How to Answer this Anti Point?

[SuperNaut]

I agree with conceding nothing. Right now it is your opponent's responsibility to provide you with strong arguments in favor of restriction. His is the minority position and it runs counter to the law, the courts, the people, our history, etc.

I'd ask him to defend his statements with data and precedent, after all, you are the one who needs to be convinced that his position has merit.

 

[Spencer_OKC]

"where is the constitutional "line" drawn between which "arms" we have a right to keep and bear"?

The most honest answer is that "we're not exactly sure." The Supreme Court is allowing the judicial system to work the particulars out over time, which is why we went from Heller, to McDonald, and eventually we'll move on to other decisions that will more and more narrowly define what is and is not Constitutional.

From Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller decision:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster.

 

[grndslm]

The Constitution was not the government giving rights to the people. It was the people giving rights to the government.

Men have had rights long before they were written on paper. That's why I was trying to stress the important difference between rights & privileges in my other thread.

Do Chinese people have rights, even tho their government says that they don't have them?? OF COURSE THEY DO!! If they don't know that, then they'll act like they have no rights. But they can still say what they want, believe what they want, carry what they want, walk where they want, until they meet somebody else. And that person might or might not change their route. But Chinese Guy #1 doesn't have to change a thing if he doesn't want.

What "We the People" did with the Constitution was give the Gov't a list of things that they *could* do. After the Constitution had passed, people thought that the Gov't could easily overstep its boundaries (that really weren't there to begin with), so they quickly began writing some amendments, of which 10 passed, and we now know as The Bill of Rights. The BoRs is essentially a list of things that the Gov't could *NOT* do.

Just something you guys should realize.

While the courts have maintained and established that no right is absolute (ie, freedom of speech - does not apply to school teachers cussing in front of pre-schoolers) those courts should be doing so, based on what the people of the nation, states, communities, and ultimately, families, desire.

Precisely. First and foremost, tho... they shouldn't be interpreting the Constitution with some slanted agenda. It's up to the people to make sure the judges are protecting our life, liberty, & property, among the rest of our other rights.

The supreme court is just another branch of government subject to the people. Congress does not give us a right to bear arms, the president does not, and neither do the courts, and that includes the Supreme Court. Check and balance is the Supreme Court telling the feds no, not the courts telling the citizens no. The states do not "grant" us rights; that would imply we are subjects of said state. The same applies to cities. Our right to bear arms (and free speech, religion, etc) is inherent in our right to self-government.

Precisely. We were endowed with un-a-lien-able rights by our Creator. NO ONE can put a lien on our rights!! NO ONE can take them away [unless you infringe on someone else's rights, and then Common Law takes over, because infringing on the rights of others breaks all of God's laws]. A gov't official would have to prove that he has higher authority between you and our Creator, and, of course, he can't.

When someone presents the argument of banning nukes, tanks, grenades, etc, knowing that it is a prelude to banning other guns, my rebuttal is: "If the people desire these classes of weapons to be banned, and possession by private citizens disallowed, then our representatives should hear our voice, and pass reasonable laws that reflect what "we the people" as a majority, so desire". Now at question, is not what is and is not bannable, but what the majority of our citizenry desires the law to be.

Ultimately, it takes a 2/3 majority to change the Constitution. Many amendments have been created over the years (ending slavery, sufferage, prohibition, repeal of prohibition, etc). Yet a few anti-gun people still make these obscenely extreme arguments, thinking themselves clever. If the majority truly felt the way they do, it would be no problem whatsoever for congress to amend the constitution simply to clarify the 2A, and make further legislation legal and now "Constitutional". They haven't. Not because the NRA is a 4 million member strong powerhouse that politicians fear (that is only roughly only 1% of the population) but because politicians and businesses know the rule of 20's. For every customer that calls in and complains, or expresses satisfaction, 20 others felt the same way but did not take the time to communicate. That means 80 million pro-gunners out there, just based on membership in the NRA, and not counting the fact that our nation averages 90 guns per 100 people. THAT indicates a majority that does not favor gun control, and again, it's now on the anti-gunner to prove contrary.

Just so you know... it actually takes more than 2/3 majority.

It takes 2/3 majority of the U.S. Congress to be proposed, AND THEN it takes 3/4s approval by the state legislatures or state conventions to be ratified. Soo... at a minimum... 75% or more of the people will need to be in agreement in order to change the Supreme Law of the Land.

Did you also know that a Grand Jury is a random selection of 25 peers?

So if you're about to be on trial for felony possession of a certain substance... if you can make a good enough show that the people standing behind you don't think you have broken a crime (which you haven't, if there is no victim)... the judge will be hard pressed to let you go off to a cell while a riot ensues in his courtroom.

 

[grndslm]

P.S.

------

Happy Independence Day, Peoples!!!!