More than 100 people shot in Chicago over long Fourth of July weekend

bama_wayne1 · Jul 6, 2017

Bamabuzzard said:
If we're going to make people pass some form of a competency test to allow them to exercise their right to own a gun. Then why not apply a minimum competency test for the right to vote and have it to where if they're not competent enough to vote then they dang sure "ain't" competent enough to own a gun. We could have fun with this line of thinking.

Agreed, but you wouldn't hear a lot of guff about it because they wouldn't qualify for freedom of speech either....

bama_wayne1 · Jul 6, 2017

LA4Bama said:
What? You think somebody gives you the right to be a doctor or lawyer or preacher, but that by nature you have a right to own a gun? You are just describing how things happen to be (or appear to be) right now and then assuming that's how they have to be or are supposed to be.

So, your question is going about this all wrong. The reason nobody has to pass a test to have these as "rights" is because it is not a list of rights at all. It is a list of restrictions on federal authority. In fact, it wasn't until the 14th Amendment that it became common to interpret the BR as individual rights that could be protected by the federal government (in case a state violated the "right" of the individual).

Dancing? Nah, man. Nobody is dancing. I think it can be constructive to talk about original intent, but if we are going to do that, we need to be considerate of the actual original intent. The original intent was to limit federal power to what is necessary and reasonable, not to make a list of rights. So you are correct, nobody has to pass a test here, but that fact doesn't prove what you think it proves.

The 2nd amendment expressly grants the right to keep and bear arms. That is way before the 14th.

CrimsonProf · Jul 6, 2017

bama_wayne1 said:
The 2nd amendment expressly grants the right to keep and bear arms. That is way before the 14th.

The 2A doesn't grant that right - it acknowledges a preexisting right upon which the government may not infringe.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CrimsonProf · Jul 6, 2017

Bamabuzzard said:
Here's the problem when you start talking about "mental illness" and using that to determine whether someone should be able to own a gun or not. What actually is "mental illness"? It is a BROAD, BROAD term that unfortunately completely competent, stable and sane people get swept under. Here's how you can be thrown into that category. If on your medical records you've EVER taken an anti-depressant for anxiety, depression etc. No matter how long or short you took it, or how stable you are, guess what? You're now in the mental illness category. I've fought depression and anxiety since I was 22 years old. There was a period in my life that I took anti-depressants. I haven't taken them in years. I've learned to control it with diet, exercise, getting enough sleep and understanding how it works. Yet I guarantee you if some form of "test" was implemented and "mental illness" was on the checklist of "red flags". It would end not allowing very sane, competent and stable people to not have access to firearms. Hell, we'd probably be put on some "watch list". The "test" idea needs to be well thought out before we all go running off the pier in support of it.

That's why the ACLU joined the NRA in supporting a repeal of those federal restrictions earlier this year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tidewater · Jul 6, 2017

The Militia Act of 1792 conscripted that

each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years.

Further, the statute provided that:

every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service.

It is worth noting that voting was not yet extended to every white man at the time, so "militia members" is a broader category than "voters."

The Founders did not provide for automatic weapons, cheap pistols with 15-round magazines, etc., but they did leave us with the constitutional amendment process.

Just wanted to add these historic data.

crimsonaudio · Jul 6, 2017

Intl.Aperture said:
You mention several times about "restricting" rights. I suppose I don't feel it would be restrictive to prove that I'm a competent citizen without a criminal history.

You already do this when you buy a firearm from a dealer, that's why you submit a 4473.

Beyond that, yes, it's a restriction. So many run rights have been restricted (or outright removed) out of the 'hope' that the new restrictions will help that it's ridiculous. It's why many of us fight any new infringement tooth and nail - we're tired of giving an inch here and an inch there for zero benefit.

crimsonaudio · Jul 6, 2017

Tidewater said:
The Founders did not provide for automatic weapons, cheap pistols with 15-round magazines, etc., but they did leave us with the constitutional amendment process.

They didn't restrict the right to bear arms at all. People that ask why we should be allowed to have 'military weaponry' should realize that was actually the original intent. It wasn't about hunting deer and everyone was able to own whatever the cutting-edge weaponry of the day was, including cannons, etc.

I'm not suggesting that's where we should be now, but it makes the clear point as to how far we've strayed from that intent...

Tidewater · Jul 6, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
They didn't restrict the right to bear arms at all. People that ask why we should be allowed to have 'military weaponry' should realize that was actually the original intent. It wasn't about hunting deer and everyone was able to own whatever the cutting-edge weaponry of the day was, including cannons, etc.

I'm not suggesting that's where we should be now, but it makes the clear point as to how far we've strayed from that intent...

Agree completely. To those who say we should to restrict belt-fed automatic weapons (or whatever), fine. Propose the amendment. If it is reasonable, it will secure the necessary 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states. But to say, "I can't win that argument, and my intentions are so pure I should not even be asked to try, I just want the Federal judiciary to declare me the winner before we even have the debate," I say, that's not how this works.

jthomas666 · Jul 6, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
That's dancing around the question a bit, isn't it? The reality is there aren't any enumerated rights which require 'permission' (passing a test) from the government. If they are required, they're no longer rights.

Does the requirement for parade/protest permits mean we no longer have freedom of assembly? Or does it mean that in some cases, individual rights are tempered by the need for public safety?

crimsonaudio · Jul 6, 2017

jthomas666 said:
Does the requirement for parade/protest permits mean we no longer have freedom of assembly? Or does it mean that in some cases, individual rights are tempered by the need for public safety?

As I stated above, there are some situations where parts of an amendment (specific circumstances), require this. That said, the federal government has not stated that permits are required for all parades or protests (unless I've missed something), so I guess I don't get your point here...

seebell · Jul 6, 2017

Further, the statute provided that:

every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service.

The statue you linked mentions militia many times. Have ya'll enrolled and been notified? Did you attend the last exercise?

BamaInCummingGA#1 · Jul 6, 2017

Well, if we're gonna go down this rabbit hole then let's have a drug test for those who are on welfare, food stamps, etc. Make people prove they are competent and educated enough to vote. I mean, voting just involves the running of/safety and security of this country. Ignorant/uneducated people are more of a danger to this country than the guns and ammo.

MattinBama · Jul 6, 2017

I know it's more of a state thing but how does everyone feel about former criminals being stripped of their 2nd amendment rights? Seems pretty infringey for something not to be infringed.

seebell · Jul 6, 2017

MattinBama said:
I know it's more of a state thing but how does everyone feel about former criminals being stripped of their 2nd amendment rights? Seems pretty infringey for something not to be infringed.

LOL. Matt, you can't just make up words on here!! We have standards on this forum. I do like the sound of that word though.. Infringey:biggrin:

crimsonaudio · Jul 6, 2017

MattinBama said:
I know it's more of a state thing but how does everyone feel about former criminals being stripped of their 2nd amendment rights? Seems pretty infringey for something not to be infringed.

I think once someone's time is served, all their rights should be reinstated, excepting those barred by the US constitution. But again, that came about as part of the inevitable creep of government control, the GCA of 1968.

Heck, thanks to the GCA of '68, someone dishonorably discharged from the US Military is stripped of their 2A right.

Ridiculous.

jthomas666 · Jul 6, 2017

BamaInCummingGA said:
Well, if we're gonna go down this rabbit hole then let's have a drug test for those who are on welfare, food stamps, etc. Make people prove they are competent and educated enough to vote. I mean, voting just involves the running of/safety and security of this country. Ignorant/uneducated people are more of a danger to this country than the guns and ammo.

Only if government officials go first.

MattinBama · Jul 6, 2017

seebell said:
LOL. Matt, you can't just make up words on here!! We have standards on this forum. I do like the sound of that word though.. Infringey:biggrin:

Don't be getting infringey on my right to make up new words.

Tidewater · Jul 6, 2017

seebell said:
The statue you linked mentions militia many times. Have ya'll enrolled and been notified? Did you attend the last exercise?

The militia has evolved since 1792. That evolution does not automatically enlarge the powers of the general government.
If the Commonwealth of Virginia informed me that enrolling and attending an exercise would determine my ability to own a gun, then I'd have a choice to make.

The overarching issue in the state conventions that ratified the Constitution (where James Madison said, the Constitution "received all the authority it possesses") was absolutely and completely limiting the powers of the general government to those power expressly enumerated in the Constitution. When it comes to federal powers, silence means "No!"

LA4Bama · Jul 6, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
It proves precisely what I think it proves. Regardless of the reasoning behind the amendments, whether as an enumeration of rights bestowed upon us by our Creator (or creator) or simply as limits on federal powers, the reality is the same - there isn't a single 'right' in the US Constitution which requires a test in order to exercise it.

Yes, there are some specific circumstances (certain professions, as you outlined above), but the general right (to work) requires no test.

LOL, so if you say it "louder" it becomes more authoritative. You say, "regardless of the reasoning." How can you appeal to "original intent" and then in the same breath say, "regardless of the reasoning..."? Surely if original intent matters then the reasoning matters.

crimsonaudio · Jul 6, 2017

LA4Bama said:
LOL, so if you say it "louder" it becomes more authoritative. You say, "regardless of the reasoning." How can you appeal to "original intent" and then in the same breath say, "regardless of the reasoning...." Surely if original intent matters then the reasoning matters.

Louder? Sometimes you post strangely...

My point is that whether original intent was enumerating rights or limiting federal government it changes nothing. Same as if we ignore original intent and simply read the document today.

Seems quite simple - or are you trying to be obtuse?

If you want people to have to pass a test in order to exercise one of the basic rights outlined in the US Constitution, the onus is on you to make (and prove) the point. Otherwise you're just dancing.

More than 100 people shot in Chicago over long Fourth of July weekend

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Scout Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!