36 replies to this topic

[Bill Z]

I like the idea that local populations (cities and counties) should make their own decisions on regulating firearms.

I don't and neither did our founding fathers. Cities and counties have no right to trample on the constitution.

If you think cities and counties should be able to trample on 2nd ammendment rights, maybe it should be OK for them to trample on other ammendments in the bill of rights. Maybe cities should be able to establish a religion, and require their citizens to follow that religion (jihadists come to mind as an example of people that would like to do just that very thing). Maybe the city police should be able to search your home and size your property without due cause? Maybe counties should be able to censor the local news media, heck school districts do it already to school newspapers, why not allow the practice everywhere.

Maybe the local police department should be able to mandate a police officer gets to reside in your home. That would curtail crime. Who needs the 3rd ammendment at the city level anyway?

[FolsomVW]

I don't and neither did our founding fathers. Cities and counties have no right to trample on the constitution.

If you think cities and counties should be able to trample on 2nd ammendment rights, maybe it should be OK for them to trample on other ammendments in the bill of rights. Maybe cities should be able to establish a religion, and require their citizens to follow that religion (jihadists come to mind as an example of people that would like to do just that very thing). Maybe the city police should be able to search your home and size your property without due cause? Maybe counties should be able to censor the local news media, heck school districts do it already to school newspapers, why not allow the practice everywhere.

Maybe the local police department should be able to mandate a police officer gets to reside in your home. That would curtail crime. Who needs the 3rd ammendment at the city level anyway?

Well SCOTUS doesn't agree with your interpretation, and what they say is what matters on constitutional issues. They signalled their acceptance of "reasonable regulations", and will likely draw on that precedent in their anticipated overturning of the Chicago handgun ban, which they will consider unreasonable, like they did for the DC ban.

You're likening restrictions to examples of forced participation, which doesn't make sense.

I'm OK with Montana's making all the decisions over what guns they carry, own and use, while Washington's can focus on the specific interstate issues relating to trafficking.

[Bill Z]

Well SCOTUS doesn't agree with your interpretation, and what they say is what matters on constitutional issues. They signalled their acceptance of "reasonable regulations", and will likely draw on that precedent in their anticipated overturning of the Chicago handgun ban, which they will consider unreasonable, like they did for the DC ban.

You're likening restrictions to examples of forced participation, which doesn't make sense.

I'm OK with Montana's making all the decisions over what guns they carry, own and use, while Washington's can focus on the specific interstate issues relating to trafficking.

Stop circumventing the question.

you said you feel cities and counties should be able to regulate guns, (which includes banning handguns which cities have done). So you feel that cities and counties can ignore the rights granted to citizens by the 2nd ammendment and that they can infringe upon my right to own guns. (pay attention to what You Said)

So my question remains, does this mean cities and counties can ignore other constititutional ammendments?

After all, if the cities can ignore our 2nd ammendment rights, why should they have to pay attention to the other 9 ammendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

Read some history, it's a well known fact, when people are stripped of their right to own guns, the ability to retaliate against their own government, all other rights also fall. Disarming the governed allows those who govern, to become as tyrannical as they want.

Disarm americans, and how long before tanks are running over college students that try to protest against the government?

We've been devolving to a more and more oligarchy government. Take away our guns, and see how quickly it becomes even worse.

[Chris]

Remember Bill, our "banned" frog friend here just loves to say he's for the 2nd amendment but his long winded and obtuse postings always seem to call for more regulation of guns......? I've corrected him many times on his gun "facts" when he was "FFG" and to me it became obvious he knows nothing of this subject.
Chris

[Folsom Guy]

Dunno - this seems to be a non-issue...why discuss a topic with a false premise (OP) to begin with...

[Bill Z]

Dunno - this seems to be a non-issue...why discuss a topic with a false premise (OP) to begin with...

What false premise? While the story has proven to not be true, there are many stories very similar in nature that are true, as has been pointed out. So the premise that people do protect their own lives with guns at home is true, and the fact that most media ignores or downplays the stories is also true. So, I ask again, What False Premise?