Ted and Kid and Sarah...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Toxick
Splat
Because you can't just walk up to someone and say "We're Married" and it's done. Marriage implies consent. Those unable to consent are unable to marry.
This is not a restriction. This is not criteria. It's "physics" for lack of a better word.
black dog
Free America
I'm good with it, it will speedup the self cleaning part of the prison population.
Someone that has a firearm that's not sound, cures itself pretty quickly in our society.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Who is unable to consent? Who decides that? How is that adjudicated and enforced?
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, you good with it or not wasn't the question. Is that how they implemented it? In 1792, in Boston and NYC and Raleigh and Philadelphia, did prisoners have guns?
I was drunk that night; I don't remember.
Toxick
Splat
Who?
Children.
Animals.
The dead.
Mentally incapacitated.
Etc.
How it's decided:
That's a whole other topic.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Well, I guess we'll never know what they really meant, then.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I think we can keep it to living humans.
That said, what is a child? What is the definition of mental incapacity that would justify denying consent?
No no no NO. That is this WHOLE topic, completely!! THAT is what we're talking about. Who gets to decide, what do they get to decide. That's what we're talking about.
Can we decide that people are too young? Yes. That means we can decide there are restrictions. So, if we can do that, can we say too closely related, or too many involved in the marriage, or what sexes are able to be involved? OF COURSE!!!!
black dog
Free America
This_person;57[B said:
You have asked a few different ways, you stated your opinion and I stated mine.
I know what the founding fathers wrote..
This_person
Well-Known Member
Me too. And, I know what they DID based on what they wrote. I see reasonable restrictions as totally acceptable based on how THEY viewed it, common sense, and historical knowledge.
Do I think you should have to register every gun? Hell no. Do I think you should be able to carry concealed without seeking the crown's approval? HELL yes. But, that doesn't mean no restrictions are acceptable.
What about SBRs?..suppressors...fully automatic firearms...."large capacity" magazines?...large-caliber guns..?
It's great exercise. Mental gymnastics. ;-p
This_person
Well-Known Member
Again, I believe the VAST majority of gun restrictions are unconstitutional. I agree that the reason for the second amendment is to overthrow a bad government or repel boarders at the borders. Therefore, I believe we should be limited to whatever arms the government has to use against its citizens, or other countries have to use against the USA.
But, not every citizen should have the ability to have every gun at every moment of their lives. REASONABLE restriction.
The whole reason this came up is that I said every right has reasonable restrictions, in terms of marriage laws having reasonable restrictions at the state level and the federal government should keep the hell out of it. And, every right does have reasonable restrictions. Even the most libertarian would admit the Harm Principle as a reasonable restriction - showing that every right has reasonable restrictions but people disagree on what is "reasonable".
This_person
Well-Known Member
black dog
Free America
My first question is, do you live in Maryland?
If so every handgun you have purchased in MD through a ffl dealer had been registered with the State since 1968 +- a few months.
How about Md's unnecessary waiting period?
I've always been a CC kinna guy, but that's my way, I'm a firm believer in Constitutionial Carry and that can be open or closed.
Why do so many people think that it has to be CC boggles my mind. Is it because it makes you feel comfortable?
In a Free State your permit to carry, says just that... Permit to Carry a Firearm.
In a Constitutional State, you don't need a permit or license.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Again, I believe the VAST majority of gun restrictions are unconstitutional. I agree that the reason for the second amendment is to overthrow a bad government or repel boarders at the borders. Therefore, I believe we should be limited to whatever arms the government has to use against its citizens, or other countries have to use against the USA.
But, not every citizen should have the ability to have every gun at every moment of their lives. REASONABLE restriction.
The whole reason this came up is that I said every right has reasonable restrictions, in terms of marriage laws having reasonable restrictions at the state level and the federal government should keep the hell out of it. And, every right does have reasonable restrictions. Even the most libertarian would admit the Harm Principle as a reasonable restriction - showing that every right has reasonable restrictions but people disagree on what is "reasonable".
black dog
Free America
I'll say this about ATF, everytime I have called their Firearms Technology Dept with a question or written a letter to my local office about a transferable firearm, I have received a rapid answer and very professional and courteous service.
The only time I know that folks have had problems with atf is when they decided to venture outside of the well defined Yellow Brick Rd. And with most that step off the YBR they end up doing Federal Time.