[quote]pushharder wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Porky, if one should need a permit to carry a gun because the Second Amendment clearly leaves gun regulation wide open - according to you anyway - then one should also need a permit for:
the right to speak our minds
the right to print a newspaper or blog online
the right to worship as we please
the right to petition our government
the right to deny the quartering of soldiers in our homes
the right to have search and seizure regulated
our rights to provisions concerning prosecution
the right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
the right to a trial by jury
the right to avoid excessive bail and cruel punishment
Porky, be consistent and admit if the government can justifiably require a permit to possess a gun it can also justifiably require a permit to access these other rights.
I never said that “because the Second Amendment clearly leaves gun regulation wide open” that “one should need a permit to carry a gun”. I said that the second Amendment’s wording does not preclude the possibility of having some sort of mild regulatory system in place to help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.
Hence if you were to be consistent about applying my argument to the other amendments, then the argument isn’t that one should need permits to do all those things, but only that the amendments don’t preclude the possibility of some forms of reasonable and mild regulation. For example, such reasonable and mild regulation already exist for many of those amendments. One cannot arbitrary publish ANYTHING one wants in a newspaper, as things like false defamation of character aren’t protected (ie, I can sue you for it and appeal to the first amendment won’t protect you).
In any case the idea that the second amendment guarantees us the right to absolutely no government regulation of firearms is as silly as the idea that the first amendment guarantees my “right” to falsely defame someone.
So as you see, I am perfectly consistent…
No, you’re consistently ignorant.
The Second is the ONLY amendment that hollers from the mountaintops, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
It is THE amendment with THE most teeth.
It is THE one amendment that says, “Don’t tread on me.”
It is THE amendment on which the others stand.
It is THE amendment that carries the insurance that the others will stand.
It is THE amendment not to be fucked with.
Leave it alone or repeal it. It’s an “either or” deal here.
I said on the other gun thread that anyone who comes on this forum and advocates gun control is going to get spanked. Badly. And your ass is getting redder by the minute. Want more?[/quote]
Honestly, did you even read what I said, or do you just read a few words, see words like “gun” and “regulation”, interpret it all through your ideological goggles and read “must ban guns!!!”. Honestly, that’s a real question, really.
I’m not advocating “gun control”. I’m not against conceal carry permits, I’m not against ANY of that. Hell, I’m all for expanding gun rights–I wish your average student on your average university campus could carry a gun, but that’s not the case. Nevertheless, I see nothing wrong with the government regulating guns to the extent of regulating a permit and background check.
I fail to see how all the hop la you’re spouting out about the second amendment intrinsically forbids the notion of regulation and permits. Clearly you think criminals shouldn’t be allowed the same gun rights as non-violent citizens, thus a sort of regulation to this effect seems perfectly in line with even your Biblical-like views on the second amendment.
I know in the end that you disagree with me, and that you disagree with even the very notion of needing a permit. My point at this point is that I don’t understand why. I think this position is irrational. You can have all your gun freedoms–right to carry, right to own, blah blah blah–with permits.