The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

Exactly.

Heller was nothing but "politically expedient" sophistry

Nevertheless, Scalia was right about the right of the people being an individual right that pre-existed government. He was simply too afraid to deem all federal gun laws unconstitutional (the right ruling).

It would have done one of at least three things. It would have caused states to immediately act to replace the Fed laws struck down (probably unnecessary...see below). It would have caused an immediate constitutional crisis and a call for an amendment. Or, most people would have realized that such a ruling did nothing but reclaim the authority for states, which is not really an issue, because states have already enacted their own laws way prior to the Heller ruling that are substantially similar to all Fed gun laws.

We can get into a long discussion later about whether the 2A prohibited states from infringing on the right of the people, and whether the 14th Amendment's due process or privileges and immunities clauses force states to grant rights guaranteed by the 2A, as other rights have so been granted via the 14th.

I agree with all of that.
The 2nd amendment does invalidate all federal weapons laws except importation and interstate transportation of them.
But the BATF likely would have assassinated Scalia if he said that.

But don't forget the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments also suggest defensive weapons like firearms are an individual right that can not be infringed upon.

 

[Rigby5]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

Are they available via due process under the 14th Amendment?

I would think so.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

Are they available via due process under the 14th Amendment?

State law provides the guidance since it is a natural right recognized by the State.

 

[Lakhota]

House Democrats set first panel hearing on gun violence in 8 years

Finally, some good news.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

State law provides the guidance since it is a natural right recognized by the State.

But, the 14th Amendment REQUIRES states to give us rights secured under the bill of rights, no?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

House Democrats set first panel hearing on gun violence in 8 years

Finally, some good news.

That's a state issue. Why is the federal government getting involved?

 

[danielpalos]

State law provides the guidance since it is a natural right recognized by the State.

But, the 14th Amendment REQUIRES states to give us rights secured under the bill of rights, no?

not if it is a natural right.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it. Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution. You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.

And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic

Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man. His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.

Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.

The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.

I stand by the Constitution

but

what does that actually mean?

gays CAN marry?
gays CAN'T marry?

pot should NOT be illegal?
pot SHOULD be illegal?

I CAN own guns?
I CAN'T own guns?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

not if it is a natural right.

You have NEVER ONCE provided any legal authority for this position. It is BULLSHIT.

 

[anynameyouwish]

the right wing confuses the security of a free State with natural rights.

And you ignore the fact that to have a free State you must have natural Rights. That is what sets a free country apart from a fascist dictatorship like you want.

"And you ignore the fact that to have a free State you must have natural Rights. That is what sets a free country apart from a fascist dictatorship like you want."

I am always glad to see a freedom loving person defend gay rights, atheist rights, muslim rights, pot smoker rights,....everyone's rights!

 

[Rigby5]

State law provides the guidance since it is a natural right recognized by the State.

But, the 14th Amendment REQUIRES states to give us rights secured under the bill of rights, no?

Absolutely NOT!
There are NO rights granted in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights are ONLY restrictions on the federal government.
If you look at the Bill of Rights, it mostly says things like "Congress shall pass no law", or it says "reserved to the states or the people".
If you read the 9th and 10th amendments, they clearly say that rights are inherent to all individuals and are not granted or listed in the Bill of Rights.

What the 14th amendment says is that states can not discriminate and have to treat everyone equal under the law.
It does not say there are individual rights in the Bill of Rights, but the SCOTUS has used the Bill of Rights as a guide, and has incorporated many of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Rigby5]

House Democrats set first panel hearing on gun violence in 8 years

Finally, some good news.

That's a state issue. Why is the federal government getting involved?

On this I agree with you.

 

[Rigby5]

Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it. Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution. You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.

And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic

Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man. His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.

Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.

The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.

I stand by the Constitution

but

what does that actually mean?

gays CAN marry?
gays CAN'T marry?

pot should NOT be illegal?
pot SHOULD be illegal?

I CAN own guns?
I CAN'T own guns?

What it means is that in order to prevent gays from marrying, you have to prove it would harm someone else if they did marry.
And I don't think anyone can come up with any harm that would cause others.

For pot to be illegal, you have to prove pot users harm others, which again I think is impossible to show.

Since police not only have guns, but an incredibly bad history of abusing guns, clearly there is not legal means by which the government can restrict guns.

 

[captkaos]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

When the govt no longer has overkill fire power, and the Authority to use it against the people then the people will no longer have a need to maintain effective counter measures to an oppressive Govt. That's why the Second amendment exists to keep the Govt from oppressing us " you Know like the British did

 

[Oddball]

 

[Rigby5]

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.

 

[Lakhota]

It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.

 

[Rigby5]

It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.

Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.

 

[Lakhota]

It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.

Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.

It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.

 

[2aguy]

It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.

Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.

It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.

No, it shouldn't. If a criminal uses any gun in a crime we can already arrest them. If a criminal is caught with any gun, they can already be arrested for simple possession of the gun......the only thing that puts us in danger is stupid policies like the ones you promote....