what you consider to be enough vetting to issue a ccw... the one I have required training, an extensive background check and a lot of documentation. One could argue that undergoing that process was an infringement, and we each have to make a decision where our line is. Asking me to do more than what is required in most states to obtain a ccw permit to simply obtain the ability to purchase a firearm happens to be my line. We tried to argue down in Annapolis (for the past two years) that if the HQL was a ccw, we would be fine with it. No, they insisted on holding to the G&S and further increase the ccw requirements in MD.

Please do tell, what more do you want to have done to further impede law abiding citizens to be able to ccw in MD? What further concessions would you make? A background check/investigation, training/accuracy, and a G&S isn't enough?

Now if we are talking about people carrying without a permit (where it is not permitted), that's another discussion. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "ccw"...

 

[thomfantomas]

disables comments,likes and dislikes on his propaganda ads via youtube! recently bans facebook accounts who criticizes his lying politic campaign statuses via facebook what a extremist he is.

 

[Sveiks]

So more people having ccw (permits) means there are more firearms in the "wrong" hands? Wow. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". How dare the little people exercise that right, because they aren't the "right" people, given the process required to obtain a ccw.

Don't know about what you consider to be enough vetting to issue a ccw... the one I have required training, an extensive background check and a lot of documentation. One could argue that undergoing that process was an infringement, and we each have to make a decision where our line is. Asking me to do more than what is required in most states to obtain a ccw permit to simply obtain the ability to purchase a firearm happens to be my line. We tried to argue down in Annapolis (for the past two years) that if the HQL was a ccw, we would be fine with it. No, they insisted on holding to the G&S and further increase the ccw requirements in MD.

Please do tell, what more do you want to have done to further impede law abiding citizens to be able to ccw in MD? What further concessions would you make? A background check/investigation, training/accuracy, and a G&S isn't enough?

Now if we are talking about people carrying without a permit (where it is not permitted), that's another discussion. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "ccw"...

you took exception with my statement " the guns are still out there, more and more are in the wrong hands and less and less in the 'right hands'." and made the statement "I would assert that quite the opposite is true. More law abiding Americans are becoming aware of the game plan by the grabbers and are making lawful purchases, thereby leading to the conclusion that more and more guns are landing the the right hands."


My clarification is that I was talking about CARRYING a firearm, not ownership. Now, if you want to argue that more lawful citizens are legally carrying a firearm than criminals.... I really don't know where to go with that.

 

[Vile Shadow]

here is where i feel like we're talking past each other... yes, i agree with your comments about past compromises on laws... yes, i think MD's gun laws are stupid.

BUT

there have been no 'compromises' on the constitution, especially the second amendment. It hasn't changed... there have been several 2a court cases yet restrictions on gun ownership continue.

If these gun laws are SO unconstitutional, then they have been struck down already. That is why I'm saying is isn't black or white, considering the judiciary allows multiple shades of gray. This is why I believe that only thru genuine compromise can we get anywhere. Having said that, i don't seethat happening anytime soon... Republican or Democratic, they all have their thumbs up their rears.

You don't seem to realize the original intent of the 2A. It was intended to keep future legislatures from doing exactly what's going on now, and to provide the citizenry with the means to carry out our Constitutional duty to outlaw and abolish the gooberment that became the intolerable presence that Thomas Paine foresaw, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

The gooberment is supposed to exist to serve US, NOT vice versa.

A background check for a firearm is one thing. I could live with that. But bans, such as the Hughes Amendment and the '94 AWB, which were forced upon us by a couple of nanny state loving horse's asses with their own protection details acting with no one's interests in mind but their own, are totally unacceptable.

Now tell me again how the 2A was never compromised.

 

[Sveiks]

You don't seem to realize the original intent of the 2A. It was intended to keep future legislatures from doing exactly what's going on now, and to provide the citizenry with the means to carry out our Constitutional duty to outlaw and abolish the gooberment that became the intolerable presence that Thomas Paine foresaw, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

The gooberment is supposed to exist to serve US, NOT vice versa.

A background check for a firearm is one thing. I could live with that. But bans, such as the Hughes Amendment and the '94 AWB, which were forced upon us by a couple of nanny state loving horse's asses with their own protection details acting with no one's interests in mind but their own, are totally unacceptable.

Now tell me again how the 2A was never compromised.

I don't understand the original intent?

First, I'd argue the ONLY people that can definitively answer that the original intent was, and dead....

Second, *MY* understanding of the original intent really doesn't have much practical implication does it? Then again, neither does your understanding... unless you're a sitting judge or a member of congress.

Third, I never said 2A was never compromised, I said there HAS to be a compromise to get anywhere... Sorry, welcome to politics.

Forth, the '94 AWB was in effect for 10 years yet miraculously was NEVER ruled unconstitutional, i find that rather telling. If 2A is untouchable then that AWB should have been struck down within hours but it wasn't. Are we going to ignore that small fact?

 

[teratos]

I don't understand the original intent?

First, I'd argue the ONLY people that can definitively answer that the original intent was, and dead....

Second, *MY* understanding of the original intent really doesn't have much practical implication does it? Then again, neither does your understanding... unless you're a sitting judge or a member of congress.

Third, I never said 2A was never compromised, I said there HAS to be a compromise to get anywhere... Sorry, welcome to politics.

Forth, the '94 AWB was in effect for 10 years yet miraculously was NEVER ruled unconstitutional, i find that rather telling. If 2A is untouchable then that AWB should have been struck down within hours but it wasn't. Are we going to ignore that small fact?

Then your understanding of the Constitution in its' entirety is flawed. The document was written so the common man could understand it. It should really need no interpretation.

You have to understand how laws were written in the 17th and 18th centuries. There was a prefatory clause, one which gave an example of why it would be important. It was not intended to explain the law, as the explanation given in a prefatory clause would be too narrow. In the case of the 2A the prefatory clause is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

This was not intended to be the only reason it existed, but the main reason. The Militia was understood to be all able bodied men. Not the military, as the Framers hated the idea of a standing army. A free state is one not controlled by a government.

Then there is an operative clause. The operative clause was the meat of the amendment. It was intended to be, and should be, read separately from the prefatory clause:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

That is really the only part of the 2A that matters.

 

[Sveiks]

Then your understanding of the Constitution in its' entirety is flawed. The document was written so the common man could understand it. It should really need no interpretation.

You have to understand how laws were written in the 17th and 18th centuries. There was a prefatory clause, one which gave an example of why it would be important. It was not intended to explain the law, as the explanation given in a prefatory clause would be too narrow. In the case of the 2A the prefatory clause is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

This was not intended to be the only reason it existed, but the main reason. The Militia was understood to be all able bodied men. Not the military, as the Framers hated the idea of a standing army. A free state is one not controlled by a government.

Then there is an operative clause. The operative clause was the meat of the amendment. It was intended to be, and should be, read separately from the prefatory clause:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

That is really the only part of the 2A that matters.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

That is really the only part of the 2A that matters.

Make sure you give SCOTUS a call and let them know that... just in case they have a different opinion.

 

[teratos]

Make sure you give SCOTUS a call and let them know that... just in case they have a different opinion.

Some of them know.

Have your read the majority and concurring opinions in Heller and McDonald?

 

[Sveiks]

Some of them know.

Have your read the majority and concurring opinions in Heller and McDonald?

yeah, like Scalia.

But writing for the 5-4 majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia said the right to bear arms is not absolute. Scalia's words carry considerable weight because he is a conservative champion, and perhaps the high court's most ardent exponent of the right to bear arms.


Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...#ixzz3GTAt4s6G

 

[teratos]

yeah, like Scalia.

But writing for the 5-4 majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia said the right to bear arms is not absolute. Scalia's words carry considerable weight because he is a conservative champion, and perhaps the high court's most ardent exponent of the right to bear arms.


Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...#ixzz3GTAt4s6G

People put too much weight on the "right is not absolute".

Howitzers, SAM's I'm fine with people not owning. Want to prohibit carry into the White House? Fine.

It is not a license to start banning arms in common use.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

People put too much weight on the "right is not absolute". Howitzers, SAM's I'm fine with people not owning. Want to prohibit carry into the White House? Fine. It is not a license to start banning arms in common use.

And we have already "compromised" on these with nothing in return. When do we start gaining concessions?

 

[Sveiks]

People put too much weight on the "right is not absolute".
Howitzers, SAM's I'm fine with people not owning. Want to prohibit carry into the White House? Fine.

It is not a license to start banning arms in common use.

WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?

sorry, it was too easy of an opening.


so, this begs the question, where does the slippery slope begin? I can't own a Howitzer but I can own a 40mm grenade launcher? I can't own a .50 cal but I can own a .458? .45 is fine but not a glock 10mm? I can't have more than X amount of powder in the round? the gun can't be black? can't hold more than 10 rounds? 5?

now we get into the 'why do you need a gun that.....' conversation.

for those who take the stance that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right endowed by our creator, then the word absolute is the correct one to use. How can a right bestowed by our created be anything BUT absolute.

However, common sense would contradict that, while there may be some on this board that disagree but i don't think any of use would advocate a 2A stance on a nuke. Then again, it might make CCW a little tricky for a small tactical nuke. Or, Darwin may take over and solve some problems.... but I digress.


So, if the second amendment is not absolute, then there has to be limits. limits are established by compromise, compromise of gained by honest political debate.

Now don't reply with more crap about 'what have we gotten' or 'Dems are pricks'.... because that kind of debate has gotten us exactly where we are.

There has to be a NATIONAL debate about this, not just a state based one and the only way for that to happen is for everyone to take a step back, take you Xanax, smoke your whatever, count to 10, have a shot a 15 year old Oban... whatever calms you down, and then engage in a debate. and believe me i mean that for both sides, I just haven't found an 'Anti-2A' forum, so, i'm posting it here.

 

[Sveiks]

And we have already "compromised" on these with nothing in return. When do we start gaining concessions?

the sad and honest truth?

when the 2A crowd starts winning elections and can make an argument that resonates with the people, Dems and Republicans.

Sorry, but i don't see any other way.

 

[teratos]

the sad and honest truth?

when the 2A crowd starts winning elections and can make an argument that resonates with the people, Dems and Republicans.

Sorry, but i don't see any other way.

There is only one other way. It has to do with the original intent of the 2A.

 

[Sveiks]

I hate to get all Dr Phil on ya.... But "Hows that working out for you?