2 Questions For 2nd Amendment Fans

[Joe Steel]

Why infringe on the rights of felons? If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and the words express the original intent of the founders, shouldn't any infringement, control or regulation be unconstitutional?
["Yes, I'd like a a two megaton warhead on my mortor. Do you deliever?"]

Exactly. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." Once you've "infringed" the rights of felons, you've started down the road to tyranny.

 

[Joe Steel]

Hmmm...now you proport to be a mind-reader.

Tell me, what false premise am I basing my questions on?

I'll rephrase: your questions imply a false premise.

By directing your questions to Second Amendment fans, you're suggesting it has something to do with them. Properly understood, it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was never intended to control gun ownership. It was intended to control the composition of the military.

Sure, they just stuck it in with the other nine individual rights to throw us off.

The "individual" rights of the Bill of Rights were created by judicial activists not by the Founders.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll rephrase: your questions imply a false premise.

By directing your questions to Second Amendment fans, you're suggesting it has something to do with them. Properly understood, it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was never intended to control gun ownership. It was intended to control the composition of the military.

Sure, they just stuck it in with the other nine individual rights to throw us off.

The "individual" rights of the Bill of Rights were created by judicial activists not by the Founders.

OMG I am getting a headach, judicial activists? Care to explain this gem of wisdom?

 

[California Girl]

what about the easter bunny?

He has the right to carry a gun, as does Santa. And Santa illegally enters billions of homes around the world. Where is the outrage about this?

 

[Joe Steel]

Sure, they just stuck it in with the other nine individual rights to throw us off.

The "individual" rights of the Bill of Rights were created by judicial activists not by the Founders.

OMG I am getting a headach, judicial activists? Care to explain this gem of wisdom?

Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns in DC v Heller. The Founders created the Second Amendment but it didn't say what Fat Tony wanted it to say so he just said it created a personal gun right.

Does that help?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

what about the easter bunny?

He has the right to carry a gun, as does Santa. And Santa illegally enters billions of homes around the world. Where is the outrage about this?

You bet Santa does need to pack heat. A man that goes in your house at night is a crazy man if he's not packing heat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The "individual" rights of the Bill of Rights were created by judicial activists not by the Founders.

OMG I am getting a headach, judicial activists? Care to explain this gem of wisdom?

Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns in DC v Heller. The Founders created the Second Amendment but it didn't say what Fat Tony wanted it to say so he just said it created a personal gun right.

Does that help?

ok thanks for sharing

 

[Missourian]

The "individual" rights of the Bill of Rights were created by judicial activists not by the Founders.

OMG I am getting a headach, judicial activists? Care to explain this gem of wisdom?

Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns in DC v Heller. The Founders created the Second Amendment but it didn't say what Fat Tony wanted it to say so he just said it created a personal gun right.

Does that help?

So, the other 9 are individual rights, but the second of ten amendments contained in the BILL OF RIGHTS protects the state...gotcha.

 

[Meister]

OMG I am getting a headach, judicial activists? Care to explain this gem of wisdom?

Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns in DC v Heller. The Founders created the Second Amendment but it didn't say what Fat Tony wanted it to say so he just said it created a personal gun right.

Does that help?

So, the other 9 are individual rights, but the second of ten amendments contained in the BILL OF RIGHTS protects the state...gotcha.

I guess those that live in the DC area are 2nd class citizens to those that are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Joe Steel]

OMG I am getting a headach, judicial activists? Care to explain this gem of wisdom?

Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns in DC v Heller. The Founders created the Second Amendment but it didn't say what Fat Tony wanted it to say so he just said it created a personal gun right.

Does that help?

So, the other 9 are individual rights, but the second of ten amendments contained in the BILL OF RIGHTS protects the state...gotcha.

Nope. You got it wrong.

 

[Two Thumbs]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

1] You can lose the right through your own actions. ex; You have the right to life, liberty... We can put people in jail and execute them. Through thier own actions they lost the rights to life and/or liberty.


2] hmm, I'm gonna go with no. Not everyone that's not mentally competant is a danger to themselves or others. I had a freind, he will never mentally advance past 8, but he's a dead shot, and uses that skill to help feed his family.

That and the test would become a political issue.

 

[Missourian]

Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia created a personal right to guns in DC v Heller. The Founders created the Second Amendment but it didn't say what Fat Tony wanted it to say so he just said it created a personal gun right.

Does that help?

So, the other 9 are individual rights, but the second of ten amendments contained in the BILL OF RIGHTS protects the state...gotcha.

Nope. You got it wrong.

You're just obsessed with the cryptic response, aren't you.

Don't keep me in suspense, how am I wrong?

Why is this right that you contend is not and individual right contained in the bill of rights with 9 other rights that enumerate rights that are reserved to individuals?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, the other 9 are individual rights, but the second of ten amendments contained in the BILL OF RIGHTS protects the state...gotcha.

Nope. You got it wrong.

You're just obsessed with the cryptic response, aren't you.

Don't keep me in suspense, how am I wrong?

Why is this right that you contend is not and individual right contained in the bill of rights with 9 other rights that enumerate rights that are reserved to individuals?

I would also enjoy to see this insightful view.

 

[Joe Steel]

So, the other 9 are individual rights, but the second of ten amendments contained in the BILL OF RIGHTS protects the state...gotcha.

Nope. You got it wrong.

You're just obsessed with the cryptic response, aren't you.

Don't keep me in suspense, how am I wrong?

Why is this right that you contend is not and individual right contained in the bill of rights with 9 other rights that enumerate rights that are reserved to individuals?

Except for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the rights of the Bill of Rights are declared for "the People" not any person or group of persons or they are restrictions on the powers of Congress. They have become personal rights by judicial activism over the 200+ years since the Bill of Rights' adoption.

For instance, the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law", etc. That's a restriction on the power of Congress which has been construed to be a right by various courts. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment deals with rights of a "person" accused of a crime. That's a personal right. The Second Amendment deals the "right of the People." "People" is not the plural of person. It is a collective noun used to describe citizens in their sovereign capacity. The right of the Second Amendment is declared for the citizens, collectively, as sovereign but not for any person or group of persons.

 

[hortysir]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

It is made clear that a felony conviction forfeits one's right to gun ownership. Just as a BCD forfeits rights.... It's been proven true that the behaviors associated with felons and discharged service memers are not a trait we want in people carrying weapons.
It's a consequence for an action (after the fact).

Pre-testing is a bad idea.
Do you propose a screening for people to excercise their right to free speech? Assembly? How about passing a test to ensure against illegal search and seizure?

These rights are God-given and protected by the gov't.
They can be forfeited by behaving a certain way.

But there is no qualifying test to determine who does and who doesn't deserve these rights.

 

[Missourian]

Nope. You got it wrong.

You're just obsessed with the cryptic response, aren't you.

Don't keep me in suspense, how am I wrong?

Why is this right that you contend is not and individual right contained in the bill of rights with 9 other rights that enumerate rights that are reserved to individuals?

Except for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the rights of the Bill of Rights are declared for "the People" not any person or group of persons or they are restrictions on the powers of Congress. They have become personal rights by judicial activism over the 200+ years since the Bill of Rights' adoption.

For instance, the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law", etc. That's a restriction on the power of Congress which has been construed to be a right by various courts. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment deals with rights of a "person" accused of a crime. That's a personal right. The Second Amendment deals the "right of the People." "People" is not the plural of person. It is a collective noun used to describe citizens in their sovereign capacity. The right of the Second Amendment is declared for the citizens, collectively, as sovereign but not for any person or group of persons.

Just for starters, you need to read the First amendment again...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
​

By your logic, Congress could make laws that infringe the right of a person to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Terral]

Hi Marc:

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

Yes, absolutely. Everyone has the same right to defend himself from the growing criminal element and our enlarging tyrannical and out-of-control government. The right to bear arms is given by our Creator and not by the sons of mere men.

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

Why/why not?

No. Stop being foolish. Even the idiot and moron have the same right to defend himself from the growing criminal element and the tyrants in the White House and both corrupt Houses of Congress. End of story. If anybody breaks the law with a gun, then throw the book at them.

GL,

Terral

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope. You got it wrong.

You're just obsessed with the cryptic response, aren't you.

Don't keep me in suspense, how am I wrong?

Why is this right that you contend is not and individual right contained in the bill of rights with 9 other rights that enumerate rights that are reserved to individuals?

Except for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the rights of the Bill of Rights are declared for "the People" not any person or group of persons or they are restrictions on the powers of Congress. They have become personal rights by judicial activism over the 200+ years since the Bill of Rights' adoption.

For instance, the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law", etc. That's a restriction on the power of Congress which has been construed to be a right by various courts. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment deals with rights of a "person" accused of a crime. That's a personal right. The Second Amendment deals the "right of the People." "People" is not the plural of person. It is a collective noun used to describe citizens in their sovereign capacity. The right of the Second Amendment is declared for the citizens, collectively, as sovereign but not for any person or group of persons.

The first 8 amendments are individual rights

 

[SFC Ollie]

what about the easter bunny?

I think the Easter Bunny should be able to Carry too! You got a problem with that???

He does....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

what about the easter bunny?

I think the Easter Bunny should be able to Carry too! You got a problem with that???

He does....

Thats not the easter bunny thats luch.