close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Nightmare in Ohio

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by fowl intent, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,934
    Likes Received:
    4,056
    I think the real issue is the simple fact that some people think their personal interpretations of the Constitution are valid simply because that is the way they want things to be.

    An if you won't drink their kool- aid then you are the enemy.
     
  2. ithaca_deerslayer

    ithaca_deerslayer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    22,008
    Likes Received:
    8,002
    Location:
    Upstate NY, USA
    One issue discussed in this thread is that failure to get a permit should not result in a felony.
     

  3. frank4570

    frank4570

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    15,508
    Likes Received:
    8
    Then you are rolling the dice. I also go through that patch myself BTW. But you at least know that you are rolling the dice and you understand what might happen if you get stopped there.
    I've tried to find ways to avoid Md. I freakin HATE going through that state.
     
  4. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,512
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    north of the equator
    Regardless of all other aspects of this issue, you are wrong here.


    A permit is permission to do something.
    It defines an activity as a privilege dependent upon that permission.

    Privilege is antitheses to natural right.
    If a privilege can be granted, it can also be withheld or withdrawn.

    How is a right ever dependent upon permission?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  5. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,512
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    north of the equator


    "shall not be infringed".

    in·fringe/inˈfrinj/
    Verb: Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".

    Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  6. philipk

    philipk

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2000
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    I love you so called Constitutional people. You want to follow it with the Second Amendment but ignore Article III in the Constitution.

    We do not live in an anarchy were everyone can interpret and enforce the Constitution in their own image. Article III sets up the judicial system to do that.

    We can condemn the Supreme Court by our opinions. We can try to change the make-up of the Supreme Court through our right to vote. However, we must follow the Supreme Court in its enforcement.

    Currently, the Supreme Court went out of their way in District of Columbia v. Heller to state that the federal government and the states have the right to regulate firearms on many levels.

    The man should have known Ohio's laws. He is 100% in the wrong.

    The only issue is will justice be served?

    Hopefully, this can be plead down to a misdemeanor and small slap on the wrist.
     
  7. philipk

    philipk

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2000
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    See my above post.

    I would love to go back to the time when the Bill of Rights was written and slap the founding fathers in the face.

    From every point of view the Second Amendment was poorly worded.

    I believe it is an individual right and that the founding fathers did not want gun-control.

    WHT does "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" mean?

    I have never heard a convincing argument of why the founding fathers was so stupid to write that phrase.

    Again that's why we have the Supreme Court to make these decisions and to interpret the constitution.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  8. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,512
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    north of the equator
    The word "regulated" was used in that time to mean "well-equipped" or "well-trained".

    This usage can be found in literature of the period, but is no longer common today.


    It was used for example on clocks and timepieces of the period applied in a similar usage as "well-adjusted", to keep accurate time.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  9. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    Thoughts:

    First, you apparently have an unconstitutional view of the Supreme Court. I'd rather not have to spell this one out, but I can if need be.

    Second, your constant narrative about "natural" rights sounds nice, but is meaningless. Go to North Korea sometime and tell them about your natural rights and see how far it gets you. Not that I disagree with the concept of natural or unalienable rights (I don't), but the ONLY reason we in the USA are able to exercise them (talking practical sense here) is our particular set of earthly laws recognize them. You know, the same laws that specify the Supreme Court as the judicial authority on all things US Constitution (meaning it's a stretch to claim to be a Constitutionalist and flippantly say they're "wrong." Oops, I spelled it out anyway).

    Third, was the gentleman in the OP a part of any well-regulated militia? Personally, I don't requiring such is necessary or the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment but the question needed to be asked to illustrate the fact that interpretation of the Constitution isn't as cut an dried as either side in any given constitutional debate would purport it to be.

    Yeah, yeah, I know. The "antis" have won and all.
     
  10. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    Well crap. I went through this entire thread just to make sure nobody had raised this point and as I'm posting, you beat me to the punch :tongueout:
     
  11. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    What about the word "militia"? That's where the hangup is for most people.
     
  12. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,512
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    north of the equator
    But then, they don't have a constitution defending those rights from encroachment by government, do they? This particular argument is a bit specious at best.
     
  13. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,512
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    north of the equator
    It's very clear from all writings of the time that "militia" was all able-bodied civilian males.
     
  14. alwaysshootin

    alwaysshootin

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    6
    You are arguing with people who think any "man", "court", "king", "dictator", can make a rule/law, that they can't defend themselves, with any means possible!
     
  15. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    Which is exactly why I addressed that in the part of the paragraph you didn't quote.
     
  16. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    Where did you get that from anything I wrote? I DARE you to show me.
     
  17. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    It's "very clear from all writings" (though I doubt this) except the one that actually matters.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  18. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,934
    Likes Received:
    4,056
    So in your personal interpretation of the constitution laws against malicious slanderous speech by either individuals or the press are unconstitutional.

    In your wonderful world individuals and or the press can make knowingly false malicious statements about you and ruin your career, business, reputation because they are just engaging in their constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. or do you think such laws are valid afterall?

    Thankfully that is not how it is in the real world. It's only that way in the minds of those who think THEY are the authority in the interpretation of the Constitution.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  19. alwaysshootin

    alwaysshootin

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    6
    "First, you apparently have an unconstitutional view of the Supreme Court."

    Can a justice be removed?

    "Second, your constant narrative about "natural" rights sounds nice, but is meaningless."

    Only if you are Godless!
     
  20. MacChiroCtr

    MacChiroCtr

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    In the 18th Century, the Militia was, simply, the people. Basically, males from 16 to 60 were ALL in the militia. So when they composed the 2nd Amendment, since the the militia was basically everyone, they meant the people.

    It's kind of fun to go and study the language from back then. Kind of like "well-regulated"... having the meaning it did then, compared to how we interpret it today.