How many Republican judges does it take to overturn a left-wing law?

[martybegan]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Nope......Heller already addressed this so San Diego is already breaking the law.....

Those towns in the West...had as much success controlling criminals as Chicago, D.C. and Baltimore do today....

No, they aren't. They are not restricting anyone from owning a gun. They are restricting where owners can take their guns. BIG DIFFERENCE.

They are saying "you can't take your gun ANYWHERE" unless we decide you deserve it.

How about we apply that standard to abortions? Some bureaucrat can take 2-3 days to decide if you "really really need one"

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Of all the things we have as rights this one should be above San Diego. You have the right to bear arms, anywhere in the US. That one like free speech are not negotiable by where you are.

Wrong- So very Wrong! Let me see you exercise your right to bear arms in a court house or on a plane. Oops, forgot about those, didn't cha?
When might your freedom of speech be limited? Here are five examples:

1. In a private home. The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech, but unless an individual is acting on behalf of the government or as a government agent, she is generally free to prohibit any kind of speech she wants in her own home, or any other private setting, as long as she does so without breaking another law, such as physically assaulting someone.
2. In a private workplace. If you work for a private employer, you generally have no right to free speech in the workplace, and can be disciplined for what you say. However, your employer may run afoul of other laws, such as discrimination laws if you're fired for religious expression, or labor laws if you're fired for reporting labor violations or whistleblowing.
3. Social media. Although social media sites like Facebook might seem like an ideal public forum for posting unpopular or controversial content, as private companies, they are technically free to delete or otherwise censor any content they deem offensive.
4. School activities. Although students at public schools still have the right to First Amendment free speech, their rights may not be as extensive as the rights of adults. For example, in a 1988 Supreme Court case, the court ruled that students' free speech rights weren't violated when school administrators removed articles from a student newspaper that dealt with controversial topics.
5. Obscene speech. The First Amendment does not protect speech or expression that is considered "obscene." This is why child porn is against the law. However, the exact line between obscenity and free speech is often hard to determine. For example, the filmmaker behind the controversial "2 Girls, 1 Cup" viral video was sentenced to four years in prison for making films that were considered obscene, despite his contention that they were "art" protected by the First Amendment.

so...you're saying the government has the right to gun control corruption, because you can name other examples of corruption?

So you're saying the 2nd amendment guarantees you the right, as well as every other US citizen, to carry a gun onto a plane. I thought only liberals made silly ass arguments like that.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

The difference is in those towns the law enforcement made sure NO ONE could bring a gun in, and they guaranteed the people would be protected. If not, people would stop coming to the town.

Does San Diego guarantee the same thing?

Also, if regular citizens cannot carry why can off duty police officers? Why do they get a right the rest of the people do not?

They should have to lock up their service pieces at the end of their shift and, like the rest of us, rely on the police.

Oh please, there were no guarantees in the old west. My point is that your right to bear arms is not 100% absolute at all times, and in all places. You can't carry a gun on to a plane, or into a court house, in Montana you can carry in many places without a permit, but you can't carry in a bank. Different jurisdictions adopt different laws, even when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

When you went into a town where you had to check your guns, the implied contract was "you turn in your guns, and we make sure no one else has one either". That is the same compact when you enter a controlled area like an airport or a courthouse. In those spaces there are armed people right there ready to protect you.

The above situation does not apply in the streets of a major or even minor city, or in a suburban or rural area.

Come on, you sound like your 4 years old. The old west was as far from secure as you could get. Anybody could ride thru, or walk into town with a gun tucked hidden. You really have to do better.

 

[easyt65]

How many judges does it take to overturn activist snowflake judges' ignorant, Un-Constitutional interpretation of law?

9 - 0, Trump Temp Ban re-instated with several minor caveats. Booya!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Nope......Heller already addressed this so San Diego is already breaking the law.....

Those towns in the West...had as much success controlling criminals as Chicago, D.C. and Baltimore do today....

No, they aren't. They are not restricting anyone from owning a gun. They are restricting where owners can take their guns. BIG DIFFERENCE.

They are saying "you can't take your gun ANYWHERE" unless we decide you deserve it.

How about we apply that standard to abortions? Some bureaucrat can take 2-3 days to decide if you "really really need one"

Abortion should be left to each state. You will not find it addressed in the constitution, and thus it is the purview of the states. Why don't you site the actually language in the San Diego law you have an issue with?

 

[martybegan]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

The difference is in those towns the law enforcement made sure NO ONE could bring a gun in, and they guaranteed the people would be protected. If not, people would stop coming to the town.

Does San Diego guarantee the same thing?

Also, if regular citizens cannot carry why can off duty police officers? Why do they get a right the rest of the people do not?

They should have to lock up their service pieces at the end of their shift and, like the rest of us, rely on the police.

Oh please, there were no guarantees in the old west. My point is that your right to bear arms is not 100% absolute at all times, and in all places. You can't carry a gun on to a plane, or into a court house, in Montana you can carry in many places without a permit, but you can't carry in a bank. Different jurisdictions adopt different laws, even when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

When you went into a town where you had to check your guns, the implied contract was "you turn in your guns, and we make sure no one else has one either". That is the same compact when you enter a controlled area like an airport or a courthouse. In those spaces there are armed people right there ready to protect you.

The above situation does not apply in the streets of a major or even minor city, or in a suburban or rural area.

Come on, you sound like your 4 years old. The old west was as far from secure as you could get. Anybody could ride thru, or walk into town with a gun tucked hidden. You really have to do better.

And those guys were countered by the armed presence of the local law enforcement. the small size of the towns made controlling the area possible.

You are the one trying to use it as a justification to ban carry in public, I am just poking holes in it.

Try harder next time.

 

[martybegan]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Nope......Heller already addressed this so San Diego is already breaking the law.....

Those towns in the West...had as much success controlling criminals as Chicago, D.C. and Baltimore do today....

No, they aren't. They are not restricting anyone from owning a gun. They are restricting where owners can take their guns. BIG DIFFERENCE.

They are saying "you can't take your gun ANYWHERE" unless we decide you deserve it.

How about we apply that standard to abortions? Some bureaucrat can take 2-3 days to decide if you "really really need one"

Abortion should be left to each state. You will not find it addressed in the constitution, and thus it is the purview of the states. Why don't you site the actually language in the San Diego law you have an issue with?

1) Since open carry is banned, restricting concealed carry to "shall issue" means a right becomes a privilege.
2) Some dipshit sheriff should not be able to decide arbitrarily who can carry in public and who can't. Its a recipe for cronyism.
3) By allowing LEO's to carry off duty "just because" you create two levels of citizenship.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

The difference is in those towns the law enforcement made sure NO ONE could bring a gun in, and they guaranteed the people would be protected. If not, people would stop coming to the town.

Does San Diego guarantee the same thing?

Also, if regular citizens cannot carry why can off duty police officers? Why do they get a right the rest of the people do not?

They should have to lock up their service pieces at the end of their shift and, like the rest of us, rely on the police.

Oh please, there were no guarantees in the old west. My point is that your right to bear arms is not 100% absolute at all times, and in all places. You can't carry a gun on to a plane, or into a court house, in Montana you can carry in many places without a permit, but you can't carry in a bank. Different jurisdictions adopt different laws, even when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

When you went into a town where you had to check your guns, the implied contract was "you turn in your guns, and we make sure no one else has one either". That is the same compact when you enter a controlled area like an airport or a courthouse. In those spaces there are armed people right there ready to protect you.

The above situation does not apply in the streets of a major or even minor city, or in a suburban or rural area.

Come on, you sound like your 4 years old. The old west was as far from secure as you could get. Anybody could ride thru, or walk into town with a gun tucked hidden. You really have to do better.

And those guys were countered by the armed presence of the local law enforcement. the small size of the towns made controlling the area possible.

You are the one trying to use it as a justification to ban carry in public, I am just poking holes in it.

Try harder next time.

Eh, sorry. You go ahead. I'm stopping here. I can only drop so low to engage in a debate, and your floor is lower than mine. I will declare you the winner. Marty is right, everybody should get to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is in those towns the law enforcement made sure NO ONE could bring a gun in, and they guaranteed the people would be protected. If not, people would stop coming to the town.

Does San Diego guarantee the same thing?

Also, if regular citizens cannot carry why can off duty police officers? Why do they get a right the rest of the people do not?

They should have to lock up their service pieces at the end of their shift and, like the rest of us, rely on the police.

Oh please, there were no guarantees in the old west. My point is that your right to bear arms is not 100% absolute at all times, and in all places. You can't carry a gun on to a plane, or into a court house, in Montana you can carry in many places without a permit, but you can't carry in a bank. Different jurisdictions adopt different laws, even when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

When you went into a town where you had to check your guns, the implied contract was "you turn in your guns, and we make sure no one else has one either". That is the same compact when you enter a controlled area like an airport or a courthouse. In those spaces there are armed people right there ready to protect you.

The above situation does not apply in the streets of a major or even minor city, or in a suburban or rural area.

Come on, you sound like your 4 years old. The old west was as far from secure as you could get. Anybody could ride thru, or walk into town with a gun tucked hidden. You really have to do better.

And those guys were countered by the armed presence of the local law enforcement. the small size of the towns made controlling the area possible.

You are the one trying to use it as a justification to ban carry in public, I am just poking holes in it.

Try harder next time.

Eh, sorry. You go ahead. I'm stopping here. I can only drop so low to engage in a debate, and your floor is lower than mine. I will declare you the winner. Marty is right, everybody should get to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want.

Your attempted deflection with sarcasm of your actual loss on the points, and your slinking away is noted.

This isn't about "anywhere you want", its about not being able to walk off your property being armed unless some government flunky gives you the OK.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Oh please, there were no guarantees in the old west. My point is that your right to bear arms is not 100% absolute at all times, and in all places. You can't carry a gun on to a plane, or into a court house, in Montana you can carry in many places without a permit, but you can't carry in a bank. Different jurisdictions adopt different laws, even when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

When you went into a town where you had to check your guns, the implied contract was "you turn in your guns, and we make sure no one else has one either". That is the same compact when you enter a controlled area like an airport or a courthouse. In those spaces there are armed people right there ready to protect you.

The above situation does not apply in the streets of a major or even minor city, or in a suburban or rural area.

Come on, you sound like your 4 years old. The old west was as far from secure as you could get. Anybody could ride thru, or walk into town with a gun tucked hidden. You really have to do better.

And those guys were countered by the armed presence of the local law enforcement. the small size of the towns made controlling the area possible.

You are the one trying to use it as a justification to ban carry in public, I am just poking holes in it.

Try harder next time.

Eh, sorry. You go ahead. I'm stopping here. I can only drop so low to engage in a debate, and your floor is lower than mine. I will declare you the winner. Marty is right, everybody should get to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want.

Your attempted deflection with sarcasm of your actual loss on the points, and your slinking away is noted.

This isn't about "anywhere you want", its about not being able to walk off your property being armed unless some government flunky gives you the OK.

Atta boi Marty, keep making those rock solid arguments. While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and list all the states where there is no requirements or restrictions placed on your second amendment. Yours is a simple black and white world, many of us can see several shades of grey.

 

[martybegan]

When you went into a town where you had to check your guns, the implied contract was "you turn in your guns, and we make sure no one else has one either". That is the same compact when you enter a controlled area like an airport or a courthouse. In those spaces there are armed people right there ready to protect you.

The above situation does not apply in the streets of a major or even minor city, or in a suburban or rural area.

Come on, you sound like your 4 years old. The old west was as far from secure as you could get. Anybody could ride thru, or walk into town with a gun tucked hidden. You really have to do better.

And those guys were countered by the armed presence of the local law enforcement. the small size of the towns made controlling the area possible.

You are the one trying to use it as a justification to ban carry in public, I am just poking holes in it.

Try harder next time.

Eh, sorry. You go ahead. I'm stopping here. I can only drop so low to engage in a debate, and your floor is lower than mine. I will declare you the winner. Marty is right, everybody should get to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want.

Your attempted deflection with sarcasm of your actual loss on the points, and your slinking away is noted.

This isn't about "anywhere you want", its about not being able to walk off your property being armed unless some government flunky gives you the OK.

Atta boi Marty, keep making those rock solid arguments. While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and list all the states where there is no requirements or restrictions placed on your second amendment. Yours is a simple black and white world, many of us can see several shades of grey.

Who said anything about "no restrictions"? This is an issue of "shall issue" where the government has to come up with a solid reason to deny a CCW, such as a felony conviction or mental adjudication, and "may issue", where some bean counter gets to decide if you have a RKBA or not. This is not shades of grey, this is some sherriff deciding he doesn't want anyone to be a CCW, and only grudgingly giving them out if they can come up with some threat to themselves. Yet he carries is sidearm home, and so do his officers.

In NYC I have to pay around $500 in fees and wait 3-6 months just to keep a fucking revolver in my own apartment. How is that not infringement?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Come on, you sound like your 4 years old. The old west was as far from secure as you could get. Anybody could ride thru, or walk into town with a gun tucked hidden. You really have to do better.

And those guys were countered by the armed presence of the local law enforcement. the small size of the towns made controlling the area possible.

You are the one trying to use it as a justification to ban carry in public, I am just poking holes in it.

Try harder next time.

Eh, sorry. You go ahead. I'm stopping here. I can only drop so low to engage in a debate, and your floor is lower than mine. I will declare you the winner. Marty is right, everybody should get to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want.

Your attempted deflection with sarcasm of your actual loss on the points, and your slinking away is noted.

This isn't about "anywhere you want", its about not being able to walk off your property being armed unless some government flunky gives you the OK.

Atta boi Marty, keep making those rock solid arguments. While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and list all the states where there is no requirements or restrictions placed on your second amendment. Yours is a simple black and white world, many of us can see several shades of grey.

Who said anything about "no restrictions"? This is an issue of "shall issue" where the government has to come up with a solid reason to deny a CCW, such as a felony conviction or mental adjudication, and "may issue", where some bean counter gets to decide if you have a RKBA or not. This is not shades of grey, this is some sherriff deciding he doesn't want anyone to be a CCW, and only grudgingly giving them out if they can come up with some threat to themselves. Yet he carries is sidearm home, and so do his officers.

In NYC I have to pay around $500 in fees and wait 3-6 months just to keep a fucking revolver in my own apartment. How is that not infringement?

Actually, I think that law in New York, assuming your facts are accurate, is discriminatory towards The indigent. It can easily be argued that $500 is an overtly onerous cost to many people. SCOTUS has already ruled that jurisdictions can impose restrictions and that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Scalia himself wrote the opinion-

​

Antonin Scalia on Gun Control
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. Reagan 1986)



Gun rights can be restricted for felons & sensitive places
The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in DC v. Heller provides good policy guidance on gun ownership rights and public safety. Justice Scalia wrote this opinion with great care. First, the Court affirmed the right of individuals to possess firearms for traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home and for hunting.
Second, the opinion also held that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. Justice Scalia went out of his way to declare longstanding laws that prohibit possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; that forbid guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms; and that restrict the right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, are still valid and enforceable.

 

[martybegan]

And those guys were countered by the armed presence of the local law enforcement. the small size of the towns made controlling the area possible.

You are the one trying to use it as a justification to ban carry in public, I am just poking holes in it.

Try harder next time.

Eh, sorry. You go ahead. I'm stopping here. I can only drop so low to engage in a debate, and your floor is lower than mine. I will declare you the winner. Marty is right, everybody should get to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want.

Your attempted deflection with sarcasm of your actual loss on the points, and your slinking away is noted.

This isn't about "anywhere you want", its about not being able to walk off your property being armed unless some government flunky gives you the OK.

Atta boi Marty, keep making those rock solid arguments. While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and list all the states where there is no requirements or restrictions placed on your second amendment. Yours is a simple black and white world, many of us can see several shades of grey.

Who said anything about "no restrictions"? This is an issue of "shall issue" where the government has to come up with a solid reason to deny a CCW, such as a felony conviction or mental adjudication, and "may issue", where some bean counter gets to decide if you have a RKBA or not. This is not shades of grey, this is some sherriff deciding he doesn't want anyone to be a CCW, and only grudgingly giving them out if they can come up with some threat to themselves. Yet he carries is sidearm home, and so do his officers.

In NYC I have to pay around $500 in fees and wait 3-6 months just to keep a fucking revolver in my own apartment. How is that not infringement?

Actually, I think that law in New York, assuming your facts are accurate, is discriminatory towards The indigent. It can easily be argued that $500 is an overtly onerous cost to many people. SCOTUS has already ruled that jurisdictions can impose restrictions and that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Scalia himself wrote the opinion-

​

Antonin Scalia on Gun Control
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. Reagan 1986)



Gun rights can be restricted for felons & sensitive places
The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in DC v. Heller provides good policy guidance on gun ownership rights and public safety. Justice Scalia wrote this opinion with great care. First, the Court affirmed the right of individuals to possess firearms for traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home and for hunting.
Second, the opinion also held that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. Justice Scalia went out of his way to declare longstanding laws that prohibit possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; that forbid guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms; and that restrict the right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, are still valid and enforceable.

Yes, sensitive places. However the Sheriff in the case noted basically declared his whole city a "sensitive place" and does not issue CCW's without the person showing a "need"

And those "onerous restrictions" is what gun control idiots want for everyone.

 

[Wolfstrike]

I don't think the federal government was ever given the authority to make a blanket law that everyone who rides on a plane can't carry a gun.
They're going to claim they can regulate interstate commerce, but nothing in the Constituion allows the feds to have armies or a police force, as far as i can see, they only have the ability to suggest people don't carry guns.

Even if the federal government set no-gun rules, if most people in America followed the Constitution, they would never get a conviction. (the government is not supposed to do anything to a citizen unless a jury of citizens approves a pre-written law in a courtroom)

People can set rules to visit their property, therfore, the only people that can tell other people they can't have a gun and a plane, is the company owner.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

If the right had their way America would be like Africa.

Backwards, stupid and fallling apart.

Go back to sleep.

 

[FA_Q2]

The difference is in those towns the law enforcement made sure NO ONE could bring a gun in, and they guaranteed the people would be protected. If not, people would stop coming to the town.

Does San Diego guarantee the same thing?

Also, if regular citizens cannot carry why can off duty police officers? Why do they get a right the rest of the people do not?

They should have to lock up their service pieces at the end of their shift and, like the rest of us, rely on the police.

Oh please, there were no guarantees in the old west. My point is that your right to bear arms is not 100% absolute at all times, and in all places. You can't carry a gun on to a plane, or into a court house, in Montana you can carry in many places without a permit, but you can't carry in a bank. Different jurisdictions adopt different laws, even when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

When you went into a town where you had to check your guns, the implied contract was "you turn in your guns, and we make sure no one else has one either". That is the same compact when you enter a controlled area like an airport or a courthouse. In those spaces there are armed people right there ready to protect you.

The above situation does not apply in the streets of a major or even minor city, or in a suburban or rural area.

Come on, you sound like your 4 years old. The old west was as far from secure as you could get. Anybody could ride thru, or walk into town with a gun tucked hidden. You really have to do better.

And those guys were countered by the armed presence of the local law enforcement. the small size of the towns made controlling the area possible.

You are the one trying to use it as a justification to ban carry in public, I am just poking holes in it.

Try harder next time.

Eh, sorry. You go ahead. I'm stopping here. I can only drop so low to engage in a debate, and your floor is lower than mine. I will declare you the winner. Marty is right, everybody should get to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want.

Drop so low? I dont see how you have dropped at all since I cannot see any coherrent points made beside simply declaring it is so.

You are clinging to 2 main ideas:
1 - That over a hundred years ago towns did this. I have already explained why this is irrelevant not to mention it is a logical fallacy.

2 - The right is limited in specific areas. Flatly demanding that Marty is demanding carry everywhere no matter what is grossly skewing the argument and, yet again, another logical fallacy. It is not an either or situation.

The right to carry being limited in specific sensitive areas has absolutely nothing to do with limiting the right throughout an entire city.