For left-wingers who want to end a right to bear arms...

[BlindBoo]

You'll have to amend the Constitution to do that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

 

[Gdjjr]

There are many things we can choose in this world that are not legal

Legal and moral are rarely in the same environment- choice is the MOST basic of rights. Period. It's immoral to force one to do your bidding- it may be legal though, but, not in this case- so far- immoral is immoral- intent is immaterial as results speak for themselves- forcing one to accept the desires of another is THE ROOT of ALL conflict since time began- FORCE is the root of immoral and it's most feared tool- the threat of force is used by gov't (think Not Our Finest Hour thread you created) to coerce- coercion under threat of force is what? Certainly a "choice" made by a gov't to inflict your will on others which is disrespecting the rights of others-en mass, which is mass disrespect for others right to choose.

 

[Gdjjr]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

200 hundred years of twisting, spinning, castigating words = lawyers who pay others to teach them how to do that = straw man argument- the words are crystal clear- shall not be infringed.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

 

[Blues Man]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

People have never had the right to use their firearms wherever and whenever they wanted to and the Constitution does not even mention the use of firearms only that the people have the right to keep and bear arms

Therefore while I can own any firearm and carry that firearm I am not at liberty to use that firearm. In fact there are very few instances where it is legal to use a firearm and those instances are clearly spelled out

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative [sic] court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

What the Second Amendment says is absolutely clear. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, and government is absolutely forbidden from infringing this right. Period.

We have courts arguing and ruling on when and where and how government may infringe this right. That's bullshit. The question was settled when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1891. Government •MAY NOT• infringe this right; and for any court or legislature to determine otherwise is an act of blatant corruption.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nobody wants to confiscate 350 million guns
We just want sensible gun legislation. Legislation supported by most Americans

Tell me which of our federal gun laws are not common sense?

We have a very specific list of who can and cannot possess a firearm
We have very specific laws both federal and state that outline what the legal uses of firearms are

It doesn't matter what firearm a person owns as long as he follows the laws already on the books

You know those laws that we do not enforce

OK

1. Background checks on ALL transactions are common sense
2. Not allowing 50 round magazines are common sense
3. Being able to trace each weapon and where it came from is common sense
4. Requiring safety training is common sense

What does it matter what size magazine a person has?

All that matter is the person obeys the laws that regulate the legal use of firearms.

It doesn't matter what type of gun a person owns all that matters is if he uses it in a legal manner.

If we enforce the laws we have regarding who can legally possess a firearm we will be leaps and bounds better off

But we don't enforce those laws.

Why do we want to make life easier for mass killers and terrorists?
You don’t need a Stinger Missile and you don’t need a 50 round magazine

Our rights are not based upon what we need. One can argue that you don't need to be able to speak your mind in the public square but our rights allow us to do so.

Our rights are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law, as is the case with the Second Amendment.

Just as government has the authority to preempt speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence, so too has government the authority to prohibit the possession of weapons the Second Amendment determines to be dangerous and unusual.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

Telling how most conservatives have come to loathe Heller.

 

[fncceo]

We don’t want to end a right to bear arms

We want to end these fucking massacres and 30,000 people killed each year by guns

Or more importantly, the 300,000 deaths caused by the obesity epidemic per year.

Just shoot people who go back for seconds. The numbers will balance out.

 

[pknopp]

Tell me which of our federal gun laws are not common sense?

We have a very specific list of who can and cannot possess a firearm
We have very specific laws both federal and state that outline what the legal uses of firearms are

It doesn't matter what firearm a person owns as long as he follows the laws already on the books

You know those laws that we do not enforce

OK

1. Background checks on ALL transactions are common sense
2. Not allowing 50 round magazines are common sense
3. Being able to trace each weapon and where it came from is common sense
4. Requiring safety training is common sense

What does it matter what size magazine a person has?

All that matter is the person obeys the laws that regulate the legal use of firearms.

It doesn't matter what type of gun a person owns all that matters is if he uses it in a legal manner.

If we enforce the laws we have regarding who can legally possess a firearm we will be leaps and bounds better off

But we don't enforce those laws.

Why do we want to make life easier for mass killers and terrorists?
You don’t need a Stinger Missile and you don’t need a 50 round magazine

Our rights are not based upon what we need. One can argue that you don't need to be able to speak your mind in the public square but our rights allow us to do so.

Our rights are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law, as is the case with the Second Amendment.

Just as government has the authority to preempt speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence, so too has government the authority to prohibit the possession of weapons the Second Amendment determines to be dangerous and unusual.

That's true but it hasn't.

 

[westwall]

We don’t want to end a right to bear arms

We want to end these fucking massacres and 30,000 people killed each year by guns

Then do something that will work. No gun ban has ever prevented a crime yet.

Ample evidence shows that to be true.

 

[Blues Man]

What does it matter what gun a person owns?

The second amendment only protects the right to keep and bear

No one has the right to discharge any firearms but for very specific reasons

Local and federal laws clearly state where when and how a gun is to be used

What we need to do is strictly enforce those laws with draconian prison sentences

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You'll have to amend the Constitution to do that.

Correct.

And no one seeks to amend the Constitution to ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment.

This is why the thread premise is a lie.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

People have never had the right to use their firearms wherever and whenever they wanted to and the Constitution does not even mention the use of firearms only that the people have the right to keep and bear arms

Therefore while I can own any firearm and carry that firearm I am not at liberty to use that firearm. In fact there are very few instances where it is legal to use a firearm and those instances are clearly spelled out

Good point

The right to bear arms does not permit you to walk around carrying your guns and firing at will.

 

[Gdjjr]

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

Surprise, surprise- they don't need to- rights predate the Bill of Rights which simply recognizes and restricts fed authority-

 

[Blues Man]

Yet, in 200 plus years, it has never been interpreted that way

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

Wow......240 years of corrupt courts

Even the Consrrvative court Heller decision did not approve of unlimited gun rights

People have never had the right to use their firearms wherever and whenever they wanted to and the Constitution does not even mention the use of firearms only that the people have the right to keep and bear arms

Therefore while I can own any firearm and carry that firearm I am not at liberty to use that firearm. In fact there are very few instances where it is legal to use a firearm and those instances are clearly spelled out

Good point

The right to bear arms does not permit you to walk around carrying your guns and firing at will.

Carrying yes

Firing no

Keep and bear



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What it says is clear and unambiguous. That corrupt courts have “interpreted” it to mean other than what it clearly says doesn't change that; it only shows us how corrupt and intellectually-dishonest those courts have been.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is the highest law. Your position places it below the opinions of judges and justices; which is certainly wrong, especially when those opinions directly contradict the clear, explicit words actually written in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the highest law. No court, and no legislature, has the authority to allow any infringement of this right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And no one seeks to amend the Constitution to ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment.

This is why the thread premise is a lie.

Anyone who is honest will admit that the only way for any gun control law to be legitimate and Constitutional, would be to do exactly that. As long as the Second Amendment stands, every single gun control, without exception, is unconstitutional and illegitimate, and every corrupt public official who has any willing part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any such law is no better than a common criminal, and deserved to be treated as such.

And there is where the true lie is found. By wise design, amending the Constitution is no trivial task. But if the public support were really there that is often claimed, for various policies that violate the Second Amendment, then there would certainly be a credible effort underway—if not already successfully completed—to amend the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

There is no such effort underway, because nobody in a position to initiate such an effort believes that it would have any plausible chance of succeeding. Which means that they know that the claims of overwhelming support for policies that are contrary to the Second Amendment are all lies.