quote:

ORIGINAL: CerVeza

Give your guns to o'bama dear leader. He will take care of you. He will pay your car mortgage and house thingie too.

quote:

Moreover this belongs in Politics, not PORS. As I'm certain you are well aware of. So why did you deliberately not post it there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Moreover this belongs in Politics, not PORS. As I'm certain you are well aware of. So why did you deliberately not post it there?

Perhaps she posted it here because it's a poll?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Moreover this belongs in Politics, not PORS. As I'm certain you are well aware of. So why did you deliberately not post it there?

Perhaps she posted it here because it's a poll?

*dun dun dah!*

Don't the mods still move all polls over here? I know they used to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

You are incorrect when you state that local municipalities cannot restrict non automatic gun ownership.

No, i stated that they cannot restrict possession inside the home.

In New York City possession of a handgun without a permit is an automatic one year jail term.

Restricting possession (outside the home) to those with permits is an example of the "reasonable restrictions" that cities do require.

In many places, any history of mental instability can prevent you from ever getting a permit or a hunting license.

That is another example of a restriction enacted at the local level. Cities may refuse to issue permits or hunting licenses, because these pertain to gun use outside the home. Furthermore, anyone with serious mental instabilities probably doesn't qualify to (legally) own a gun, and so the question of "restricting" their rights is a moot point. They don't have the right in the first place. According to the federal government, only qualified individuals have the right to own guns, and qualification is determined by the FBI's background check.

Moreover this belongs in Politics, not PORS. As I'm certain you are well aware of. So why did you deliberately not post it there?

Because it is a poll

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Also:

Please note that it is NOT the subject of this thread whether you like guns, whether you like the U.K., whether you like the U.S., whether you like Obama, whether you think unjust laws ought to be followed, whether it is safer to live here or somewhere else...

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment *absolutely* promises very little. It merely grants the right for qualified individuals to possess and use guns (for the purpose of self defense) in their own homes.

The open ended nature of the 2nd Amendment empowers state and local governments to make their own laws to restrict, or NOT to restict, gun possession and use outside the home.

This thread is merely asking what additional laws, if any, you think the local governments ought to make.

pam

quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY

I disagree with just about everything you said. Until the 2nd amendment is repealed, I have a right to take up arms to protect my rights -- inside, outside, no matter the state or jurisdiction. Just because a government makes a law, does not make it legal (eg bans on interracial marriage). So my not abiding unjust laws is related to the subject of this thread: "in what ways can a tyrannical majority force their will upon a minority"

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY

I disagree with just about everything you said. Until the 2nd amendment is repealed, I have a right to take up arms to protect my rights -- inside, outside, no matter the state or jurisdiction. Just because a government makes a law, does not make it legal (eg bans on interracial marriage). So my not abiding unjust laws is related to the subject of this thread: "in what ways can a tyrannical majority force their will upon a minority"

Indeed. One of the reasons the right to bare arms is in there is because we have a duty to overthrow the government should it become oppressive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
Moreover this belongs in Politics, not PORS. As I'm certain you are well aware of. So why did you deliberately not post it there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Also:

Please note that it is NOT the subject of this thread whether you like guns, whether you like the U.K., whether you like the U.S., whether you like Obama, whether you think unjust laws ought to be followed, whether it is safer to live here or somewhere else...

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment *absolutely* promises very little. It merely grants the right for qualified individuals to possess and use guns (for the purpose of self defense) in their own homes.

The open ended nature of the 2nd Amendment empowers state and local governments to make their own laws to restrict, or NOT to restict, gun possession and use outside the home.

This thread is merely asking what additional laws, if any, you think the local governments ought to make.

pam

I disagree with just about everything you said.

But i didn't say anything, i merely asked a question. The question was, what laws, if any, do you think the local governments ought to make regarding the possession of guns in public? If you think that they should make no law, then that is your answer to the question. What opinion of mine are you disagreeing with? The above quote is simply me encouraging posters to stay on topic. It does not contain a single opinion. How is it possible to "disagree"? If you are disagreeing with my answer to the OP, in post #1, then you quoted the wrong text.

Until the 2nd amendment is repealed, I have a right to take up arms to protect my rights -- inside, outside, no matter the state or jurisdiction.

Can you explain where you think i contradicted that? On the contrary, and again, i merely asked for your opinion about it.

Just because a government makes a law, does not make it legal (eg bans on interracial marriage).

No, by definition, the fact that the legislation makes a law DOES make it legal, unless the Supreme Court finds that the law is unconstitutional, and overturns it.

So my not abiding unjust laws is related to the subject of this thread: "in what ways can a tyrannical majority force their will upon a minority"

No, again, the subject of this thread is "What laws, if any, do you think local governments ought to make regarding the possession of guns in public?

quote:

No, by definition, the fact that the legislation makes a law DOES make it legal, unless the Supreme Court finds that the law is unconstitutional, and overturns it.