Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights

[MNGunner]

For the record, I was just kidding. It doesn't "ruin" any threads for me.

[NMRMN]

It gets old.

Kind of like someone mentioning money in seemingly every other post? Yes, it does.

And like more and more people jumping in to attempt to challenge a well known fact? Yes. it does.

Ok. I've been putting off addressing the "money" comments/issue for awhile now, and I don't want to derail this thread....so here is my anwser. Agree with it. Disagree with it. Whatever you want. Call me an effen moron. All fine by me. I'm going to put this out there and then I'm done responding about it ever again
***
Now I'm done,.

Its the principle of the matter, and $100 is not an insignificant amount of money.

[farmerj]

so me speeding at 60 mph when in a 55 mph speed zone should be hammered on,

But an elected government official who ignores the law should just be allowed to do as he wills?

[FJ540]

Perspective is what's lacking in the argument XDM45's trying to make. $100 today isn't as big of hindrance as $200 was when the NFA was enacted in the 30's. $200 was one tenth of a doctor's annual salary back then - it was an insurmountable sum for most at the time.

The issue of if the $100 permit fee is oppressive or not isn't relevant to the core problem. The problem is the government feels justified in taxing the execution of our "rights" and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of that position. So the next logical step might be "you have the right to a fair trial - if you pay the $4000 it costs to hold it."

We already have a surcharge for appeals cases in MN. If you feel there was an error of law at your "free trial" (where you were charged by the state), you have to pay to file the appeal. Justice for only those who can afford it. I'm pretty sure that's not what the Founder's had in mind.

[jgalt]

I didn't claim that there may not have been restrictions, the biggest at the time probably having been the practical restriction of money.
What I am claiming is that such restrictions were not mentioned in the constitution for a reason. This is what I believe. Some will believe that the words "well regulated" include such restrictions.

Don't know what to do with that...

Again, whether or not you believe it, there were in fact a number of restrictions. None are mentioned in the 2A because the BoR was not concerned w/the states, only with the Feds. There are lots of sources for this information, and you should do a bit o' Googling to broaden your edumacation on the subject...

[NMRMN]

-

[MNGunner]

I didn't claim that there may not have been restrictions, the biggest at the time probably having been the practical restriction of money.
What I am claiming is that such restrictions were not mentioned in the constitution for a reason. This is what I believe. Some will believe that the words "well regulated" include such restrictions.

Don't know what to do with that...

Again, whether or not you believe it, there were in fact a number of restrictions. None are mentioned in the 2A because the BoR was not concerned w/the states, only with the Feds. There are lots of sources for this information, and you should do a bit o' Googling to broaden your edumacation on the subject...

I wrote that there aren't restrictions in the Constitution. Please quote the part of the Constitution that lists those restrictions. Should be easy to do IF you are correct...

[XDM45]

Its the principle of the matter, and $100 is not an insignificant amount of money.

Ok, on that I can agree.

[XDM45]

Perspective is what's lacking in the argument XDM45's trying to make. $100 today isn't as big of hindrance as $200 was when the NFA was enacted in the 30's. $200 was one tenth of a doctor's annual salary back then - it was an insurmountable sum for most at the time.

The issue of if the $100 permit fee is oppressive or not isn't relevant to the core problem. The problem is the government feels justified in taxing the execution of our "rights" and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of that position. So the next logical step might be "you have the right to a fair trial - if you pay the $4000 it costs to hold it."

We already have a surcharge for appeals cases in MN. If you feel there was an error of law at your "free trial" (where you were charged by the state), you have to pay to file the appeal. Justice for only those who can afford it. I'm pretty sure that's not what the Founder's had in mind.

Well, if we don't like fees and taxes, we could always start a revolution. I( heard it worked for some colonists in the 1770s pretty well. I wonder what ever became of that whole thing anyway?

As you say, it's perspective. My question is were they more willing then than we are now?

[FJ540]

The NFA was a direct "must do something" response to gangster violence following prohibition. The circumstances then weren't that much unlike they are now. Public outcry got a "solution" put in place. The issue is that it didn't solve the problem, and put much undue distress on those in the gun business, not to mention the people who wanted to buy them.

We need a revolution, there's no denying that. What I pray for, is an intellectual one where people come to realise that the laws we have, and the new ones some seek, don't have the impact they're intended to have and we can move away from the shackles of further limitations and have a renaissance of liberty. The other option scares the crap out of me. I want to vote out the current class of oppressors and institute people who want to limit government once again.

[jgalt]

.

[NMRMN]

Anything that prevents the ownership or the use of firearms (like ammo bans, for example) by private citizens would certainly be unconstitutional. Since the 2A originally protected specifically those arms that would of use to someone going to war, any partial weapon or ammunition ban that prevented the use of any one or more of those types of arms would also be unconstitutional...that's pretty much it.

(D)Tori, listen to the self-proclaimed legal, historical and constitutional expert. Never mind all the other opinions, supreme court justices, legal theory, POTUS, etc. Whatever jgalt -- mnguntalk.com / LongShotTraining.com tells you is the real deal. that's pretty much it...

in fact, if you just submit:

Anything that prevents the ownership or the use of firearms (like ammo bans, for example) by private citizens would certainly be unconstitutional. Since the 2A originally protected specifically those arms that would of use to someone going to war, any partial weapon or ammunition ban that prevented the use of any one or more of those types of arms would also be unconstitutional...that's pretty much it.

... should get an A or B+ at least.

[EdwardsTo]

Got my grade back from my paper, 62 out of 65! My professor even skimmed the forum here looking at all the posts. Thank you all for you help!

[NMRMN]

Got my grade back from my paper, 62 out of 65! My professor even skimmed the forum here looking at all the posts. Thank you all for you help!

See... I was right

Seriously though -- congrats!

[FJ540]

Got my grade back from my paper, 62 out of 65! My professor even skimmed the forum here looking at all the posts. Thank you all for you help!