Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it locked away forever, then why have the second at all?I know you have this denial of the principle of pre-existing / inherent rights, but under the state constitutions that principle is a structural component. State constitutions call out the inherent rights of their people as an initial act and declare those rights are forever excepted out of the powers of government and shall remain inviolate (that's how it is worded in my state, Pennsylvania).
That is done before a single power is granted / conferred. That is a very strong statement about the relationship between rights and powers and the sovereignty of the citizen.
So, back to the question, how can a state consider a federal amendment that surrenders rights of the state's citizens to the feds, if that right is forever locked away from their consideration?
I argue that before an amendment rescinding or modifying the federal 2nd Amendment can be considered by the states, most, if not all states would each need to convene their own constitutional conventions, just to grant their government new power to allow them to give away a right that the state recognizes and promises to protect and declares forever outside of their power.
I'd be glad to hear your oppositional argument to those points . . .
So you quote three justices who gave their opinion. And that is all it is. An opinion. You don't think I could hunt around and find opinions from justices over the years who back up my opinion. Hell, it's already been posted a couple of times on this thread alone.Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”
.
Chances are the Supreme Court will say packing heat in public is up to the individual states. In other words, it will cop out.I presume that's what you meant by requirement. Fair enough. I just wanted to be sure what you were referring to.
Yes, but even though they had a specific reason for drafting the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment still protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns privately for the defense of their homes.
There is an argument to be made for people also having the right to be armed outside their homes, although it isn't quite as secure as the right to protect one's home. It'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter this summer.
Hey guess what - I don't care.It's not a civil liberty. And pre 1400 years ago? Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?
Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.Hey guess what - I don't care.
I don't care what you CALL it.
I have an absolute and inviolable right to protect myself and my family.
And I do not give a rat's ass what Creepy Joe or the Supreme Idiots or anyone else has to say about it.
LilOlLady is right, if you take my weapon I'll have another one 30 minutes later. Law or no law. That's the reality. Gun restrictions are worthless, they're exactly like drug laws, no one pays attention to them.
Except for the cartels and the Chinese - because the minute you ban something, they'll go into business making it.
Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.
Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.
cwbchicago.com
Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.
Contradict yourself much?Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.
Contradict yourself much?
lol - I don't need a gun, Doctor. I have chemical and biological weapons too. I can do way more damage with those than with a peashooter.
Seriously, there is an enormous spectrum of weaponry from 20 hz to 20 khz, and for some reason the Democrats are focusing "only" on the weapon that sits at exactly 7.62 khz. Why is that?
Have you forgotten about the nail bombs the Tsarnaev brothers used? Or the airplanes? I mean, none of those guys had AR-15's. They either went to the airport or they went to Edmund Scientific
No, the type of weapon is not the issue. Control is the issue. Registration is the issue. Compliance is the issue
As the 2nd and 14th amendment apply to the US as a whole, this is unlikely.Chances are the Supreme Court will say packing heat in public is up to the individual states. In other words, it will cop out.
Are you that ignorant? I used his words that you left out the words were the second amendment protects firearms that are in common use. And AR is in common use. The second amendment does not protect firearms that are not in common use.Having nothing whatsoever to do with the settled, accepted fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute’ and that President Biden was correct to acknowledge that fact.
But it didn't ban any firearm.That stamp made it impossible for most people to acquire such guns.
Making something impossible to acquire is an awful lot like banning it.
Which means all citizens in all the states have equal rights as stated in the US Constitution.As the 2nd and 14th amendment apply to the US as a whole, this is unlikely.
14th amendment says otherwise.It's not a civil liberty. And pre 1400 years ago? Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?
Which is why the USSC will not leave it up to the states.Which means all citizens in all the states have equal rights as stated in the US Constitution.
Exactly the second amendment has been delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution therefore it is not a state issueWhich is why the USSC will not leave it up to the states.
You can only find those four words in one amendment.Shall not be Infringed".
Only a stupid uneducated low information confused Moon Bat wouldn't understand what that means.
