# Supreme Court should rule  2nd Amendment  as absolute for all states in the United States.



## 52ndStreet (Oct 3, 2021)

I hear their is a case coming up to the United States Supreme Court, brought by the New York State pistol club. They want to challenge an insane New York State infringement on the States citizens right to carry a concealed fire arm.
The infringing law wants the New York State citizens to state a "need " for the weapon , and a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. I feel that no citizen needs to state why they need to obtain or carry a concealed weapon. The 
second amendment clearly states that every adult citizens has the right to bear arms. We don't have to state a need, or
reason why we want to have any weapon, or carry a concealed weapons. We can see that the state of New York and many other infringer states, are violating their citizens second amendment rights. This must come to an end. The second amendment right must not be infringed upon by the government. This is stated in the United States constitution. The right to form and maintain a State militia must not be infringed upon also.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 3, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> I hear their is a case coming up to the United States Supreme Court, brought by the New York State pistol club. They want to challenge an insane New York State infringement on the States citizens right to carry a concealed fire arm.
> The infringing law wants the New York State citizens to state a "need " for the weapon , and a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. I feel that no citizen needs to state why they need to obtain or carry a concealed weapon. The
> second amendment clearly states that every adult citizens has the right to bear arms. We don't have to state a need, or
> reason why we want to have any weapon, or carry a concealed weapons. We can see that the state of New York and many other infringer states, are violating their citizens second amendment rights. This must come to an end. The second amendment right must not be infringed upon by the government. This is stated in the United States constitution. The right to form and maintain a State militia must not be infringed upon also.


not to mention the need is easy to see once you look at world history over the last 100 yrs,,


----------



## night_son (Oct 3, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> I hear their is a case coming up to the United States Supreme Court, brought by the New York State pistol club. They want to challenge an insane New York State infringement on the States citizens right to carry a concealed fire arm.
> The infringing law wants the New York State citizens to state a "need " for the weapon , and a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. I feel that no citizen needs to state why they need to obtain or carry a concealed weapon. The
> second amendment clearly states that every adult citizens has the right to bear arms. We don't have to state a need, or
> reason why we want to have any weapon, or carry a concealed weapons. We can see that the state of New York and many other infringer states, are violating their citizens second amendment rights. This must come to an end. The second amendment right must not be infringed upon by the government. This is stated in the United States constitution. The right to form and maintain a State militia must not be infringed upon also.



Thank you for the post. Please provide a link to the case, if you would. I agree. The right to defend one's self and family is the cornerstone of being a free individual. The Second Amendment simply enshrined and protected a right guaranteed to Americans at birth by God and as free born people. The only reason government might have for infringing upon this right or limiting it is to ramp up for tyrannical rule. Like any other kind of weapon imaginable under the sun, since eons ago, if a person wants to acquire a firearm nothing will stop him.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Oct 3, 2021)

night_son said:


> Thank you for the post. Please provide a link to the case, if you would. I agree. The right to defend one's self and family is the cornerstone of being a free individual. The Second Amendment simply enshrined and protected a right guaranteed to Americans at birth by God and as free born people. The only reason government might have for infringing upon this right or limiting it is to ramp up for tyrannical rule. Like any other kind of weapon imaginable under the sun, since eons ago, if a person wants to acquire a firearm nothing will stop him.


You can google New York State pistol club United State Supreme court case for concealed carry and to obtain a weapon  2nd amendment infringement case. The link should come up. Or I can return with the link .


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 3, 2021)

The Supreme Court's Next Big Gun Case, Explained
					

The case sets the stage for a major shift in gun laws. Here's what it's about, and how a ruling could reverberate across the country.




					www.thetrace.org


----------



## 52ndStreet (Oct 3, 2021)

The info and link , or you can just google nysrpa New York State Rifle & Pistol Association V Bruen
www.thetrace.org  2021/05  >supreme-court-gun-


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 3, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> I hear their is a case coming up to the United States Supreme Court, brought by the New York State pistol club. They want to challenge an insane New York State infringement on the States citizens right to carry a concealed fire arm.
> The infringing law wants the New York State citizens to state a "need " for the weapon , and a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. I feel that no citizen needs to state why they need to obtain or carry a concealed weapon. The
> second amendment clearly states that every adult citizens has the right to bear arms. We don't have to state a need, or
> reason why we want to have any weapon, or carry a concealed weapons. We can see that the state of New York and many other infringer states, are violating their citizens second amendment rights. This must come to an end. The second amendment right must not be infringed upon by the government. This is stated in the United States constitution. The right to form and maintain a State militia must not be infringed upon also.



Stiff shit.  The 2nd is well out of  date.  
It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Oct 3, 2021)

The SC doesn't need to rule on anything.  

It's in the Constitution. 

States can ADD to it, but they CANNOT take it away.

Guns are not for everyone.  Although you have the RIGHT to bear arms, does NOT mean you SHOULD.
Gun/weapon applications should be stringent and cover all bases.  If your application for arms is approved, then there is no need for any further questioning.  If they "need" to know something, it should be on the application.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 3, 2021)

Toffeenut Baconsmuggler said:


> The SC doesn't need to rule on anything.
> 
> It's in the Constitution.
> 
> ...


states cant add shit,, the 2nd is clear,, the people and shall not be infringed,,


----------



## 52ndStreet (Oct 3, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Stiff shit.  The 2nd is well out of  date.
> It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.


My point sir , is that you technically should not be asked why you need a weapon. It is a constitutional right. And the second
Amendment is not out of date in today's world. Those Taliban in Afghanistan were all  armed with 
fully automatic AK- 47 and AR-15 assault rifles, and they had the United States military at a stalemate for 20 years. The U.S. Army felt that the war became to expensive, and vacated Afghanistan. Yes, there is now more than ever, a need for the 2nd amendment in today's world!!


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 3, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> My point sir , is that you technically should not be asked why you need a weapon. It is a constitutional right. And the second
> Amendment is not out of date in today's world. Those Taliban in Afghanistan were all  armed with
> fully automatic AK- 47 and AR-15 assault rifles, and they had the United States military at a stalemate for 20 years. The U.S. Army felt that the war became to expensive, and vacated Afghanistan. Yes, there is now more than ever, a need for the 2nd amendment in today's world!!



You sir, should be asked for a reasonable excuse to carry that weapon.  
Personal protection, hunting and the 2nd are not justification. 
The saturation of guns has caused hundreds if thousands if unnecessary deaths if bliss but you still use that as a by product not freedom. 

What a pathetically irresponsible human being you are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Stiff shit.  The 2nd is well out of  date.
> It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.


Your opinion doesn't matter.
And...  good luck repealing the 2nd.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2021)

52ndStreet said:


> I hear their is a case coming up to the United States Supreme Court, brought by the New York State pistol club. They want to challenge an insane New York State infringement on the States citizens right to carry a concealed fire arm.
> The infringing law wants the New York State citizens to state a "need " for the weapon , and a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. I feel that no citizen needs to state why they need to obtain or carry a concealed weapon.


If the USSC rules against the NY law, as it likely will, it will affect all similar state laws.
States cannot require a person to show "good reason" to exercise any of their rights, let alone a fundamental right of th eeople specifically protected by the constitution.

The court might even go so far as to rule the states do not have standing to even issue a permit to exercise a right, much less require it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 4, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You sir, should be asked for a reasonable excuse to carry that weapon.
> Personal protection, hunting and the 2nd are not justification.


Your opinion doesn't matter.
The opinion of the court, however, does, and it opposes yours.


Colin norris said:


> The saturation of guns has caused hundreds if thousands if unnecessary deaths if bliss but you still use that as a by product not freedom.


Unsupportable nonsense.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 26, 2022)

52ndStreet said:


> Supreme Court should rule 2nd Amendment as absolute for all states in the United States.


This is just as ignorant and ridiculous now was it was last October.

The Second Amendment is neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose; the Court will be making no such ruling, nor should it.

The may issue provision before the Court now concerns solely that provision, nothing else.


----------



## BS Filter (Mar 26, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stiff shit.  The 2nd is well out of  date.
> It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.


No reason is needed.  Self defense is a God-given right.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 26, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> No reason is needed.  Self defense is a God-given right.


Rubbish.  There is not one mention of a god given right in the constitution. 
Perhaps you could post where it says that. 
I know you can't.


----------



## BS Filter (Mar 26, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Rubbish.  There is not one mention of a god given right in the constitution.
> Perhaps you could post where it says that.
> I know you can't.


Whatever.  It's a right that "shall not be infringed".  Suck on that for a while.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 26, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Rubbish.  There is not one mention of a god given right in the constitution.
> Perhaps you could post where it says that.
> I know you can't.


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 26, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Whatever.  It's a right that "shall not be infringed".  Suck on that for a while.


Not whatever.  You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.

The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?


----------



## BS Filter (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Not whatever.  You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.
> 
> The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?


The right to self defense is inherent.  That means it's not a government given right.  That's why the Constitution says "shall not be infringed".

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.

You better read that 2nd amendment again.  Notice the word "people".  You liars always use the same script about that militia part.  The Supreme Court disagrees with you.  Why don't you try that bogus "settled law" next.  Amateur.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 27, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> The right to self defense is inherent.  That means it's not a government given right.  That's why the Constitution says "shall not be infringed".


The two are not connected by the constitution. 
Youre right self defense doesn't include to use guns to do it.  It does not mention self defense in the 2nd. 


BS Filter said:


> 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.


Got it.  Wheres the well armed militia? Youre not it. 


BS Filter said:


> You better read that 2nd amendment again.  Notice the word "people".


thats right and it doesn't say anything about self defence.  


BS Filter said:


> You liars always use the same script about that militia part.


thats because it makes a specific reference to a military type protection. Not a rag tag bunch of wannabe rambos puffing up their egos. 


BS Filter said:


> The Supreme Court disagrees with you.


They do not disagree with me nor have they ever adjudicated on the validity if the 2nd. It has not been changed since it was written. 


BS Filter said:


> Why don't you try that bogus "settled law" next.  Amateur.



Why don't you accept you are incapable of interpreting what it meant. 
Youre so paranoid about guns giving you freedom, removing  tyranny, self protection bullshit, you've let the gun culture run wild. 
It didn't mention in the constitution  about ratbag kids blowing away school children then use the same second to justify guns???? 
Is that how you interpret it?
Because is how you gun nuts have allowed the country to slide to the status of Columbia.


----------



## BS Filter (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> The two are not connected by the constitution.
> Youre right self defense doesn't include to use guns to do it.  It does not mention self defense in the 2nd.
> 
> Got it.  Wheres the well armed militia? Youre not it.
> ...


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fuck you, commie.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 27, 2022)

There are legitimate restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights and the states can make their own laws pertaining to possession of a firearm. The solution is to elect politicians who are in favor of reasonable laws pertaining to firearms rather than relying on the sometimes quirky ruling of nine judges.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Not whatever.  You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.
> The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> Fuck you, commie.


You are correct.
"Well regulated" modifies "militia"
The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is held by the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia.
The people.
Thus, whatever"well regulated" and "militia", individually or together, may mean, it is irrelevant as who holds the right to keep and bear arms under the protection of the 2nd.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2022)

whitehall said:


> There are legitimate restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights....


So long as those restrictions do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms - sure.


whitehall said:


> and the states can make their own laws pertaining to possession of a firearm.


So long as those laws do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms - sure.


whitehall said:


> The solution is to elect politicians who are in favor of reasonable laws pertaining to firearms...


..."reasomable" meaning "semonstrably necessary and effective " - else they infrionge upon he right to keep and bear arms


whitehall said:


> rather than relying on the sometimes quirky ruling of nine judges.


Unforunately. those who continue to place unnecessary and ineffective restriction son the right to keep and bear arms necessitate the occasional visit to those 9 justices, to have said restrictions swatted down.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 27, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> Fuck you, commie.


How would my opinion be labeled as a communist? 
I know republicans that are against guns. Are they communists also? 
I know democrats who have guns, are they communists also? 

Your frontal lobe is having an epileptic fit son.


----------



## BS Filter (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> How would my opinion be labeled as a communist?
> I know republicans that are against guns. Are they communists also?
> I know democrats who have guns, are they communists also?
> 
> Your frontal lobe is having an epileptic fit son.


Guns aren't the problem any more than cars are responsible for car wrecks and spoons are responsible for obesity.  You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 27, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Guns aren't the problem any more than cars are responsible for car wrecks and spoons are responsible for obesity.  You're a fucking idiot.


Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it. 
You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.


----------



## BS Filter (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.
> You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.


So you believe a gun just jumped up and killed kids at a school?  You're a special kind of stupid.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 27, 2022)

52ndStreet said:


> We can see that the state of New York and many other infringer states, are violating their citizens second amendment rights.



Do you realize the 2nd Amendment was made enforceable on the states only 12 years ago?

Before 2010, no citizen had any "Second Amendment rights" against state or local gun laws.

In fact, New York citizens were and still are, at the complete mercy of their state lawmakers because New York is one of a few states that does not have a right to arms provision in their state constitution.

There's a reason why NY and Maryland and California and New Jeresy have the worst laws; they all share not having a right to arms provision in their state constitutions . . .   Because of that, their lawmakers have just acted like they were free to enact any law they wanted, so they did.

The actual legal question (and answer from SCOTUS) is a lot more complicated than you present.

SCOTUS will *not* be holding that a federally enforced ("Second Amendment") right to carry _concealed_ exists, nor will they be holding that states are forbidden to enact licensing requirements to carry a gun.

SCOTUS will be holding that the 2ndA does recognize and secure a right to bear arms in public for self defense and all states must recognize that right.  The SCOTUS will knock down discriminatory "need" or "good cause" based issuance of any license, but setting the rules for the manner of carriage will remain in the state's perogative.

.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The may issue provision before the Court now concerns solely that provision, nothing else.



Do you think the Supreme Court is going to allow the lower court's bullshit "two-step inquiry" to continue undisturbed?  Do you think SCOTUS is going to reverse the 2nd Circuit's _NYSRPA_ decision but not extend the order to the legal reasoning the Circuit used to screw this pooch and dozens of others?

I think the SCOTUS is going to completely and emphatically invalidate the _Circuit judge two-step_.  The 50 or so gun law cases that have been decided using the _Circuit judge two-step_ since 2008 and ignoring _Heller_, will all be challenged in short order.

That means the specific Circuit decisions sustaining state assault weapon bans and high-cap mag bans will each be challenged and they will be reversed and the bans all struck down . . . 

I'm gonna call 2022 "Constitution Summer"!

.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?



You seem to be confused; the "_right of the people to keep and bear arms_" and the 2nd Amendment are two separate and distinct things.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed . . . The only "thing" that shall not be infringed is the inherent right to keep and bear arms, a right possessed by the people, _not_ the militia.

The militia, as an organization and any member of it, has no need for a "right to keep and bear arms" . . . _EVERYTHING_ an enrolled militia member does with his gun (even the act of acquiring it) is him obeying law, not exercising any right.  As a militia member, his arm use is not exercising any immunity from government power and control it is an exercise in law and control.

Your theory and argument is absurd and linguistically, logically and legally incoherent.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.
> You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stiff shit.  The 2nd is well out of  date.
> It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.


A free, armed and trained citizenry is the backbone of a republic.  Just ask the Ukranians if you doubt that.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Not whatever.  You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.
> 
> The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?


If a buffalo is attacked by a pack of wolves, does the buffalo have the natural right to kill the wolves in self defense?  Yes, he does.  The same right applies to humans.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.
> You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.


I saw a bunch of defenseless people killed at Sandy Hook, because all of the adults were unarmed, except for the murderer.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 27, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Not whatever.  You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.
> 
> The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?


It says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia".


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 28, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia".



Here's what it says. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Notice you are not regarded as the militia? 


 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
I don't disagree. My point is and always has been, why do you all have 6 guns that are never used for the purpose they are made. Youve never attempted to get rid of tyrannical govts like Obama and Biden. You said the relation was fraudulent and still never fired a shot. 

See my point?  You don't need semi automatic weapons nor most of the others ones either. 
Its pure tough guy ego.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 28, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Here's what it says.



Since you seem so concerned over what the Constitution "says", you should try to align your thinking with the foundational principles of the Constitution.  Someday you might understand the right of the people to keep and bear arms _in no manner depends_ on what the 2nd Amendment "says".

The right to arms is possessed by the people because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

IOW, the RKBA does not depend on what the 2nd Amendment says, it depends on what the body of the Constitution _*doesn't*_ say . . .


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> See my point?  You don't need semi automatic weapons nor most of the others ones either.
> Its pure tough guy ego.


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 28, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Here's what it says.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> Notice you are not regarded as the militia?
> ...


We absolutely need semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles.  We need automatic weapons, too.

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 28, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> We absolutely need semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles.  We need automatic weapons, too.
> 
> Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?


Why would you need those weapons? 
You have no use for them. There will be no invasion. You havent the guts to storm the wh. You don't need it for personal protection. You want it because of your egotistical tough guy American image. End of story.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Why would you need those weapons?
> You have no use for them. There will be no invasion. You havent the guts to storm the wh. You don't need it for personal protection. You want it because of your egotistical tough guy American image. End of story.


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 28, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stiff shit.  The 2nd is well out of  date.
> It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.


And you have no justification for your opinion.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 28, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> And you have no justification for your opinion.


My opinion is good enough for me.  If you dont like it, get a ticket, get in line and kiss my butt.

Its no different to you not having a reason to own a cupboard full of guns you don't use.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 28, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Not whatever.  You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.
> 
> The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?


And also clearly states the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders are clear about and individuals rights as well. all you loons have is feelings and opinions. 

 "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." — Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 28, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> My opinion is good enough for me.  If you dont like it, get a ticket, get in line and kiss my butt.
> 
> Its no different to you not having a reason to own a cupboard full of guns you don't use.


I don't need a reason for exercising my Constitutional right to bear arms.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 28, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> I don't need a reason for exercising my Constitutional right to bear arms.


Duuuuuuuh 
Thats what i just said dickhead. If you were any slower you'd be in reverse.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 29, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Duuuuuuuh
> Thats what i just said dickhead. If you were any slower you'd be in reverse.


No, you said the is no reason to have firearms. For some reason you loons do not understand that without the 2nd Amendment there are no other rights. Your freedom of speech will be gone the moment the government takes away my right to bear arms.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 29, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> No, you said the is no reason to have firearms.


no.  I said you have no reason to have so many guns. 


ThunderKiss1965 said:


> For some reason you loons do not understand that without the 2nd Amendment there are no other rights.


only a fool would believe owning a gun would give you freedom and rights. The people who don't have a gun have the same rights and freedoms as you. Your argument is shit. 


ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Your freedom of speech will be gone the moment the government takes away my right to bear arms.


When have you ever exercise you freedom of speech accompanied by a gun? Do you think you are entitled to write on this forum because you have a gun,,? Of course not.  I don't have one and I'm on here. 
You don't seem to give your ramblings much thought.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 29, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> no.  I said you have no reason to have so many guns.
> 
> only a fool would believe owning a gun would give you freedom and rights. The people who don't have a gun have the same rights and freedoms as you. Your argument is shit.
> 
> ...


The freedoms we have are because of the 2nd. The government can not take away the rights of an armed populace willing to use those firearms to retain those freedoms, not without killing a large faction of the population. I took an oath to defend the Constitution even for worthless people like yourself who won't fight for shit.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 29, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Why would you need those weapons?
> You have no use for them. There will be no invasion. You havent the guts to storm the wh. You don't need it for personal protection. You want it because of your egotistical tough guy American image. End of story.


You got it backwards: there hasn't been an invasion because we have guns.  The government hasn't oppressed the citizenry because we have guns.  So, yes we need them and because we have them, we are safer.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> My opinion is good enough for me.  If you dont like it, get a ticket, get in line and kiss my butt.
> Its no different to you not having a reason to own a cupboard full of guns you don't use.


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stiff shit.  The 2nd is well out of  date.


No.  Freedom and civil liberties will never be out of date.




Colin norris said:


> It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.


That is the thing about free people.  We do whatever we want, and we never justify ourselves to anyone.




Colin norris said:


> You sir, should be asked for a reasonable excuse to carry that weapon.


We won't be.  As free people we do not have to justify ourselves.




Colin norris said:


> Personal protection, hunting and the 2nd are not justification.


That is incorrect.  People carry guns for both hunting and personal protection.




Colin norris said:


> The saturation of guns has caused hundreds if thousands if unnecessary deaths if bliss but you still use that as a by product not freedom.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but changes in gun availability do not cause any significant changes in homicide rates.




Colin norris said:


> What a pathetically irresponsible human being you are.


Nonsense.  Most gun owners are quite responsible.




Colin norris said:


> Rubbish.  There is not one mention of a god given right in the constitution.
> Perhaps you could post where it says that.
> I know you can't.


God given rights is just another way of saying natural rights.

The thing about natural rights is, they don't have to be mentioned anywhere.  By their very nature they automatically transcend all law.




Colin norris said:


> Not whatever.  You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.


He is not wrong (and I doubt that he assumed).  Self defense is indeed a natural right that transcends all law.




Colin norris said:


> The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?


You are mistaken.  The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to members of any military body.




Colin norris said:


> Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.


The spoon comment was a reference to obesity, not to killing.




Colin norris said:


> You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.


No we won't.  Free people do what we want, and we don't bother making excuses.




Colin norris said:


> Notice you are not regarded as the militia?


Irrelevant.  The right belongs to the people, not to members of any military body.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> The two are not connected by the constitution.
> Your right self defense doesn't include to use guns to do it.


However, when you combine "the natural right to self defense" with "the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms" you end up with people who have the right to have guns, and the right to use those guns in self defense.




Colin norris said:


> It does not mention self defense in the 2nd.


It doesn't have to.  It mentions that people have the right to keep arms.

The right to defend yourself with your arms comes automatically with the possession of those arms.




Colin norris said:


> Got it.  Wheres the well armed militia? Youre not it.


Who cares?  Why are you changing the subject to the militia when we are talking about the right of the people?




Colin norris said:


> thats right and it doesn't say anything about self defence.


It doesn't have to.  It says the people have the right to keep arms.

The self defense part come automatically.




Colin norris said:


> thats because it makes a specific reference to a military type protection. Not a rag tag bunch of wannabe rambos puffing up their egos.


Are you changing the subject to the militia again?  It clearly states that it is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms.




Colin norris said:


> They do not disagree with me nor have they ever adjudicated on the validity if the 2nd.


Wrong.  The Supreme Court has done both, multiple times.




Colin norris said:


> Why don't you accept you are incapable of interpreting what it meant.


Probably because he is more than capable of interpreting it.




Colin norris said:


> no.  I said you have no reason to have so many guns.


Free people don't need a reason.




Colin norris said:


> only a fool would believe owning a gun would give you freedom and rights.


That's all twisted around and backwards.  It is our freedom and rights that allow us to have guns.




Colin norris said:


> The people who don't have a gun have the same rights and freedoms as you.


Not all of them.  Some people are without guns because they lack freedom.




Colin norris said:


> When have you ever exercise you freedom of speech accompanied by a gun?


Open carry advocates do it all the time.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> I don't need a reason for exercising my Constitutional right to bear arms.


^This.

That's all that needs to be said.

Bravo!


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment is neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose; the Court will be making no such ruling, nor should it.


No right is unlimited.  Otherwise there would only be a single right, and it would be a right to do anything you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want.

Rights are pretty absolute though.  If a law violates a right, that law is unconstitutional.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The may issue provision before the Court now concerns solely that provision, nothing else.


The ruling on New York's may issue carry law will impact all other may issue carry laws.

The new standard of review will impact every single gun law in the Untied States.


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 3, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> However, when you combine "the natural right to self defense" with "the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms" you end up with people who have the right to have guns, and the right to use those guns in self defense.


When was the last time you defended yourself.  I'll say never and you know it. 


Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't have to.  It mentions that people have the right to keep arms.


That doesn't relate to the issue in the op. 


Open Bolt said:


> The right to defend yourself with your arms comes automatically with the possession of those arms.


It does not and it doesn't say that anywhere. 


Open Bolt said:


> Who cares?  Why are you changing the subject to the militia when we are talking about the right of the people?


Because it says well armed militia in the 2nd. Rambos like you are not militia. 


Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't have to.  It says the people have the right to keep arms.


I know that but its not compulsory. 


Open Bolt said:


> The self defense part come automatically.


Rubbish. Thats your take on it.  You lot haven't come far from the wild west. 


Open Bolt said:


> Are you changing the subject to the militia again?  It clearly states that it is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms.


It also says states to keep a well armed militia.  Youre right to bear arms is not militia connected. It means military. 


Open Bolt said:


> Wrong.  The Supreme Court has done both, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't everyone in modern Western societies free? America didn't invent freedom and neither does any country want to import it. Youre all gun nuts. 


Open Bolt said:


> That's all twisted around and backwards.  It is our freedom and rights that allow us to have guns.


Well whoopee. Does it say anything g about you not needing them other than your ego?


Open Bolt said:


> Not all of them.  Some people are without guns because they lack freedom.


How can you possibly interpret that a person without a gun doesn't have freedom? What about half thr population that chose to not carry? Do they have a different freedom to you? Of course not you idiot. Youre just a wannabe tough guy rambo and smear people who won't concede to you egotistical gun culture.  Its gutless bastardsblije you who won't walk anywhere without a gun.   home of  the brave my arse. 


Open Bolt said:


> Open carry advocates do it all the time.


Good luck to them. That doesn't make it right. 

Stick with yoir bible son. Ask God is it ok to act like an idiot.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stiff shit.  The 2nd is well out of  date.
> It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.


Maybe we should have you state your need to post here.  After all you don't NEED to post on the internet


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Not whatever.  You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.
> 
> The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?


Our entire governmental philosophy is based on the idea that rights are inherent in the individual and NOT privileges granted by the government.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> When was the last time you defended yourself.  I'll say never and you know it.


Irrelevant.  We still have the right to defend ourselves.




Colin norris said:


> That doesn't relate to the issue in the op.


Sure it does.  The right to have arms includes the right to defend yourself with those arms.




Colin norris said:


> It does not and it doesn't say that anywhere.


That is incorrect.  First, everyone has a natural right to self defense.  "Everyone" includes those people who have the right to keep arms.  So right off the bat anyone who has the right to keep arms has the right to use those arms in self defense.

And second, the Second Amendment does not define the right to keep and bear arms.  It merely protects that preexisting right from infringement.

That preexisting right to keep and bear arms includes court rulings and a statute stating that people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.




Colin norris said:


> Because it says well armed militia in the 2nd.


That is incorrect.  It says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.  It does not limit the right to members of any military body.




Colin norris said:


> Rambos like you are not militia.


Irrelevant.  I am part of the people.  And it is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms.




Colin norris said:


> Rubbish. Thats your take on it.


No, "that everyone has a natural right to self defense" is a fact.

"That the Second Amendment protects a preexisting right" and "that the preexisting right has court rulings and a statute stating that people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes" are also facts.




Colin norris said:


> It also says states to keep a well armed militia.


I have no objection to the government keeping up a well armed militia.

But as a member of the people, I have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of what the government does regarding the militia.




Colin norris said:


> Isn't everyone in modern Western societies free?


No.  America is the only free country in the world.




Colin norris said:


> How can you possibly interpret that a person without a gun doesn't have freedom?


I don't.

Some free people choose to not have guns.




Colin norris said:


> Youre just a wannabe tough guy rambo and smear people who won't concede to you egotistical gun culture.  Its gutless bastardsblije you who won't walk anywhere without a gun.   home of  the brave my arse.


What it is with you freedom haters that makes you so bitter towards those of us who are free?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> When was the last time you defended yourself.  I'll say never and you know it.
> 
> That doesn't relate to the issue in the op.
> 
> ...


When was the last time your house burned down?  I guess you don;t need that homeowners insurance or a fire department.

The police have no legal obligation to come to your aid and SCOTUS has ruled on that.  So if' you're stupid enough to trust the cops to protect you then good luck.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose;


What part of this gives you the idea that it has limits? *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. *


----------



## beautress (Jul 11, 2022)

52ndStreet said:


> I hear their is a case coming up to the United States Supreme Court, brought by the New York State pistol club. They want to challenge an insane New York State infringement on the States citizens right to carry a concealed fire arm.
> The infringing law wants the New York State citizens to state a "need " for the weapon , and a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. I feel that no citizen needs to state why they need to obtain or carry a concealed weapon. The
> second amendment clearly states that every adult citizens has the right to bear arms. We don't have to state a need, or
> reason why we want to have any weapon, or carry a concealed weapons. We can see that the state of New York and many other infringer states, are violating their citizens second amendment rights. This must come to an end. The second amendment right must not be infringed upon by the government. This is stated in the United States constitution. The right to form and maintain a State militia must not be infringed upon also.


To the best of my knowledge, Federal Laws have historically superseded State laws.


----------

