High capacity magazines

[Bunnykid68]

Not advocating banning any gun, or high capacity magazines for that matter, so neither of these are applicable.


Not in the Constitution. No mention of God or Creator in the Constitution.


Constitution only says the right to bear arms, not the unfettered right to bear arms. On the other hand, it does not say right to bear reasonable arms.


Just wanted to know what I was missing.

Explain further please

 

[Tinner666]

Now that I think about it some more, I believe I need my 30 rd. mags for the same reason I need insurance, a fire extinquisher, or a spare tire. They eventually rot away from disuse, but they'll be there if I ever do need them.

 

[infiremedic07]

Not in the Constitution. No mention of God or Creator in the Constitution.

But it was in the Declaration of Independence. And I will concede that the term natural law was also used in the Declaration as well.

 

[Avec]

The OP never did answer my posts #38 and #48.

Does he seriously want a 1 sentence answer to a problem that took generations to develop?

The problem is people are so ignorant now days about our country's founding and the basis of our freedoms. When we talk about this, we are basically teaching the founding principals. And that cannot be done in a sound bite.

To say that you want 1 sentence or a sound bite to win an discussion is the lazy way out. Why doesn't the OP do some studying and homework instead of cheating and looking for us to provide an answer. Then he would actually know why he believes what he believes. To only rely on others effort will never give you the conviction to stand your ground.

As I previously said, many responses and only on me. I need a high capacity thread responder! Looked back at the two posts you listed. #38 was mostly statements, and I saw #48 as rhetorical. My bad if I misunderstood.

However, I am quite knowledgeable on the founders and history in general. I think that many have taken bits and pieces out of context to buttress their point. While I am not accusing anyone on this forum of anything, I ask the rhetorical question: Are those using "God given right" to keep their weapons universally pious or selectively religious?

 

[Avec]

Explain further please

As I mentioned earlier (way up in the thread) the rights outlined in the BOR are not absolutes. SCOTUS has never defined any of them in this way. I do not have the right to say anything I feel like saying. I do not have that right. Similarly other rights in the BOR. They are not absolutes. The constitution grants the right to bear arms, but does not stipulate what those are to be. It is not an unfettered right - a right to bear whatever arms I desire at any time I desire.

 

[LEaSH]

Has no one yet stated that 30 rounds in an AR is STANDARD capacity?

It's not me splitting hairs here. This is an important component to this conversation.

 

[kawtech87]

However, I am quite knowledgeable on the founders and history in general.

You keep asking the question, however if the statement above were true you should already know the answer.

We are supposed to have access to the same weapons as our military.

Since we do not, our 2A rights have already been infringed. To further infringe on our right to access weapons and ammunition, we only allow those who will not follow the law to access them. Thereby rendering ourselves defenseless to either our own government or foreign invaders and roaming gangs of street thugs and our whole country will end up like Chicago.

 

[Bunnykid68]

As I mentioned earlier (way up in the thread) the rights outlined in the BOR are not absolutes. SCOTUS has never defined any of them in this way. I do not have the right to say anything I feel like saying. I do not have that right. Similarly other rights in the BOR. They are not absolutes. The constitution grants the right to bear arms, but does not stipulate what those are to be. It is not an unfettered right - a right to bear whatever arms I desire at any time I desire.

The Constitution does not grant rights, simply enumerates them.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Has no one yet stated that 30 rounds in an AR is STANDARD capacity?

It's not me splitting hairs here. This is an important component to this conversation.

I think one post mentioned it and you are correct, it is the standard magazine for that rifle

 

[Bunnykid68]

As I mentioned earlier (way up in the thread) the rights outlined in the BOR are not absolutes. SCOTUS has never defined any of them in this way. I do not have the right to say anything I feel like saying. I do not have that right. Similarly other rights in the BOR. They are not absolutes. The constitution grants the right to bear arms, but does not stipulate what those are to be. It is not an unfettered right - a right to bear whatever arms I desire at any time I desire.

I have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but I am also subject to any harm that is caused by me using my rights. A right is anything that anyone wants to do that does not cause harm to another or infringe upon their rights.

 

[printcraft]

...... The constitution grants the right to bear arms, but does not stipulate what those are to be. It is not an unfettered right - a right to bear whatever arms I desire at any time I desire.

Uh, yeah, it is an unfettered right. It's pretty black and white.

The right to bear arms.
IT DOES NOT STIPULATE what those are to be.... you said it yourself.

Do you need a law to tell you how to behave?
Laws are written as restrictions on behavior.
Can I only do what the law says I am allowed to do?

Is there a law permitting me to breathe?

 

[ZX-14R]

Has no one yet stated that 30 rounds in an AR is STANDARD capacity?

It's not me splitting hairs here. This is an important component to this conversation.

Hey, I already did! :/

 

[Avec]

The Constitution does not grant rights, simply enumerates them.

Actually, it clearly states that these are rights the government will not take away, hence the common use of "shall not" It does not list your absolute rights, only those the Federal government will not take away.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As I mentioned earlier (way up in the thread) the rights outlined in the BOR are not absolutes. SCOTUS has never defined any of them in this way. I do not have the right to say anything I feel like saying. I do not have that right. Similarly other rights in the BOR. They are not absolutes. The constitution grants the right to bear arms, but does not stipulate what those are to be. It is not an unfettered right - a right to bear whatever arms I desire at any time I desire.

You are failing to account for two things. The Second Amendment itself declares itself to be a right 'of the people', not any group, collective, or government, and I fail to see any explanation of 'Shall not be infringed' other than exactly what it says. Franklin Roosevelt's infamous choice to ignore the then-customary two-term limit resulted in having the SCOTUS packed with a bunch of leftists who didn't give a damn about the Constitution aside from seeing it as an obstacle to be evaded. Being ignored does not change the Constitution, and we have never recovered from having the court packed. If you would trouble yourself to study the contemporaneous writings of those who wrote and adopted the Bill of Rights you would have a much better understanding and would not be spewing the nonsense that you have flowing like a river. Try on the phrase 'every terrible instrument of the soldier' for size, and tell me that there was any intent to allow the nonsense we now have to deal with.

Let me remind you once again. If it is condition, subject to change, revocable, or requires official permission, it is not, bu definition, a right, but rather a privilege. If you cannot understand this, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[LEaSH]

As I mentioned earlier (way up in the thread) the rights outlined in the BOR are not absolutes. SCOTUS has never defined any of them in this way. I do not have the right to say anything I feel like saying. I do not have that right. Similarly other rights in the BOR. They are not absolutes. The constitution grants the right to bear arms, but does not stipulate what those are to be. It is not an unfettered right - a right to bear whatever arms I desire at any time I desire.

The purpose and design of the Bill of rights is to protect a person's natural rights. Not a granting of privileges from a government.

This 2nd amendment can be argued to the bitter end, but the truth is that the spirit of, and philosophy is that a free man has the natural right to defend himself from a tyrannical government.

And you do have the right to say anything you'd like. It's how you say it. It's where you say it. Those things can make mere words a weapon. Same as the application and use of the 2nd amendment. A word or a gun. I choose both, but you can't have one without the other. You wont have freedom of speech without a right to bare arms.

 

[Wild Deuce]

How else am I supposed to get my post count up? Ask if you have seen any good movies a hundred times in a row?

Most of his posts will probably be removed by a mod so that wouldn't do much anyway.

Pony up 15 bucks and become a site supporter and make yourself a valued member of this forum. Not that you have to be a site supporter to be a valued member but it lets you bypass the 50 post rule

Hey ... I don't think he should have 50 posts. I think he should be banned by the mods from ever reaching 50 posts. If were a mod, I would limit him to 10 posts. Just sayin.

(sorry ... fresh out of purple)

 

[kawtech87]

As I mentioned earlier (way up in the thread) the rights outlined in the BOR are not absolutes. SCOTUS has never defined any of them in this way. I do not have the right to say anything I feel like saying. I do not have that right. Similarly other rights in the BOR. They are not absolutes. The constitution grants the right to bear arms, but does not stipulate what those are to be. It is not an unfettered right - a right to bear whatever arms I desire at any time I desire.

Uh.... Yes you do. Who is stopping you from speaking your mind? The PC police have really got thier hooks deep into you dont they?

You can say anything you want as long as you dont care whos toes you step on. I personally dont care if people agree with me or not and Im often told I speak my mind when it would be in my best interest to shut it. Im not PC and never will be. If you want to limit your 1A rights by worring about what people think of what you say then please feel free to remain silent.

Also, It was intended by our founders for "the militia" (thats you and me bub) to be as well equipped as our own military.

 

[Avec]

Uh, yeah, it is an unfettered right. It's pretty black and white.

The right to bear arms.
IT DOES NOT STIPULATE what those are to be.... you said it yourself.

Do you need a law to tell you how to behave?
Laws are written as restrictions on behavior.
Can I only do what the law says I am allowed to do?

Is there a law permitting me to breathe?

The US structure of law and government does an "allow" for anything. It only restricts what is unlawful. I don't recall what the term for the type of constitution your are referring to. It is common in modern democracies of Europe, where it delineates every little right. The US Constitution BOR does not restrict the citizenry, only the government.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Actually, it clearly states that these are rights the government will not take away, hence the common use of "shall not" It does not list your absolute rights, only those the Federal government will not take away.

Well, then. You just said it the government cannot take away these rights.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Page count is exploding, so I again apologize if I overlook some posts. If you want a response and I have missed it, please post it again.

For whoever linked the Massad Ayoob article - Good Read. Thank you. A single takeaway quote from that is this:
Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried. From that, I can be argued that if the Police need a high capacity magazine, then why not a non-enforcement citizen. That is good stuff. Thank you again.



Natural law and natural rights are directly linked. They cannot be decoupled for a specific argument. You now say our rights are NOT derived from natural rights, however it has been argued earlier in this thread that they were. You need to bring your argument to them on that point.

With regard to the biblical foundations of the country, you are also misinterpreting. The founders built into the Constitution and Declaration elements of St Thomas. Thomas Jefferson as good as quoted Aquinas in the Declaration. On the other side, they went to great lengths to separate the state and religion. Most founders, including Jefferson where not overly religious, with at least a dozen or more denominations represented in the history of the framers. Indicating the desire to keep religion out of the state (and the state out of religion)

To declare gun ownership is a God given right seems to bear no actual proof or historical precedent.

The Constitution prohibits establishment of a state religion, like the Church of England and prohibits government interference in the free exercise of religion. While the Constitution is generally secular in nature, it does not establish a specifically atheistic nation, and 'separation of church and state' is a Jeffersonism. Please recall that he was in France when the Constitution was written and adopted.