Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional

[Asclepias]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

and since the 2nd was to allow the citizens guns to keep the government in control should it ever (like now) get out of control, the question has to be asked. Regulated by who? the same government that the 2nd was created to keep in check?
Seems counterproductive to me.

That wasnt the reason the 2nd was created. The clue is in it being a state right. The south wanted to make sure they could arm their militias in the event of slave/NA uprisings. The wording had to be changed to state so they would join the union.

Not really... Boy

Yes really...cave chimp

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

 

[g5000]

Everybody knew Adam Lanza was crazy. Allowing him to be around guns was wrong.

So how about it? Do you bleev that not only should a crazy person be banned from guns, anyone he might come in contact with in his life should also be banned from guns?

I picture you running into a wall time and time again while screaming, Im not wetawded Im not wetawded

How about letting Bulldog answer the question? Or are you a mind reader?

I know you think you have critical thinking skills, but you are demonstrating you utterly lack them.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Supreme Court has found some gun control laws to be constitutional. They have also found some gun control laws to be unconstitutional. So if you want an answer to the OP question, you have to be way more specific as to the nature of gun control you are talking about.

Well is it legal to attach a 50cal Gatlin gun to a Ford Pickup then ride thru downtown Reno? What about that one?

how is it not?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

and since the 2nd was to allow the citizens guns to keep the government in control should it ever (like now) get out of control, the question has to be asked. Regulated by who? the same government that the 2nd was created to keep in check?
Seems counterproductive to me.

That wasnt the reason the 2nd was created. The clue is in it being a state right. The south wanted to make sure they could arm their militias in the event of slave/NA uprisings. The wording had to be changed to "state" so they would join the union.

no, but nice try for someone that is not that educated. (see, I complimented you)

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Everybody knew Adam Lanza was crazy. Allowing him to be around guns was wrong.

So how about it? Do you bleev that not only should a crazy person be banned from guns, anyone he might come in contact with in his life should also be banned from guns?

I picture you running into a wall time and time again while screaming, Im not wetawded Im not wetawded

How about letting Bulldog answer the question? Or are you a mind reader?

I know you think you have critical thinking skills, but you are demonstrating you utterly lack them.

Yes, I fairly certain that Bulldog meant that if my neighbor was deemed unfit to have a handgun, I would have to get rid of mine too because I live next to him.
How far should he have to stay away from the handguns? does the whole neighborhood lose the right?
idiot.

 

[Asclepias]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

and since the 2nd was to allow the citizens guns to keep the government in control should it ever (like now) get out of control, the question has to be asked. Regulated by who? the same government that the 2nd was created to keep in check?
Seems counterproductive to me.

That wasnt the reason the 2nd was created. The clue is in it being a state right. The south wanted to make sure they could arm their militias in the event of slave/NA uprisings. The wording had to be changed to "state" so they would join the union.

no, but nice try for someone that is not that educated. (see, I complimented you)

Yes. You cant escape the documented evidence that this is why the 2nd amendment is a state right. No need to compliment me. I educate you for free.


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

 

[bullwinkle]

Do you believe that the right to speech can be subject to background checks to ensure that said speech complies with party goals? Are speech controls constitutional?

If speech controls are not Constitutional, we've wasted a lot of legislation on libel and slander laws.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you believe that the right to speech can be subject to background checks to ensure that said speech complies with party goals? Are speech controls constitutional?

That ends the thread

 

[Two Thumbs]

Lets say someone is unstable.

How does that fact mean they will never have the need of a weapon?

Either to feed or protect themselves or others?

 

[g5000]

The Supreme Court has found some gun control laws to be constitutional. They have also found some gun control laws to be unconstitutional. So if you want an answer to the OP question, you have to be way more specific as to the nature of gun control you are talking about.

Well is it legal to attach a 50cal Gatlin gun to a Ford Pickup then ride thru downtown Reno? What about that one?

Shooting the .50 Cal Barrett Sniper Rifle in Las Vegas Nevada

 

[Rustic]

Do you believe that the right to speech can be subject to background checks to ensure that said speech complies with party goals? Are speech controls constitutional?

That ends the thread

Without the second there is no first... Lol

 

[Asclepias]

Lets say someone is unstable.

How does that fact mean they will never have the need of a weapon?

Either to feed or protect themselves or others?

Just because they feel they need it doesnt mean they should have it. Who is going to make the decision for them that they have an actual "need"? Remember they are crazy.

 

[g5000]

Everybody knew Adam Lanza was crazy. Allowing him to be around guns was wrong.

So how about it? Do you bleev that not only should a crazy person be banned from guns, anyone he might come in contact with in his life should also be banned from guns?

I picture you running into a wall time and time again while screaming, Im not wetawded Im not wetawded

How about letting Bulldog answer the question? Or are you a mind reader?

I know you think you have critical thinking skills, but you are demonstrating you utterly lack them.

Yes, I fairly certain that Bulldog meant that if my neighbor was deemed unfit to have a handgun, I would have to get rid of mine too because I live next to him.

Ah. So you ARE a psychic! Amazing!

How far should he have to stay away from the handguns? does the whole neighborhood lose the right?

So now you are asking the same question I am asking. I am glad you finally came around.

 

[Asclepias]

Do you believe that the right to speech can be subject to background checks to ensure that said speech complies with party goals? Are speech controls constitutional?

That ends the thread

Without the second there is no first... Lol

Not true. 1 comes prior to 2.

 

[Bassman007]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

and since the 2nd was to allow the citizens guns to keep the government in control should it ever (like now) get out of control, the question has to be asked. Regulated by who? the same government that the 2nd was created to keep in check?
Seems counterproductive to me.

Not that I agree with your opinion(s), but the question deserves a response. Each state could choose to license or not license gun owners. Let the State government or those with a referendum allow the people to vote on the question.

Your idea is retarded, or do you really want Beavis and Butthead to have guns? Get a grip loser

 

[g5000]

Your idea is retarded, or do you really want Beavis and Butthead to have guns? Get a grip loser

So you want an IQ test for gun ownership? Only people smarter than you, I take it. That's a pretty low bar, so I expect you will be unable to explain how this infringement does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

"You tell dumb jokes and laugh too much. No guns for you!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Yes.

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

States currently have that authority, although only three require a license to possess a firearm.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

lol

Had no idea Scalia was a ‘progressive.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

yes

no


We get it, leftist hate freedom and HATE the Constitution.


Please stop voting for people that want to take our freedoms 'for our own good'.

And whom exactly should citizens vote for – certainly not conservatives.

Conservatives want to take a women’s right to privacy, take away the right of gay Americans to due process and equal protection of the law, and violate the First Amendment rights of Muslim Americans.

That’s conservative hatred of freedom and the Constitution, that’s what happens when citizens vote for conservatives who want to take our freedoms 'for our own good.’

As for ‘the left,’ the firearm regulatory measures the advocate for are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[gipper]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

You need to understand history, to know the meaning of the word militia. Militia meant EVERY able bodied man. In your uninformed nut job world, you think militia means the government run military...WRONG!!!

The amendment continues with the words 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This clearly means the big unlimited government you love, run by elitists and criminals, can't impose gun control laws.

I know this is a waste of time, because liberals are uninformed and propagandized. So there's that.