HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » So where in the Holy Seco...

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:31 PM

So where in the Holy Second Amendment do they mention hunting or felons?

The federal government issues hunting regulations for migratory waterfowl hunting.

They tell you what gun to use (shotgun)

They tell you how many shells you may load (no more than 3).

They tell you what ammo to use (non-toxic shot).

Government tells felons they cannot possess or handle any firearms.

Where Oh Where in the Holy 2A is any of this mentioned?

The hoariest NRA member has no problem with government "infringing" on the rights of duck hunters to bear arms as they please.

They have no problem with government "infringing" on the right of felons to "bear arms" period.

But when you start to mention any of this in context with assault rifles, .50 cal sniper rifles, high capacity clips or ammo regulations they hoot and holler...

"but hunting is different" "felons are different".

Really?

Because you say so?

Not buying it.

nope

If the government can regulate duck hunters and deny felons guns, it can pass strict regulations on any and all firearms and ammo.

yup



45 replies, 4859 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply So where in the Holy Second Amendment do they mention hunting or felons? (Original post)
jpak Jan 2013 OP
safeinOhio Jan 2013 #1
apocalypsehow Jan 2013 #2
iiibbb Jan 2013 #17
123 infinity Jan 2013 #41
samsingh Jan 2013 #3
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #4
jpak Jan 2013 #6
Post removed Jan 2013 #19
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #20
safeinOhio Jan 2013 #39
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #40
ileus Jan 2013 #5
jpak Jan 2013 #8
darkangel218 Jan 2013 #13
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #21
darkangel218 Jan 2013 #22
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #29
123 infinity Jan 2013 #42
jmg257 Jan 2013 #7
raidert05 Jan 2013 #9
jpak Jan 2013 #10
raidert05 Jan 2013 #11
123 infinity Jan 2013 #43
Comatose Sphagetti Jan 2013 #14
raidert05 Jan 2013 #16
Comatose Sphagetti Jan 2013 #36
krispos42 Jan 2013 #12
jpak Jan 2013 #32
krispos42 Jan 2013 #33
Post removed Jan 2013 #44
sylvi Jan 2013 #15
iiibbb Jan 2013 #18
jpak Jan 2013 #34
iiibbb Jan 2013 #37
gejohnston Jan 2013 #23
123 infinity Jan 2013 #45
Straw Man Jan 2013 #24
jpak Jan 2013 #35
Straw Man Jan 2013 #38
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #25
iiibbb Jan 2013 #27
ileus Jan 2013 #26
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #28
iiibbb Jan 2013 #30
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #31

Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:35 PM

1. Where does it mention guns?

Carry a blackjack and go to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:37 PM

2. They always leave off the "well regulated" part of that supposed "right," don't they?

Very curious omission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:35 PM

17. Step one, go look up "regulated"... make sure you look at all of the definitions

 

and read the following contexts...

I'll help

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.Then read it as


(a) A well "controlled" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

(b) A well "maintained" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

or

(c) A "properly functioning" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

then answer me a two questions

1) Why would they say a "controlled" militia, and then proceed to say that the right shall not be infringed? Doesn't the second context make more sense... especially since they never meant for there to be a standing army, and that all citizens were expected to act in defense of the country, as well as provide their own arms to do so?

2) Why would they put a clause to govern state militias in the part of the Constitution that was specifically created to enumerate the rights of individuals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:17 PM

41. Are you violently opposed to a well regulated clock?

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:37 PM

3. the whole issue is filled with hypocrasy

and personal agendas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:50 PM

4. You can find 2A supporters...

.... who think that felons should be allowed to purchase guns. Their theory is that if they are to dangerous to own guns then
they shouldn't have been let out of prison. It's not my point of view. But I should point out that while we currently don't 'allow'
criminals to purchase guns we can't really stop them from getting them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:53 PM

6. Yeah - another example of gun nuts making shit up

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #4)


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:57 AM

20. I personally feel that...

1) all but the very least violent of those who are criminally violent should never be let out.
2) criminals that aren't violent at all don't generally need to be locked up and probably don't warrant any gun restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:28 AM

39. So, basically, screw

the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments?
Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:48 AM

40. Regarding...

the 8th: What is it that is cruel or unusual about life in prison?
the 6th: Is about the trial process none of which I have a problem. Why mention this?
the 5th: Is about the rights of the accused none of which I have a problem. Why mention this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:50 PM

5. See even you agree we've gave up too

much already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:53 PM

8. Nope

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:45 PM

13. Nope or yup?

 

Your posts can be so confusing dear JPak

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:00 AM

21. He's just such an enigma.

I feel like I'm looking through titles of old vinyl by Joe Walsh when I read some his stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:55 AM

22. Some "enigmas" are so moldy, theyre better left alone.

 

Yikes lmao!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:53 AM

29. moldy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:19 PM

42. Whatever you're smoking isn't working the way you probably hoped for there, bub.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:53 PM

7. Of course it can. The real question is, will it?

The 2nd amendment, along with nmerous others, has been circumvented before.

No reason it can't be again. Just takes the will, and the support, to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:57 PM

9. Only...

 

three shots for duck hunting no wonder I don't duck hunt...as far as felons go if you have proven once that you will live outside of the rules of a civilized society then you don't deserve some rights back regardless if you did jail time...same way with those that have been dishonorably discharged, once you break that breach of faith with society there is no going back for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raidert05 (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:03 PM

10. We are all probably safer because you don't duck hunt

lol

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:07 PM

11. I agree...

 

I prefer my birds to be on the ground...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:21 PM

43. Somewhat ironically, you are the penultimate example of people who should NOT be allowed to

 

have a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raidert05 (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:11 PM

14. "you don't deserve"

Who are you to say who deserves what? I have the honor of working with many wonderful people who have felonies, some with convictions over 40 years old. All they want is a chance at redemption but people like you constantly block their way. Infinite punishment for finite transgressions is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:30 PM

16. If thats how you feel

 

more power to you and them, I never said they didn't deserve another shot at living a normal life, I was only speaking the manner of which the op was about, regarding the second amendment. Sorry if my post lead you to believe that I think felons are undeserving of a chance at normal a life it was not my intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raidert05 (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:35 PM

36. No apology necessary, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:23 PM

12. Where in the First Amendment does it mention not yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Are laws against me doing so a violation of my 1st Amendment rights?


No, of course not.


For every Amendment and every civil right there are restrictions. The kinds of restrictions are dependent on the level of Constitutional scrutiny level.



In the case of felons, their Constitutional rights have been stripped away by, on an individual, personalized basis, by due process and with legal representation. Affidavits, search warrants, arrests, informed of Miranda rights, facing your accusers, jury trial, appeals, etc. The rights removed by this process include speech, voting, privacy, freedom to travel, freedom to associate, freedom to eat and drink whatever they want whenever they want, and freedom to own guns. There are probably more.



Regarding your duck-hunting analogy, first of, it does not regulate the guns that duck hunters can own, or what they can load them with. The feds can and do regulate what kind of gun a duck hunter can use, but they only apply WHEN DUCK HUNTING.

If I'm going pheasant hunting, the feds don't have the jurisdiction; I'm subject to state laws on that one.

If the state wants to regulate what kind of ammo I can put in ALL of my guns, it can... within reason. New Jersey, for example, has outlawed expanding (hollow-point) ammunition. I don't know why, but they have.

If the state wants to pass strict regulations on how many rounds of ammo I can put in my guns, it can... within reason. Some states have a 10-round limit, and Governor Cuomo is screaming and yelling about a 7-round limit with no grandfather clause. I don't know if a 7-round limit is reasonable or legal; I'll let the courts settle that one.

And if the state wants to ban certain kinds of firearms, it can... within reason. Banning some kinds of semiautomatics have been found constitutional; I don't know how much farther a state can go before running into a constitutional limit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:23 PM

32. I agree, government can regulate guns and ammo - all nice and contitutional

Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:24 PM

33. Regulating =/= constitutional regulation

and constitutional regulation =/= reasonable regulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #32)


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:15 PM

15. There are already

 

There are already, in the aggregate, far more restrictive laws concerning firearms in general than those applied narrowly to duck hunting. Reams after reams of them.

No one has said any different.

So what's your point, you looking for a daily bag limit on home invaders or something? A tax stamp for defending yourself in a federal Wildlife Management Area?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:38 PM

18. They aren't regualting hunters to control the guns

 

They are trying to make sure that the wildlife isn't killed off because the hunters are too efficient.

You realize the hunters are the source of most of these regulations and overwhelmingly endorse them? You realize that it was hunters that started the whole environmental movement?

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:25 PM

34. It's gun regulation - gun control

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:40 PM

37. Laws hunters helped write..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:57 AM

23. do you have a link about the felons thing?

or are you ranting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:24 PM

45. Of course he's ranting...he's fucking insane.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:10 AM

24. Sorry, wrong again.

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:40 AM - Edit history (1)

The hoariest NRA member has no problem with government "infringing" on the rights of duck hunters to bear arms as they please.

The government doesn't infringe on duck hunters' right to bear arms. They can carry a self-defense weapon; they just can't shoot ducks with it. There is no Constitutional right to shoot ducks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:26 PM

35. More made-up NRA talking points

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:30 AM

38. Actually, no -- it's a legal fact.

More made-up NRA talking points

yup

And that's not a response -- it's a verbal tic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:28 AM

25. Try websters 1828 dictionary, 3ib

iiibbb posted:.. read the following contexts.. I'll help.. reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Then read it as (a) A well "controlled" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
(b) A well "maintained" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
or (c) A "properly functioning" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall...
1) Why would they say a "controlled" militia, and then proceed to say that the right shall not be infringed? Doesn't the second context make more sense... especially since they never meant for there to be a standing army, and that all citizens were expected to act in defense of the country, as well as provide their own arms to do so?


Houston, you have a problem. You post dictionary definitions evidently from a modern site http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate

Here's how 'regulate' was defined in 1828 by webster, contemporary to 2ndA 1791:

1828 - regulate REG'ULATE, v.t. 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate

In 1828 'regulate' meant either to adjust by rule or method, to put in good order, or to subject to rules or restrictions, or a combo of the three. .. 'control' is not in websters 1828 definitions.
You seem to harp on singling out one particular definition of 'regulate' & trying to apply your own favorite, while disallowing for the others. Boo.

2) Why would they put a clause to govern state militias in the part of the Constitution that was specifically created to enumerate the rights of individuals?

Because it was an individual right to join the militia which could not be infringed, just like the english 'have arms' decree of 1689, which scalia called the foundation of the 2ndA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:27 AM

27. I don't see the problem.

 

or (c) A militia "in good order" being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall..

Still falls in line with a context that makes more sense that the interpretation "in order to control a militia, the cititizens' right to arm themselves shall not be infringed".

The Bill of Rights defines individual rights

The second amendment does not say

".... the peoples' right to join/serve the militia shall not be infringed". Actually participating in the militia was considered compulsory if you were able bodied. Why would they put something compulsory in a part of the document enumerating rights?


My stretch in context isn't nearly as pretzelled as your attempt. Especially when you take into context the Federalist papers, and it's hard not too since they give us insights into the frame of mind of the people that actually helped write the Constitution. They do not spend any more time on militia service than they do about general firearm ownership.


Learn to post in a thread by the way... I'm not going to go hunting for your responses next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:13 AM

26. Duck hunters are allowed to carry sidearms while hunting.

They're not left to the wolves when hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:40 AM

28. limitation on congress too

iiibbb: The Bill of Rights defines individual rights

.. as well as limitations on congress. That is the accepted interpretion of the US Bill of Rights.

iiibbb: The second amendment does not say ".... the peoples' right to join/serve the militia shall not be infringed". Actually participating in the militia was considered compulsory if you were able bodied. Why would they put something compulsory in a part of the document enumerating rights?

'They' didn't. The 1791 2ndA does not make militia service 'compulsory', the Militia Act of 1792 made militia service compulsory. The Militia Act was a law, the 2ndA was an amendment to the constitution, as well as being in the american bill of rights.

And again (from a couple previous posts) scalia ruled that the 2ndA was derived from the english 1689 'have arms' decree, aka english bill of rights, and scalia referred to this an an 'individual right' having nothing to do with service in an english militia. He was wrong, the english 'have arms' decree pertained to individual right to belong to the militia.

My stretch in context isn't nearly as pretzelled as your attempt.

In light of your most recent faux pas, I can't stop laughing at this remark.

Learn to post in a thread by the way... I'm not going to go hunting for your responses next time.

I will post as I want, stop messing with my first amendment rights.
I don't care for this format actually, since 'internal' posting via replies means your post is likely to get buried & go unread except by the poster you replied to, who can ignore your post as well. Thus I prefer to tack it on the bottom, even tho it's a reply, since it tends to get more exposure. For what that's even worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:14 PM

30. Post wherever you want... just don't expect a reply

 

Unless you're just here to talk to yourself... which is your right.

At any rate laugh all you want. We can lay odds how far gun control will get... I'm betting you'll never get the support in the house you think your argument deserves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:46 PM

31. The fact that a right is not absolute does not make it nonexistant.

The right to free speech is not absolute -- some speech is so immediately harmful or threatening that it is unlawful to utter. It does not follow that strict restrictions can be made on any and all speech. Assault can be banned, but political conversation cannot.

The right to freedom of religion is not absolute -- some religious practices are so immediately harmful or threatening that they are unlawful to perform. It does not follow that strict restrictions can be made on any and all speech. Child sacrifice can be banned, but Communion cannot.

The right to privacy is not absolute -- some threats are so dire that they override the right to be secure in your property. It does not follow that broad intrusions can be made on any and all privacy. A police officer can break into a home during a robbery, but he cannot demand to see your wallet because he feels like it.



I extend this to the 2nd Amendment as well. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute -- some arms and behaviors are dangerous to public safety that they can be forbidden. It does not follow that strict restrictions can be made on any and all arms. Brandishing a handgun can be banned, but purchasing a handgun cannot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread