Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #381
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Making progress, 40% of U.S. now allows carrying a gun without a permit.
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #382
Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.Yep, the lets hand out guns at the classroom door solution. Just like the fucking idiot LaPierre
And more to the point.....Sandy Hook was a gun free zone...and it was targeted specifically because it was a gun free school...the middle school and the high school had armed police community service officers on campus...Sandy Hook was gun free......that is what drew the killer there......no one had a gun to stop him.....
How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
Wimp....can't take the truth, facts or reality......weakling....
Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.In your mind, yes. Tissue?
How infringed are the families of those murdered at VT, Sand Hook Elem. or those killed by errant drive by shootings. More or less infringed than you? Your anger at NYC is understandable, any 2-year old denied a toy will have a temper tantrum and whine and whine. I don't give a damn about you or your obsession with guns - in fact that obsession alone suggests the laws in NYC are appropriate.
Yep, the lets hand out guns at the classroom door solution. Just like the fucking idiot LaPierre
And more to the point.....Sandy Hook was a gun free zone...and it was targeted specifically because it was a gun free school...the middle school and the high school had armed police community service officers on campus...Sandy Hook was gun free......that is what drew the killer there......no one had a gun to stop him.....
How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
Off topic.
You are jacking your own thread 2aguy .
Also off topic.Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.
How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
Wimp....can't take the truth, facts or reality......weakling....
You are jacking your own thread 2aguy .
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #385
Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.Yep, the lets hand out guns at the classroom door solution. Just like the fucking idiot LaPierre
And more to the point.....Sandy Hook was a gun free zone...and it was targeted specifically because it was a gun free school...the middle school and the high school had armed police community service officers on campus...Sandy Hook was gun free......that is what drew the killer there......no one had a gun to stop him.....
How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
Off topic.
You are jacking your own thread.
No...you are wrong...I am answering your post.....you posted this....
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
I showed that in both Heller and Muscarello, you are wrong....it is obvious that the 2nd protects the actual carrying of guns....both concealed and open carry...
2aguy is one of the few peep's who can piss off both the gun owners and the non gun owners.Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.Yep, the lets hand out guns at the classroom door solution. Just like the fucking idiot LaPierre
And more to the point.....Sandy Hook was a gun free zone...and it was targeted specifically because it was a gun free school...the middle school and the high school had armed police community service officers on campus...Sandy Hook was gun free......that is what drew the killer there......no one had a gun to stop him.....
How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #387
Also off topic.Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
Wimp....can't take the truth, facts or reality......weakling....
You are jacking your own thread 2aguy .
Nope...responding to a post by wrycatcher......
2aguy you are still off topic.Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.
How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
Off topic.
You are jacking your own thread.
No...you are wrong...I am answering your post.....you posted this....
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
I showed that in both Heller and Muscarello, you are wrong....it is obvious that the 2nd protects the actual carrying of guns....both concealed and open carry...
You are still jacking your own thread.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #389
2aguy is one of the few peep's who can piss off both the gun owners and the non gun owners.Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.
How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
The Truth is the truth, facts are facts and reality is real........you and wry catcher claimed things that were not true, factual or based in reality.....I showed you, with proof, that you were incorrect...
... AND way off topic too.Also off topic.
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
Wimp....can't take the truth, facts or reality......weakling....
You are jacking your own thread 2aguy .
Nope...responding to a post by wrycatcher......
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #391
... AND way off topic too.Also off topic.Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
Wimp....can't take the truth, facts or reality......weakling....
You are jacking your own thread 2aguy .
Nope...responding to a post by wrycatcher......
You will have to explain that...since my posts are directly related to the topic and to posts that are trying to address that topic....
the "you are off topic" scam is silly on your part...
Truth is a Philosophy topic.2aguy is one of the few peep's who can piss off both the gun owners and the non gun owners.Lanza is off topic. Has nothing to do with this thread.How does anyone know what motivated Lanza to do what he did, where and when. We know the how, and that is the primary issue on any discussion on gun control.
The thread is about constitutional concealed carry.
It is one of 2aguy 's favorite subjects.
His other favorite is constitutional open carry.
Neither of these is mentioned in the Constitution of course.
However this does not stop 2aguy .
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
The Truth is the truth, facts are facts and reality is real........you and wry catcher claimed things that were not true, factual or based in reality.....I showed you, with proof, that you were incorrect...
Has nothing to do with your wacko crazy opinions of what's Constitutional.
Public carry is not Constitutional.
Public carry whether open or concealed is covered by the 10th Amendment not the 2nd.
Off topic.... AND way off topic too.Also off topic.2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
Wimp....can't take the truth, facts or reality......weakling....
You are jacking your own thread 2aguy .
Nope...responding to a post by wrycatcher......
You will have to explain that...since my posts are directly related to the topic and to posts that are trying to address that topic....
the "you are off topic" scam is silly on your part...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #394
Truth is a Philosophy topic.2aguy is one of the few peep's who can piss off both the gun owners and the non gun owners.
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
The Truth is the truth, facts are facts and reality is real........you and wry catcher claimed things that were not true, factual or based in reality.....I showed you, with proof, that you were incorrect...
Has nothing to do with your wacko crazy opinions of what's Constitutional.
Public carry is not Constitutional.
Public carry whether open or concealed is covered by the 10th Amendment not the 2nd.
And you are wrong.....the 2nd Amendment applies to both the federal and state governments....try to keep up.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #395
Off topic.... AND way off topic too.Also off topic.Wimp....can't take the truth, facts or reality......weakling....
You are jacking your own thread 2aguy .
Nope...responding to a post by wrycatcher......
You will have to explain that...since my posts are directly related to the topic and to posts that are trying to address that topic....
the "you are off topic" scam is silly on your part...
Off topic....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #396
Truth is a Philosophy topic.2aguy is one of the few peep's who can piss off both the gun owners and the non gun owners.
Even Justice/social justice activist, Ginsberg would say you are wrong....
From Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I
2aguy, take you gun and shove it up your ass. Then seek a good therapist.
The Truth is the truth, facts are facts and reality is real........you and wry catcher claimed things that were not true, factual or based in reality.....I showed you, with proof, that you were incorrect...
Has nothing to do with your wacko crazy opinions of what's Constitutional.
Public carry is not Constitutional.
Public carry whether open or concealed is covered by the 10th Amendment not the 2nd.
And here you go........it always existed as a Right.....here it is detailed by the Supreme Court...
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
- Banned
- #397
I'll just address the people here who do carry a concealed firearm whether it be some of the time or all of the time.
In my opinion my firearm is for self defense only. I include defense of my wife as well. But that's it.
My weapon(s) are not for defense or protection of the general public. Period.
SO if I see a person who has chosen to be unarmed getting assaulted, robbed, etc, I refuse to draw my weapon to aid them.
You see, I respect the choices of other people so if a person has decided to trust his safety, protection and defense to government agencies then I respect that and will let him live or die as he chooses.
If I or my wife are not in immediate danger I will certainly call the cops for a person who has chosen to go unarmed as that is respecting their wishes of only wanting their protection delivered by a government agency. I will also call an ambulance before I walk or drive away and hope the cops arrive in time to save his life.
Now to address the rest of you who are against concealed carry.
I hope the clarification of my stance alleviates your fear that I as a concealed carry permit holder will play gunslinger.
It's not our job to police the public. I'm more likely to avoid any circumstance between strangers that leads to violence. I don't even want to be a witness. In a serious incident I may attempt to usher people to safety out of my nature but that's it. I'm not engaging attackers I can escape from or avoid.
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
And even with a 6 shooter.....
Even I loved target shooting with the M16, but I do not carry a gun.
Was it pink? Do you own any firearms? If so, do you maintain proficiency with them?
BTW, why would someone want to disarm women?
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
Agreed. Using a firearm for self-defense is a last resort. Best to just get the hell out of there if you can.I'll just address the people here who do carry a concealed firearm whether it be some of the time or all of the time.
In my opinion my firearm is for self defense only. I include defense of my wife as well. But that's it.
My weapon(s) are not for defense or protection of the general public. Period.
SO if I see a person who has chosen to be unarmed getting assaulted, robbed, etc, I refuse to draw my weapon to aid them.
You see, I respect the choices of other people so if a person has decided to trust his safety, protection and defense to government agencies then I respect that and will let him live or die as he chooses.
If I or my wife are not in immediate danger I will certainly call the cops for a person who has chosen to go unarmed as that is respecting their wishes of only wanting their protection delivered by a government agency. I will also call an ambulance before I walk or drive away and hope the cops arrive in time to save his life.
Now to address the rest of you who are against concealed carry.
I hope the clarification of my stance alleviates your fear that I as a concealed carry permit holder will play gunslinger.
It's not our job to police the public. I'm more likely to avoid any circumstance between strangers that leads to violence. I don't even want to be a witness. In a serious incident I may attempt to usher people to safety out of my nature but that's it. I'm not engaging attackers I can escape from or avoid.
Same strategy applies to a late-night home invasion/robbery. Don't go looking for the criminals. Get everyone into the same room and under cover then point a 12 gauge or AK-47 at the door. Anyone who comes in is dead meat since they have no reason to be there except to cause harm. TVs, pictures and such can be replaced.
- Banned
- #400
Similar threads
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 340
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 509
- Views
- 10K
- Replies
- 217
- Views
- 3K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 289
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 128
- Replies
- 229
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 73
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 132
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8484
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 481
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-