Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry

[Iceweasel]

I do carry. But some cities (like New York - run by unconstitutional idiot a-hole Bill DeBlasio) will actually arrest people for having a firearm on them. It will be nice when I go anywhere in the United States and still retain all of my Constitutional rights as I was guaranteed.

Doesn't affect you, grow up and leave New York to New Yorkers, jeez. They elected him, they can unelect him if they want.

I don't live in New York genius. And....I've never even visited there. Not once. This is a prime example of why.

But your comment is nonsensical. Just because New York liberal moochers elected a self-admitted communist doesn't mean it's ok for him to violate the U.S. Constitution. Are you under the impression that being elected mayor means you're above the law?

Jesus. see? Can't even have a discussion with folk like you. Falling back on labels and sneering again. Fine. Don't go to New York. Are you really still laboring, floundering as it were under the impression that the law apllies equally to all in america? That is ever has? Those of substance have ALWAYS been above the law relative to the unsubstantial people. You just soil yourself over the existence of people who do not agree with you.

If he's done something illegal, alert the authorities. He's in violation of the law. Perhaps the authorities are unaware. Don't know. Don't need to carry my gun every single place I ever go forever and ever amen. Their city, their illegal mayor. If they can't handle it without me they can live with it.

You've missed the point. The feds aren't even going after sanctuary cities. Politics is very much in play and laws and rights do get violated. The thing is the right is not as aggressive in pursuing things, maybe they should be but to deny the right to bear arms IS a Constitutional rights violation regardless of who is elected to what.

Ah, the "right" won't stoop to politics. You folks watch a lot of TV and listen to a lot of radio don't you. Poison, that stuff. So then the constitution ain't all that afterall, huh. So then all we've got really at play here is an argument over what "the left" wants and what "the right" wants, or what the system wants those two self identified groups to be at war with each other over. Who do you think that benefits? "The right" feverishly pushing for say gun rights, abortion, and traditional marriage for example. "The left" feverishly pushing for voting rights to be upheld, reproductive choice and gay marriage for example. Everyone arguing over constitutionalism, legality, and who has the proper interpretation. All the diffused energy, all the fear and anxiety, all the venom.

And all the while, the societal wealth extraction continues unabated. So your argument is the federal government shats up the constitution. Well, voting ain't gonna move that boulder then is it. Not really, but man, if someone can get you to buy into that .....

I didn't say the right won't stoop for politics, those are your words, not mine. Very stupid words too since that wasn't close to my point. The rest of your post somehow went down from there.

 

[Iceweasel]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

I don't agree and neither does almost everyone else. Your interpretation would let anyone, felon, child, the insane, etc. carry. Nope.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Ah, so you can lose your rights. Now we are getting somewhere. But cops don't have the duty to protect you. They can operate under the cover of safety while you are in harm's way. Felons do lose their gun rights regardless of your opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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”.

The Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution. You're insane.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

There is no such “right”. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. This right belongs to us, and not to the government. The Second Amendment explicitly forbids government from infringing this right. Period.

When any part of government, state or federal, acts against this right, it is acting illegally, in violation of the Constitutiopn.

You've never heard of the 10th Amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

Does freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment mean that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

 

[KGB]

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]

While truthful the Framers were wary of a standing army, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is way off. It's not a militia right or a state's right. It's an individual right as defined by DC vs. Heller.

 

[P@triot]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

I don't agree and neither does almost everyone else. Your interpretation would let anyone, felon, child, the insane, etc. carry. Nope.

Well Ice....where in the Constitution are those people excluded?

 

[P@triot]

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]

While truthful the Framers were wary of a standing army, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is way off. It's not a militia right or a state's right. It's an individual right as defined by DC vs. Heller.

The Supreme Court does not get to decide what the Constitution says or doesn't say. No where does the Constitution grant them that power.

The reason the 2nd Amendment is an individual right is because it explicitly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say the right of the "militia".

 

[P@triot]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

There is no such “right”. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. This right belongs to us, and not to the government. The Second Amendment explicitly forbids government from infringing this right. Period.

When any part of government, state or federal, acts against this right, it is acting illegally, in violation of the Constitutiopn.

You've never heard of the 10th Amendment?

Apparently you've never heard of the 10th Amendement. Because the 10th Amendment does not grant states the power to violate the Constitution.

 

[Iceweasel]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

I don't agree and neither does almost everyone else. Your interpretation would let anyone, felon, child, the insane, etc. carry. Nope.

Well Ice....where in the Constitution are those people excluded?

It doesn't/can't cover every law possible. It is a framework and states are to make the laws if they don't violate any rights. Just like we have the freedom of liberty, we lose it when we rob somebody. There are few absolutes in life and the Constitution doesn't try to be one.

 

[P@triot]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

Does freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment mean that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

The press isn't circulating child pornography. Epic fail.

 

[P@triot]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

I don't agree and neither does almost everyone else. Your interpretation would let anyone, felon, child, the insane, etc. carry. Nope.

Well Ice....where in the Constitution are those people excluded?

It doesn't/can't cover every law possible. It is a framework and states are to make the laws if they don't violate any rights. Just like we have the freedom of liberty, we lose it when we rob somebody. There are few absolutes in life and the Constitution doesn't try to be one.

Sure it can/does. A right is absolute. That's the very definition of a right. And a state is violating the Constitution when it restricts 2nd Amendment rights.

For instance - why does the "insane" lose their Constitutional rights? A felon, sure, because they actively chose to break the law so they forfeit their rights. But that's not the case for the "insane".

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

There is no such “right”. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. This right belongs to us, and not to the government. The Second Amendment explicitly forbids government from infringing this right. Period.

When any part of government, state or federal, acts against this right, it is acting illegally, in violation of the Constitutiopn.

You've never heard of the 10th Amendment?

Apparently you've never heard of the 10th Amendement. Because the 10th Amendment does not grant states the power to violate the Constitution.

I've been telling people that for years, mostly to your pals on the Right who don't believe it.

You should have read my post. I said 'within the confines of the 2nd Amendment' the states have the right to regulate gun ownership.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

Does freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment mean that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

The press isn't circulating child pornography. Epic fail.

The press refers to anyone publishing. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of the press. No exceptions for publishing child pornography are in the 1st Amendment.

Where do you find the exception that leads you to claim that outlawing child pornography is constitutional?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

I don't agree and neither does almost everyone else. Your interpretation would let anyone, felon, child, the insane, etc. carry. Nope.

Well Ice....where in the Constitution are those people excluded?

It doesn't/can't cover every law possible. It is a framework and states are to make the laws if they don't violate any rights. Just like we have the freedom of liberty, we lose it when we rob somebody. There are few absolutes in life and the Constitution doesn't try to be one.

Sure it can/does. A right is absolute. That's the very definition of a right. And a state is violating the Constitution when it restricts 2nd Amendment rights.

For instance - why does the "insane" lose their Constitutional rights? A felon, sure, because they actively chose to break the law so they forfeit their rights. But that's not the case for the "insane".

Then freedom of the press is absolute which means child pornography is protected. Eh?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

I don't agree and neither does almost everyone else. Your interpretation would let anyone, felon, child, the insane, etc. carry. Nope.

Well Ice....where in the Constitution are those people excluded?

It doesn't/can't cover every law possible. It is a framework and states are to make the laws if they don't violate any rights. Just like we have the freedom of liberty, we lose it when we rob somebody. There are few absolutes in life and the Constitution doesn't try to be one.

Sure it can/does. A right is absolute. That's the very definition of a right. And a state is violating the Constitution when it restricts 2nd Amendment rights.

For instance - why does the "insane" lose their Constitutional rights? A felon, sure, because they actively chose to break the law so they forfeit their rights. But that's not the case for the "insane".

Then freedom of the press is absolute which means child pornography is protected. Eh?

why do you think exploiting minors would be constitutional

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

Does freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment mean that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

The press isn't circulating child pornography. Epic fail.

"Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law."

How is that possible since the 1st Amendment says, without exceptions, that freedom of the press is protected?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't agree and neither does almost everyone else. Your interpretation would let anyone, felon, child, the insane, etc. carry. Nope.

Well Ice....where in the Constitution are those people excluded?

It doesn't/can't cover every law possible. It is a framework and states are to make the laws if they don't violate any rights. Just like we have the freedom of liberty, we lose it when we rob somebody. There are few absolutes in life and the Constitution doesn't try to be one.

Sure it can/does. A right is absolute. That's the very definition of a right. And a state is violating the Constitution when it restricts 2nd Amendment rights.

For instance - why does the "insane" lose their Constitutional rights? A felon, sure, because they actively chose to break the law so they forfeit their rights. But that's not the case for the "insane".

Then freedom of the press is absolute which means child pornography is protected. Eh?

why do you think exploiting minors would be constitutional

I don't, but these 'no exceptions' interpretations of the Bill of Right would demand that it be constitutional as freedom of the press.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

Does freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment mean that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

The press isn't circulating child pornography. Epic fail.

"Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law."

How is that possible since the 1st Amendment says, without exceptions, that freedom of the press is protected?

still arguing for the right to exploit children i see