Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BigBlueCane said:
Wrong again. They said it is perfectly constitutional to regulate it and they specifically mentioned that the founders didn’t envision these military style weapons.
Click to expand...
Taken directly from the Heller vs DC ruling. Emphasis mine.

“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.”
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
 
Bill_Martin said:
Taken directly from the Heller vs DC ruling. Emphasis mine.

“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.”
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Click to expand...
  1. 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.
 
BigBlueCane said:
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
I know that. I see you cleverly ignored the part where they specifically said that a ban on an entire class of firearms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for self defense is unconstitutional.
 
Bill_Martin said:
I know that. I see you cleverly ignored the part where they specifically said that a ban on an entire class of firearms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for self defense is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The problem appears to be that guns identified as ‘assault weapons’ are not overwhelmingly chosen by a majority of Americans.
 
Bill_Martin said:
I know that. I see you cleverly ignored the part where they specifically said that a ban on an entire class of firearms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for self defense is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Yeah because they were referring to firearms not assault weapons.
 
Adam Lanza was a “law abiding citizen” until last December 13.
Click to expand...
He also never bought a firearm, and never used an “assault” weapon as defined under connecticuit statue. Kind of drills a bit of a hole through that argument, no?

Is an “assault weapon” designed to kill a large number of people in a short space of time? Well…no. Its designed to fire off a relatively high number of bullets without having to reload, whether this is used for hunting, protection, recreation, or even warfare.

And, as I’ve said…a 30 shot clip in an AR-15 gives me the same number of chances as two thugs breaking into my house weilding handguns. Not exactly something I want to give up.
 
mburn16 said:
He also never bought a firearm, and never used an “assault” weapon as defined under connecticuit statue. Kind of drills a bit of a hole through that argument, no?
Click to expand...
Lanza was also denied a firearm because of a waiting period. Many gun grabbers ignore this point.
Is an “assault weapon” designed to kill a large number of people in a short space of time? Well…no. Its designed to fire off a relatively high number of bullets without having to reload, whether this is used for hunting, protection, recreation, or even warfare.
Click to expand...
Gun definitions are a problem with gun grabbers.
And, as I’ve said…a 30 shot clip in an AR-15 gives me the same number of chances as two thugs breaking into my house weilding handguns. Not exactly something I want to give up.
Click to expand...
Gun grabbers are not very knowledgeable when it comes to firearms.
 
jay29 said:
LOL. So we should change laws based on popular consensus? If that was the case, Catholics would have thrown out the Gospels long ago. 🤷
Click to expand...
Catholics may have been thrown out of the US too.
 
mburn16 said:
He also never bought a firearm, and never used an “assault” weapon as defined under connecticuit statue. Kind of drills a bit of a hole through that argument, no?

Is an “assault weapon” designed to kill a large number of people in a short space of time? Well…no. Its designed to fire off a relatively high number of bullets without having to reload, whether this is used for hunting, protection, recreation, or even warfare.

And, as I’ve said…a 30 shot clip in an AR-15 gives me the same number of chances as two thugs breaking into my house weilding handguns. Not exactly something I want to give up.
Click to expand...
Which means its meant to kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time. You dont need an AR15 to protect yourself. If you’re that bad of a shot you shouldn’t be owning a gun IMO
 
BigBlueCane said:
Which means its meant to kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time. You dont need an AR15 to protect yourself. If you’re that bad of a shot you shouldn’t be owning a gun IMO
Click to expand...
The 2nd Amendment exists so that the citizenry can protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Federalist 46 clearly states this. We should have access to exactly the same firearms the modern infantry soldier has. That’s how it was back in the time of the Amendment’s writing and all the way up until 1986.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top