Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry

[SwimExpert]

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.

Iceweasel's brain is about to blue screen of death.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

I'm not the one saying that the Bill of Rights does not allow for exceptions.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

I'm not the one saying that the Bill of Rights does not allow for exceptions.

you are the one making asinine comparisons

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

Where is the child pornography exception enumerated?

Where is the no yelling fire in a crowded theatre exception enumerated?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

I'm not the one saying that the Bill of Rights does not allow for exceptions.

you are the one making asinine comparisons

Why? You don't want exceptions to the 2nd Amendment, why are they okay in the first?

 

[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".

What if 1st Amendment rights are restricted by outlawing polygamy as a religious practice?

What if 1st Amendment rights are restricted by making yelling fire in a crowded theatre a crime?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

Where is the child pornography exception enumerated?

Where is the no yelling fire in a crowded theatre exception enumerated?

once again you revert to the exploitation of children as being constitutional

obviously it is not

your lame attempt to compare exploiting children with firearm rights

is asinine at best

morally bankrupt at worst

your choice slime bag

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

Where is the child pornography exception enumerated?

Where is the no yelling fire in a crowded theatre exception enumerated?

once again you revert to the exploitation of children as being constitutional

obviously it is not

your lame attempt to compare exploiting children with firearm rights

is asinine at best

morally bankrupt at worst

your choice slime bag

You're missing the point.

Let me try this:

If you are going to claim that the 2nd Amendment protects gun rights without exceptions, that it's absolute,

then to be consistent you have to believe that the entire Bill of Rights doesn't have exceptions.

Being able to outlaw child pornography is an exception to the 1st Amendment that isn't in the amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

Where is the child pornography exception enumerated?

Where is the no yelling fire in a crowded theatre exception enumerated?

once again you revert to the exploitation of children as being constitutional

obviously it is not

your lame attempt to compare exploiting children with firearm rights

is asinine at best

morally bankrupt at worst

your choice slime bag

Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater and claim a 1st Amendment right to do so?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

Where is the child pornography exception enumerated?

Where is the no yelling fire in a crowded theatre exception enumerated?

once again you revert to the exploitation of children as being constitutional

obviously it is not

your lame attempt to compare exploiting children with firearm rights

is asinine at best

morally bankrupt at worst

your choice slime bag

Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater and claim a 1st Amendment right to do so?

you can

if there is a fire retard

thanks for dropping your asinine remarks of the constitutionality of exploiting of children slick

 

[Fenton Lum]

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.

So you are for limiting gun rights, the pissing match is over who can and can't and when and where. Kinda like the NRA within their own halls of power. And Congress. All those strict constitutional republican senators and reps. Nope, not in their workplace. I'm sure you have some letgalese to address that dichotomy

 

[Fenton Lum]

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

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

Where is the child pornography exception enumerated?

Where is the no yelling fire in a crowded theatre exception enumerated?

once again you revert to the exploitation of children as being constitutional

obviously it is not

your lame attempt to compare exploiting children with firearm rights

is asinine at best

morally bankrupt at worst

your choice slime bag

Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater and claim a 1st Amendment right to do so?

you can

if there is a fire retard

thanks for dropping your asinine remarks of the constitutionality of exploiting of children slick

Guess you can cry gun when the theater is turned into a shooting hominids in a barrel gallery.

 

[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.

So you are for limiting gun rights, the pissing match is over who can and can't and when and where. Kinda like the NRA within their own halls of power. And Congress. All those strict constitutional republican senators and reps. Nope, not in their workplace. I'm sure you have some letgalese to address that dichotomy

I'm not for unlimited gun rights but I'm not for unlimited anything. I don't want kids, felons or the insane to be armed. How you deal with the disagreement is your problem.

 

[Camp]

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.

It is a militia right. When the constitution was written the militia meant "all able-bodied men" and that is how SCOTUS continues to interpret what the word means as written in the 2nd Amendment. It is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. 0ur right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose for and restricted to maintaining a well regulated Militia.

Each able bodied citizen that meets certain requirements is by interpretation of SCOTUS a constitutional right and obligation, not only a right but an obligation, and a part of the militia. The 2nd Amendment refers to the militia being the reason for citizens having the right to keep and bear arms, but it says a "well regulated Militia". Those few words, "well regulated Militia" is what gives the government the authority and right to make restrictions and rules about who can be in the "Militia" and what kind of regulations can be applied.

The regulators can reject certain citizens from being a part of the Militia, which by the way, is meant to be not only a military force, but a force to be used for police,i.e., law enforcement activities as well. The police powers are interpreted to mean citizens, as part of the Militia can be used when regular law enforcement is not available. Hence, citizens have a right to protect their homes "to keep" by having firearms, and "to bear" firearms when away from home.
When a regulation is challenged by a citizen, the SCOTUS decides whether the regulators have overstepped or unjustly implemented their authority to regulate, hence, DC vs. Heller.

The power to control Militias was clearly and without question a power and authority of the individual states, not a clause to create a federal standing army or federally controlled force. That means each state is able to regulate their own Militia.

Trump's proposal would be unconstitutional if it were to federalize states rights to regulate their Militia's.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is a militia right. When the constitution was written the militia meant "all able-bodied men" and that is how SCOTUS continues to interpret what the word means as written in the 2nd Amendment. It is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. 0ur right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose for and restricted to maintaining a well regulated Militia.

That's a lie, has not been interpreted that way except by left wing idiots and deliberately ignore "the people". Militias are armed by definition. There's no point in saying the militia should have arms.

FAIL.

 

[hangover]

Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry
...so every nut job in the country will have one too. Shoot outs by the thousands every day. More innocent bystanders will be killed than nut jobs...ten to one.
Trump's ideas to make America great are right off the funny farm!

Didn't read the link did you?

The title of the thread is confirmation that Trump is off the funny farm. I don't follow Charlie Manson either.

 

[P@triot]

And this is exactly why Donald Trump is calling for national conceal carry...

Gun-Wielding Man Tries Robbing Store in Broad Daylight, Gets Shot by Employee. Reactions From Fed-Up Residents Are Far From Sympathetic.

 

[P@triot]

Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry
...so every nut job in the country will have one too. Shoot outs by the thousands every day. More innocent bystanders will be killed than nut jobs...ten to one.
Trump's ideas to make America great are right off the funny farm!

Didn't read the link did you?

The title of the thread is confirmation that Trump is off the funny farm. I don't follow Charlie Manson either.

In a nutshell, like all liberals, Hangover is too lazy to take personal responsibility for his own security. He wants to outsource it to the government, and to do that, he wants the government to disarm everyone.

 

[Care4all]

It is a militia right. When the constitution was written the militia meant "all able-bodied men" and that is how SCOTUS continues to interpret what the word means as written in the 2nd Amendment. It is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. 0ur right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose for and restricted to maintaining a well regulated Militia.

That's a lie, has not been interpreted that way except by left wing idiots and deliberately ignore "the people". Militias are armed by definition. There's no point in saying the militia should have arms.

FAIL.

please read this debate from 1789:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

 

[Iceweasel]

It is a militia right. When the constitution was written the militia meant "all able-bodied men" and that is how SCOTUS continues to interpret what the word means as written in the 2nd Amendment. It is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. 0ur right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose for and restricted to maintaining a well regulated Militia.

That's a lie, has not been interpreted that way except by left wing idiots and deliberately ignore "the people". Militias are armed by definition. There's no point in saying the militia should have arms.

FAIL.

please read this debate from 1789:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

Was that a joke? If you have a point, make it. Don't throw out a goddamn smokescreen. The simple thing to do is show us which state says citizens can't have arms.

Should be easy!