So, the notion that armed guards will prevent shootings.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by eyer

Dorothy & Toto called...

...they'd like to know if you're free to travel next week.

Gun ownership is also a privilege in Kansas.

[bernett69]

best way to end school shootings is to close all the schools

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

Gun ownership is also a privilege in Kansas.

It's a right in the United States.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by vetteman

It's a right in the United States.

Sure isn't.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Heaven forbid our children aren't important enough to protect them.

[eyer]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

Gun ownership is also a privilege in Kansas.

Try clicking your heels and see if that comes true...

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by eyer

Try clicking your heels and see if that comes true...

No matter what kind of shoes I wear or don't wear the statement is true.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by CHNOPS

We routinely (if subtextually) apply a proportional algorithm to our weapons restrictions--the more damage a single person could do with a single weapon, the more likely we are to restrict it. So why shouldn't we apply that algorithm in a consistent manner across all "arms," side- or otherwise? Would doing so result in a different selection of available firearms? If so, what is the compelling argument for ignoring that fact--even celebrating the subversion of it?

Here again, the imprecision of the philosophy underlying the process of regulation that we go through, though it may result in the likelihood of the most dangerous weapons being regulated, is nothing like an "algorithm." If it was as simple as applying a formula, we would not be debating it.

Since one of the framer's intentions in the construct of the Second Amendment was to allow for the preservation of state militias in order for the collective citizenry to throw off an oppressive government by force, I will suggest that the default mindset when approaching the Constitutionality of firearms regulation ought to be for allowing personal ownership of as many firearms with as little regulation as possible.

In fact, that seems to me a preferable default mindset in any event: unfettered liberty favored over all but the most necessary constraints.

At bare minimum, the Supreme Court in affirming the individual Constitutional right to keep and bare arms did so, in the case of Heller, with an eye toward the lawful uses of firearms such as of self-defense, hunting and whatever recreational pleasure some find in inanimate target shooting or skeet. I would expect weapons suitable for these purposes to always enjoy Constitutional protection.

But the uniformity which the minimum Constitutional protection demands does not imply a uniform set of restrictions from state-to-state. This is the fallacy of approaching Constitutional interpretation through the search for "algorithms of restrictions" rather than the scope of rights to be protected.

Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority in Heller, addressed that point:

Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879) , our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

No one in America has a right to own a gun. Gun ownership is a privilege.

I don't suppose it matters to you in the least that the Supreme Court of the United States says you're flat-ass wrong?

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

I don't suppose it matters to you in the least that the Supreme Court of the United States says you're flat-ass wrong?

No they don't. Gun ownership is not a right. If government can say you can't legally own a gun, it isn't a right.

[eyer]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

Gun ownership is not a right. If government can say you can't legally own a gun, it isn't a right.

The Wizard called...

...he said he'll see you now.

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

No they don't. Gun ownership is not a right. If government can say you can't legally own a gun, it isn't a right.

From District of Columbia v. Heller:

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.

The fact that a "right" has limitations does not linguistically prevent its accurate categorization as a right. If the word usage of a SCOTUS justice is insufficient for you, go ask your English teacher.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

From District of Columbia v. Heller:



The fact that a "right" has limitations does not linguistically prevent its accurate categorization as a right. If the word usage of a SCOTUS justice is insufficient for you, go ask your English teacher.

You don't seem to understand the definition of the word limitation. While rights may be limited, they can never be fully taken away from you, that's what makes them rights. Since gun ownership can be legally revoked it fits the definition of a privilege. No need to ask an English teacher.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

You don't seem to understand the definition of the word limitation. While rights may be limited, they can never be fully taken away from you, that's what makes them rights. Since can ownership can be legally revoked it fits the definition of a privilege. No need to ask an English teacher.

Their coming after my cans?

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Their coming after my cans?

Can you post them before they lift them?

[neci]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Can you post them before they lift them?

fyp
yw

[BotanyBoy]

I know teachers who already pack....it's the beauty of concealed carry....don't act an ass and no one will ever know.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

You don't seem to understand the definition of the word limitation. While rights may be limited, they can never be fully taken away from you, that's what makes them rights. Since gun ownership can be legally revoked it fits the definition of a privilege. No need to ask an English teacher.

By that definition there is no such thing as a right at all because any and all of them can be taken away by the government on a case-by-case basis.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by John Doe

By that definition there is no such thing as a right at all because any and all of them can be taken away by the government on a case-by-case basis.

No they can't.

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

No they can't.

Yes they can, right down to your right to life....how many people does TX put down each year like 300??

Number one mass murderer of all time??? Statistics say......GUBBMINT!!







Don't worry....gubbmint is your friend.....here to help you....they would never lie either....go watch some more MSN/FOX

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

No they can't.

What do you think happens to prisoners?

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by BotanyBoy

Yes they can, right down to your right to life....how many people does TX put down each year like 300??

Number one mass murderer of all time??? Statistics say......GUBBMINT!!







Don't worry....gubbmint is your friend.....here to help you....they would never lie either....go watch some more MSN/FOX

So which amendment protects your right to remain alive?

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by John Doe

What do you think happens to prisoners?

They lose the privilege of owning a gun, but not any of their rights.

[renard_ruse]

So, the notion that armed guards will prevent shootings

Much.

Common sense works.

[sufisaint]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

So which amendment protects your right to remain alive?

The Second Amendment...and it will remain a right as long as I and other freedom loving Americans defend it against power hungry Democrats...