Chicago gun ban laws

David McHenry · Mar 1, 2010

Do you think the 2nd admendment power rests on the local and state governments to say who can/can't restrict guns to?

Recently the Supreme court ruled in the favor of Washington D.C. citizens but that only settled the gun debate at the federal level, leaving a lot of questions up to State and Local governments to set their own restrictions.

So do you think the state/local government should be able to restrict gun purchases? Or do you think the 2nd Amendment to bear arms can not be restricted by any government entity?

Dirk · Mar 1, 2010

I don't know what i think of the constitution anyway. But if there really is a democratic demand, then it's justified, i suppose. The more local the level the decision is made at, the more of a democratic mandate it has.

Personally, i don't think carrying a firearm should be a right. But it should be a liberty. But then this thread isn't about thoughts on guns.

deanhills · Mar 4, 2010

David McHenry said:
So do you think the state/local government should be able to restrict gun purchases? Or do you think the 2nd Amendment to bear arms can not be restricted by any government entity?

If any of the States should decide with a majority vote to restrict arms, I'm sure they will be able to do it, even if there is an Amendment against it. However, having said that, I just can't see any of the States introducing legislation like that. Can you?

Harrison Bergeron · Mar 4, 2010

The 2nd amendment doesn't give the citizen the right to keep and bear arms.
That right is inherent.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

that is telling govt what it can't do

deanhills · Mar 4, 2010

Harrison Bergeron said:
The 2nd amendment doesn't give the citizen the right to keep and bear arms.
That right is inherent.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

that is telling govt what it can't do

Which Government are we talking about here, the Federal or State Government?

Dirk · Mar 4, 2010

deanhills said:
Which Government are we talking about here, the Federal or State Government?

Well, this thread is about state Government. I think he's just saying government in general. However, I will say that he fails to understand the difference between a right and a liberty. That's not a bad reflection on him, merely an observation.

Harrison Bergeron · Mar 4, 2010

Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting, or entitlements to be acted upon or not acted upon.
removed . (May 200
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will .

the 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights, not the bill of liberties

Dirk · Mar 4, 2010

The difference is that rights must be bestowed and liberties can only be restricted.

David · Mar 4, 2010

Dirk said:
The difference is that rights must be bestowed and liberties can only be restricted.

Right are rights, it matter's not if they are bestowed. Liberties are bestowed.

Dirk · Mar 4, 2010

David said:
Right are rights, it matter's not if they are bestowed. Liberties are bestowed.

On a technicality, they are not.

deanhills · Mar 4, 2010

Dirk said:
The difference is that rights must be bestowed and liberties can only be restricted.

I don't believe that. Rights are rights. "I've got me rights". They can be listed in a constitution somewhere, but they belong to me whether there is a constitution or not.

Dirk · Mar 5, 2010

deanhills said:
I don't believe that. Rights are rights. "I've got me rights". They can be listed in a constitution somewhere, but they belong to me whether there is a constitution or not.

A lot of constitutional rights aren't rights. If you say, for example, i have the right to free speech, what is restricting it? Why do i need the Government to say "yep, you're allowed to have this freedom". It's hypocritical. You even say the entire point. If Government didn't give you the "right" to freedom of speech, you'd still have political freedom of speech!

(provided there isn't a law restricting it)

It's a technicality on the use of words, really. Not worth a paragraph! :giggle:

deanhills · Mar 6, 2010

Dirk said:
A lot of constitutional rights aren't rights. If you say, for example, i have the right to free speech, what is restricting it? Why do i need the Government to say "yep, you're allowed to have this freedom". It's hypocritical. You even say the entire point. If Government didn't give you the "right" to freedom of speech, you'd still have political freedom of speech! :giggle:

Now you are playing with words. The right of free speech is my own, not because the Constitution says that.

Dirk · Mar 6, 2010

deanhills said:
Now you are playing with words. The right of free speech is my own, not because the Constitution says that.

Not so much playing with them as being extremely pedantic about them.

And that is my entire point. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you you're allowed to speak your mind!

deanhills · Mar 6, 2010

Dirk said:
Not so much playing with them as being extremely pedantic about them.

And that is my entire point. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you you're allowed to speak your mind!

Exactly!!! That is what I have been saying all along.

Dirk · Mar 7, 2010

deanhills said:
Exactly!!! That is what I have been saying all along.

And so it hasn't been "given" to you.

deanhills · Mar 7, 2010

Dirk said:
And so it hasn't been "given" to you.

Can you explain what you mean with this?

Pappadave · Aug 7, 2010

Read the language. The second amendment did not grant or bestow the right to keep and bear arms. It recognized that the people had that right and that government "shall not abridge" it. Pappadave.

obtuseobserver · Aug 11, 2010

Harrison Bergeron said:
The 2nd amendment doesn't give the citizen the right to keep and bear arms.
That right is inherent.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

that is telling govt what it can't do

Bingo. The Bill of Rights is a statement of negative rights. That is, rights inherent to the people which the government must make extraordinary cause to infringe.

Chicago gun ban laws

Similar threads