Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry

[Rustic]

The Second Amendment disagrees with you.

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

What are you scared of??
There could never be any harm done with concealed carry… Cowardly fuck. Lol

Insult responses don't mean anything to me. You are an ignorant person without the intelligence to communicate without relying on the kind of crude method you use to hide your inadequacies. You are pretty much a nobody who probably never had any significant achievements in life.

Concealed carry is harmless... There should be no permit needed for such a thing, scared and insecure fuck nuts like yourself what to put all these frivolous laws in place. Lol

You are offering a personal opinion and declaring anyone who disagrees and has a different opinion is scared and insecure. That makes you a qualified asshole dude. Freedom is all about people being allowed to have differing opinions. I have no problem with CC or even open carry. I just happen to think that if you want to carry a hidden weapon, a concealed weapon, the community has a right to check you out and issue a permit after you show you are worthy of the privilege. You see, I started out in this discussion asking about the SCOTUS viewpoint and what makes people think CC is a constitutional right. What I got back was some ignorant insult posting and deflection from contesting my viewpoint that CC was not a constitutional issue.
CC is not a constitutional right. Prove otherwise.

Just because it's the law does not mean it's right...
Here to get a concealed carry permit Takes less than five minutes, Which on its own is no big deal. It's just the whole idea of asking the government how you carry your firearms is ridiculous.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

In spite of having illegally usurped this power, the Supreme Court does not have the legitimate authority to override the Constitution. It is the Constitution itself that is this nation's highest law, and highest authority; and not the corrupt courts, nor their “interpretations”.

 

[SwimExpert]

Absolutely not. Dislike many state gun laws as I may, every state has the right to decide this on their own. Bullshit Cinos like you probably can't get that through your head. But states rights means states rights, even when that state makes laws you don't like.

Does the state have a right to tell you what church you may attend, what beliefs you may voice, or what opinions you may publish? Does the state have the authority to search your home without a warrant, and without probably cause?

*sigh*

Is it cancer? Are you such a fucking idiot because you have a brain tumor? Government mandated religions violate the constitution. Concealed carry is not a constitutionally protected right. Leave the states alone. Let them decide how they want to handle their own business.

 

[Camp]

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

In spite of having illegally usurped this power, the Supreme Court does not have the legitimate authority to override the Constitution. It is the Constitution itself that is this nation's highest law, and highest authority; and not the corrupt courts, nor their “interpretations”.

So, tell us which definition of the word "bear" were the founders thinking of when they wrote and approved the 2nd Amendment. What does the word bear mean?Who decides what they meant?

 

[Camp]

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

What are you scared of??
There could never be any harm done with concealed carry… Cowardly fuck. Lol

Insult responses don't mean anything to me. You are an ignorant person without the intelligence to communicate without relying on the kind of crude method you use to hide your inadequacies. You are pretty much a nobody who probably never had any significant achievements in life.

Concealed carry is harmless... There should be no permit needed for such a thing, scared and insecure fuck nuts like yourself what to put all these frivolous laws in place. Lol

You are offering a personal opinion and declaring anyone who disagrees and has a different opinion is scared and insecure. That makes you a qualified asshole dude. Freedom is all about people being allowed to have differing opinions. I have no problem with CC or even open carry. I just happen to think that if you want to carry a hidden weapon, a concealed weapon, the community has a right to check you out and issue a permit after you show you are worthy of the privilege. You see, I started out in this discussion asking about the SCOTUS viewpoint and what makes people think CC is a constitutional right. What I got back was some ignorant insult posting and deflection from contesting my viewpoint that CC was not a constitutional issue.
CC is not a constitutional right. Prove otherwise.

Just because it's the law does not mean it's right...
Here to get a concealed carry permit Takes less than five minutes, Which on its own is no big deal. It's just the whole idea of asking the government how you carry your firearms is ridiculous.

If Trump's proposal becomes a reality your five-minute application will no longer exist and your long form application and background check will be part of a national registration database.

 

[Care4all]

of course there is, and please show us in the bill of rights what says all states must allow concealed carry?

That would be the Second Amendment. Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find any authority for the state to infringe the people's right that is so referenced?

As I have asked previously in this thread, but have yet to get an answer as far as I've seen:

Are you implying the Supreme court interpreting the 2nd over the centuries of cases have been wrong?

And States can not even ask their citizens for something like a back ground check, or have guns registered or even have serial numbers on them, or restrict felons or the mentally deranged...even while in prison or an institution from carrying guns, or restricting guns from a court or their jury from carrying them, or when visiting a prisoner, or children carrying guns etc etc etc..... because that would be ''infringing'' them of their 2nd amendment right?

Seriously?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Is it cancer? Are you such a fucking idiot because you have a brain tumor? Government mandated religions violate the constitution. Concealed carry is not a constitutionally protected right.

The Second Amendment affirms a right of the people to keep and bear arms, and forbids infringement of that right. To dictate the manner in which arms may or may not be carried (open or concealed) would be an infringement of that right.

So yes, concealed carry is a Constitutionally-protected right.

Leave the states alone. Let them decide how they want to handle their own business.

Whether I choose to carry arms, or in what manner, is no more the state's business, than which church I choose to attend.

The carrying of arms is not the state's business. The Second Amendment is absolutely clear whose business it is, whose right it is. It is the people's right, not the state's.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, tell us which definition of the word "bear" were the founders thinking of when they wrote and approved the 2nd Amendment. What does the word bear mean?Who decides what they meant?

If you don't know the meaning of a simple word, then that is your own defect, and not those who used that word in a manner that left no doubt what they meant by it. It certainly is not the place of the Supreme Court, nor any other court, to rule that a word means something other than what it clearly means.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Are you implying the Supreme court interpreting the 2nd over the centuries of cases have been wrong?

I'm not implying anything. I am flat-out stating it.

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

When we have court rulings purporting to establish manners and circumstances in which government may infringe this right, where the Constitution clearly states that this right shall not be infringed, then how can you possibly argue that the court is not wrong in making such rulings? We have the Constitution very clearly saying one thing, and courts handing out rulings that directly and irreconcilably contradict the Constitution.

It is the Constitution itself that is the highest law, and the highest authority in this nation; and not the courts nor their corrupt “interpretations” of it.

 

[Care4all]

Are you implying the Supreme court interpreting the 2nd over the centuries of cases have been wrong?

I'm not implying anything. I am flat-out stating it.

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

When we have court rulings purporting to establish manners and circumstances in which government may infringe this right, where the Constitution clearly states that this right shall not be infringed, then how can you possibly argue that the court is not wrong in making such rulings? We have the Constitution very clearly saying one thing, and courts handing out rulings that directly and irreconcilably contradict the Constitution.

It is the Constitution itself that is the highest law, and the highest authority in this nation; and not the courts nor their corrupt “interpretations” of it.

so no one can restrict murderers while serving in prison from carrying a loaded gun? And no one can prevent or restrict a 6 year old from carrying a loaded pistol and no one can in any way be restricted from carrying a loaded gun where ever they want without you believing that these measures break the 2nd A. and infringe on their right to bear arms???

 

[Little-Acorn]

so no one can restrict murders while serving in prison from carrying a loaded gun?

(sigh)

OK, one more time:

The 2nd Amendment does NOT say "except by due process of law" or "except for felons". Why not?

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't legally take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. At the same time they were putting the 2nd amendment into the Constitution, they were also putting the 7th, which says that any fact tried by a jury, can never be appealed or changed later.

The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

I never said the cops shouldn't take the murderer's gun away. The murderer said that, with bodies still bleeding around him. Whereupon the cop whacked him over the head with a billy club and took it from him anyway.

And later when the murderer brought charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the jury let the cop walk. The cop had no more worries since double jepoardy isn't allowed. And the murderer went to the chair as he deserved. And that's exactly how the system should work.

And when some govt official tried to take the gun of a law-abiding citizen, the jury did NOT let the govt official walk, but threw him into jail with all those nice criminals, where they could discuss obeying the Constitution, and the advantages of jury nullification, all they wanted. And, again, that's exactly how the system should work. And was designed to work, in fact, by those founders the leftist fanatics keep desperately denigrating and insulting.

Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute... because of the many horrifying examples that happen when it isn't. And imperfect as we are, the closer we come to making it that way, the safer and more prosperous (and, BTW, the freer) our society will be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so no one can restrict murders while serving in prison from carrying a loaded gun?

(sigh)

OK, one more time:

The 2nd Amendment does NOT say "except by due process of law" or "except for felons". Why not?

.

The 1st Amendment does not say 'except for child pornography.'

 

[KGB]

Simple

The right to bear arms is a national right.

Concealed Carry in not a national right.
Trump just put a national registry for CC on the table. Let that sink in for a minute. Trump wants CC permits to be valid nationwide. That would mean all the states would have to compromise and adopt the same requirements for issuing a permit and maintain a nationwide list available to all law-enforcement agencies and entities, federal, state and local. Big government Trump proposal.

Funny since drivers licenses are compatible nation wide. And driving is a privilege. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right of the People. People's rights always trump state's rights.

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right. My opinion is that anytime guns and registering are used in the same sentence sucks. I do not want a nationwide concealed carry law because it offers a slippery slope to federal government involvement of lists making. I also don't want federal regulations determining who gets a CC in my state. States should make their own determinations. If they want to recognize other states that is their business, not Washington DC's.

Simple solution then. We do away with the requirement that anyone needs a permit in the first place. Let's face it, the concept of a conceal carry permit is a violation of the Second Amendment. You don't need a permit to go to church, right an editorial or speak your mind. But since it's unlikely that will ever occur, let's at least fix the problem with the tools we already have. National reciprocity should be the standard with each state conducting shall issue procedures. It's not perfect but it at least gets us most of the way there without developing a national database.

And a concealed carry permit does nothing to stop or solve crimes....it is also unConstitutional since it involves paying a fee to exercise a Right.......the democrats used Poll Taxes....a tax to vote, to keep blacks from exercising their Right to vote...so under the 14th Amendment, any fee for exercising the Right to bear arms is unconstitutional.....

I agree with you 100%. Permits are unConstitutional as currently put in place. However, if we get national reciprocity with all states being shall issue, then we are taking a huge step to restoring the right to its correct place. Ultimately the goal is to have no permit required with the stipulation that if you commit a crime with a weapon or are unlawfully carrying (felony conviction, etc.), you'll be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[KGB]

I thought the States themselves determine what they want to allow in their own States for their own citizens?

The states cannot infringe on the rights of the people as clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause overrules state law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

so no one can restrict murders while serving in prison from carrying a loaded gun?

(sigh)

OK, one more time:

The 2nd Amendment does NOT say "except by due process of law" or "except for felons". Why not?

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't legally take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. At the same time they were putting the 2nd amendment into the Constitution, they were also putting the 7th, which says that any fact tried by a jury, can never be appealed or changed later.

The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

I never said the cops shouldn't take the murderer's gun away. The murderer said that, with bodies still bleeding around him. Whereupon the cop whacked him over the head with a billy club and took it from him anyway.

And later when the murderer brought charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the jury let the cop walk. The cop had no more worries since double jepoardy isn't allowed. And the murderer went to the chair as he deserved. And that's exactly how the system should work.

And when some govt official tried to take the gun of a law-abiding citizen, the jury did NOT let the govt official walk, but threw him into jail with all those nice criminals, where they could discuss obeying the Constitution, and the advantages of jury nullification, all they wanted. And, again, that's exactly how the system should work. And was designed to work, in fact, by those founders the leftist fanatics keep desperately denigrating and insulting.

Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute... because of the many horrifying examples that happen when it isn't. And imperfect as we are, the closer we come to making it that way, the safer and more prosperous (and, BTW, the freer) our society will be.

I would point something else out. Regardless of the Constitutional rights of an overt criminal, the police would clearly have a duty to protect the safety and rights of others, as well, in this case, even of themselves. In the case of an active shooter, surrounded by armed police, (or even by armed non-police citizens), if that shooter insists on hanging on to his gun, after he's just been observed using it illegally to harm others, then there exists just cause to shoot him dead, on the spot, as a fully-justified act of defense. At that point, of course, any Constitutional rights that the criminal had simply become moot.

And in the event that the criminal is somehow taken alive, back in the days when the Constitution was written, he'd be put on trial for murder, and if convicted, would very promptly be put to death. Again, after that point any further Constitutional rights would become moot. There'd be no purpose in arguing about whether he still has a right to posses a gun; he'd be dead, so such a right wouldn't do him any good anyway. In fact, if it can somehow be established that he still wants his gun, let it be buried with him in his grave. He's not going to be using it to harm anyone.

 

[Camp]

So, tell us which definition of the word "bear" were the founders thinking of when they wrote and approved the 2nd Amendment. What does the word bear mean?Who decides what they meant?

If you don't know the meaning of a simple word, then that is your own defect, and not those who used that word in a manner that left no doubt what they meant by it. It certainly is not the place of the Supreme Court, nor any other court, to rule that a word means something other than what it clearly means.

Right, because when you look up a word in the dictionary there is only one meaning. When is the last time you looked up a word?

 

[SwimExpert]

The Second Amendment affirms a right of the people to keep and bear arms, and forbids infringement of that right. To dictate the manner in which arms may or may not be carried (open or concealed) would be an infringement of that right.

So yes, concealed carry is a Constitutionally-protected right.

Oh, horse shit. You're not the first USMB lunatic to try to pull that shit, but it doesn't fly. Not even Scalia would have bought that nonsense. The courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of laws that restrict concealed carry. Your argument is about as good as saying that the first amendment gives you a constitutional right to march into the Oval Office and tell the President to smell your anus. Or that bribery falls under protected free speech. Or that human sacrifice is a protected religious practice.

The funny thing is that if you're so up in arms about concealed carry being a constitutionally protected right, how in the fuck do you justify Trump wanting to make a federal law about it? Of all the fucking contradictory horseshit, that really takes the cake.

 

[SwimExpert]

Right, because when you look up a word in the dictionary there is only one meaning. When is the last time you looked up a word?

Probably the time he fell over while spanking it to online porn, and finished the sign up process from the floor.

 

[Care4all]

so no one can restrict murders while serving in prison from carrying a loaded gun?

(sigh)

OK, one more time:

The 2nd Amendment does NOT say "except by due process of law" or "except for felons". Why not?

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't legally take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. At the same time they were putting the 2nd amendment into the Constitution, they were also putting the 7th, which says that any fact tried by a jury, can never be appealed or changed later.

The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

I never said the cops shouldn't take the murderer's gun away. The murderer said that, with bodies still bleeding around him. Whereupon the cop whacked him over the head with a billy club and took it from him anyway.

And later when the murderer brought charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the jury let the cop walk. The cop had no more worries since double jepoardy isn't allowed. And the murderer went to the chair as he deserved. And that's exactly how the system should work.

And when some govt official tried to take the gun of a law-abiding citizen, the jury did NOT let the govt official walk, but threw him into jail with all those nice criminals, where they could discuss obeying the Constitution, and the advantages of jury nullification, all they wanted. And, again, that's exactly how the system should work. And was designed to work, in fact, by those founders the leftist fanatics keep desperately denigrating and insulting.

Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute... because of the many horrifying examples that happen when it isn't. And imperfect as we are, the closer we come to making it that way, the safer and more prosperous (and, BTW, the freer) our society will be.

I believe you are wrong on many levels....mainly because you have not looked up our History and what was happening in the day and era of our founders and what was said on the second amendment and what it was for....

IT'S PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT/NATION, just the opposite of what you said and was not to protect us from a tyrannical govt....it was to protect our government from both foreign enemies and domestic threats.

The founders purposely did not have a Standing Army...written in to the constitution NOT to have one, and when it was necessary for the feds to call the militia up, they could do so for NO LONGER than 2 years....our nation/founders believed a standing army was dangerous, especially in times of peace.... most government coups CAME from these other governments standing armies....
turning on them....

The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with us needing to hunt for food, and really, not even for individually protecting ourselves....it was purposely for protecting our government/Nation.


our defense WAS our State militias, and our militias were drawn from an armed citizenry.

Read these notes from the various states discussing the militia and right to bear arms....it's interesting and gives a broader perspective....

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt



From the Madison Resolution, June 8, 1789.



Resolved, that the following amendments ought to be proposed by Congress to the legislatures of the states, to become, if ratified by three fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person...

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY STATES


Massachusetts Convention -- Did not propose a keeping and bearing amendment, nor a militia nor a standing army amendment.

South Carolina -- Proposed no keeping and bearing, or militia or standing army amendment.

New Hampshire -- TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private
Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia -- SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing
armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

EIGHTEENTH, That no Soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without theconsent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the lawsdirect.

NINETEENTH, That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead... (Amendments proposed to the body of the Constitution).... NINTH, that no standing army or regular troops shall be
raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. TENTH, That no soldier shall be inlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war. ELEVENTH, That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect toprovide for the same. That the Militia shall not be subject to Martial Law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.



New York -- That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power. That in time of Peace no Soldier ought to be quartered in any House without the consent of the Owner, and in time of War only by the civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws may direct...that the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.



HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, July 28, 1789.

...[6] "A well regulated militia[1], composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."[2]

 

[Iceweasel]

Nice try, Slick. Your point was about states recognizing other state's licenses, not the right to a license.

I think you think that actually makes some kind of sense. Someone please turn off the life support! Why are we breathing for this moron if this is the most oxygen his brain can utilize?

The words are still there asshole.