Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Requiring Gun Insurance Will Increase Safety


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#106    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,615 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:56 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 08 February 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Aren't people required to have insurance when they drive a car?  I know when I rent one, since I don't own a car in the US, I have to buy it.

In most states they do, but there are still a lot of people who don't carry it or even have a drivers license. They count on the odds they won't get caught.


#107    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:21 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 February 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Then, the constitution, in plain English seez that you may bear arms with the purpose of belonging to the militia. Not that you can bear arms for the hell of it. You can't have it both ways.

The militia consists of "every free able-bodied white male citizen" between 18 and 45. I guess women, non-whites, and older folks are screwed.

However, that is not what it says. I am not going to argue with you but suggest you have an English major explain it to you.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#108    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,122 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:26 PM

View PostBama13, on 08 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

The militia consists of "every free able-bodied white male citizen" between 18 and 45. I guess women, non-whites, and older folks are screwed.

However, that is not what it says. I am not going to argue with you but suggest you have an English major explain it to you.

I suggest the same to you.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#109    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:36 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 February 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

I suggest the same to you.

Been there, done that. You?

Look up District of Columbia v Heller (no. 07-290)
Held:  

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(B) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Edited by Bama13, 08 February 2013 - 04:48 PM.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#110    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,122 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:47 PM

View PostBama13, on 08 February 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

Been there, done that. You?

If the right to bear arms was unconditional it would have a period (or full stop) at the end of the first sentence, not a comma.  And the article would have to consist of two sentences, not one, As you see, yes.

Edited by questionmark, 08 February 2013 - 04:48 PM.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#111    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:50 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 February 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

If the right to bear arms was unconditional it would have a period (or full stop) at the end of the first sentence, not a comma.  And the article would have to consist of two sentences, not one, As you see, yes.

Edited my perevious post to include District of Columbia v Heller. Even the USSC says it is an individual right. This is so simple that even they got it right.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#112    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:55 PM

The english language has changed in 200+ years. FACT.

This form of writing can be seen throughout the documents of the day. It was intentional.


#113    aztek

aztek

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,853 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:55 PM

actually ussc said, anyone (who is not prohibited) has a right to bear arms, no militia service reqired. on what grouds ussc mabe that desision, for whatever reasonm is totaly irrelavant. this is how it is, all i need to know.

pretty simple concept, and yet some still can't get it. is it stupidity, arrogance, or they just have no arguments left?

Edited by aztek, 08 February 2013 - 05:13 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#114    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,122 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

View PostBama13, on 08 February 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

Edited my perevious post to include District of Columbia v Heller. Even the USSC says it is an individual right. This is so simple that even they got it right.
]

and, that court that does not know the constitution argued that it did not rule so because the constitution seez so, but because the constitution does not say the contrary (see under a) and because  several states include the right to bear arms (without the militia limitation) in their constitution (see under c). Not because the constitution guarantees an individual right.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#115    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:08 PM

Yes and if they infringe many of those States will cease to be part of the Union and return to a Republic at best. Most States take there Constitutions as seriously as the National one.


#116    F3SS

F3SS

    Heading towards the unknown

  • Member
  • 9,447 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

View PostBama13, on 08 February 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

It is. Just the current USSC, apparently, doesn't understand the Constitution. Their ignorance isn't my fault and doesn't change the Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain English, it doesn't need to be interpeted, just read, to be understood. The only way the USSC could allow mandatory health insurance is to claim the fine isn't a fine but a tax, which the sponsors claimed it wasn't. Go figure.

I've often said the same thing. It isn't that freaking hard to understand. People who want to circumvent it often say it needs interpreted like it's some ancient Sumerian script. Sure, English has changed a little over the years but not that much. I see it as pretty cut and dry.


View PostFrank Merton, on 08 February 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Aren't people required to have insurance when they drive a car?  I know when I rent one, since I don't own a car in the US, I have to buy it.

Yes, but cars aren't a guaranteed right and neither were horses and carriages when the constitution was written. Cars are an optional purchase that comes with strings attached and that's ok. We weren't granted the rights to any materialistic items except firearms. We were only granted the rights to use our abilities to pursue anything we like.


#117    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:29 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

]

and, that court that does not know the constitution argued that it did not rule so because the constitution seez so, but because the constitution does not say the contrary (see under a) and because  several states include the right to bear arms (without the militia limitation) in their constitution (see under c). Not because the constitution guarantees an individual right.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Seems pretty straightf forward to me.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#118    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,122 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:37 PM

View PostBama13, on 08 February 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Seems pretty straightf forward to me.

history demonstrate

why did you not highlight that too? No it is history, not the text. The text has a main clause and a operative clause as the court well denotes, but they fail to say that the operative clause is meaningless without the main clause as it is delimited by a comma, not by a period.

it seez:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

And not
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So, you are in the militia again as denoted by your same quote (or better said, the part you failed to mention): The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

But maybe you are right above, this USSC does not know the constitution. :innocent:

Edit: and the court also affirms that the right to bear arms is limited by the state requiring carrying licenses.

Edited by questionmark, 08 February 2013 - 06:40 PM.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#119    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:48 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 February 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

history demonstrate

why did you not highlight that too? No it is history, not the text. The text has a main clause and a operative clause as the court well denotes, but they fail to say that the operative clause is meaningless without the main clause as it is delimited by a comma, not by a period.

it seez:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

And not
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So, you are in the militia again as denoted by your same quote (or better said, the part you failed to mention): The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

But maybe you are right above, this USSC does not know the constitution. :innocent:

Edit: and the court also affirms that the right to bear arms is limited by the state requiring carrying licenses.

For the same reason I didn't highlight "operative clause’s text". Why did you ignore that part and point out the "history demonstrate" part?Both the text and history say that the right to bear arms is an individaul right. Seems like a slam dunk.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#120    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,122 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:54 PM

View PostBama13, on 08 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

For the same reason I didn't highlight "operative clause’s text". Why did you ignore that part and point out the "history demonstrate" part?Both the text and history say that the right to bear arms is an individaul right. Seems like a slam dunk.

Because as they say, the operative clause is neither limited nor expanded. In plain English: Makes no sense without the main clause. Therefore it cannot be interpreted as separate from the militia.

In fact,if you ask me, there is a part in the second that was omitted during the discussion, either that the last comma should be a colon(then it makes sense) or there is a word missing. As is makes anything with arms conditional to the principal clause. Just historically it has not been interpreted thus.

That is why I wonder why you forgot to highlight that part.

As far as limitations, many limitations to keep and bear arms are pointed out as legal under 2. So I don't see why you claim that insurance would not be.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users