The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?
Sigh.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.
Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.
 
Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?
Sigh.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.
Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.
No right is unlimited -- and no one argues otherwise.
That, however, does not mean that any limit you might want to place on a right does not violate that right.
 
Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?
Sigh.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.
Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.

I don't disagree with that. I own three guns:
1) Chrome plated .38 magnum revolver(S&W)
2) .30 .30 rifle(Marlin saddle gun)
3) 12 gauge semi automatic Remington shotgun
My whole stand on the difficulties we're experiencing about firearms is background checks. Anybody who thinks it's OK for some half crazy numb nuts who's been arrested for domestic violence or treated for mental illness to own an AR-15 or 9mm Glock needs to rethink their position. I understand the NRA wanting him to have five loaded guns at all times but not sane people who have no special interest.

By the way.....the weapon I enjoyed firing most was a 90mm gun when I was a tanker on an M-48 medium patton tank. Imagine a cartridge weighing over 40 pounds, 3ft. in length with an armor piercing projectile nearly 4" in diameter weighing about 20lbs, firing flat trajectory at 3500fpm and smacking a 6'X6' target smack in the bulls eye at 1500 yards. Now that's some fun.
tank.jpg
 
Last edited:
My whole stand on the difficulties we're experiencing about firearms is background checks.
We've had background checks for more than 20 years.
:dunno:
Anybody who thinks it's OK for some half crazy numb nuts who's been arrested for domestic violence a few years before to own an AR-15 or 9mm Glock needs to rethink their position.
Anyone who believes it is OK to restrict the rights of the law abiding in a useless attempt to prevent these people from getting guns doesn't really care about keeping guns from said people.
I understand the NRA wanting him to have five loaded guns at all times...
Oh look - lie.
 
Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?
Sigh.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.
Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.
No right is unlimited -- and no one argues otherwise.
That, however, does not mean that any limit you might want to place on a right does not violate that right.
How can a right be violated if the restriction placed on it is consistent with limitations of freedoms present when the constitution and BoR were ratified?
 
Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?
Sigh.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.
Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.
No right is unlimited -- and no one argues otherwise.
That, however, does not mean that any limit you might want to place on a right does not violate that right.
How can a right be violated if the restriction placed on it is consistent with limitations of freedoms present when the constitution and BoR were ratified?
Such as?
 
Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?
Sigh.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.
Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.
No right is unlimited -- and no one argues otherwise.
That, however, does not mean that any limit you might want to place on a right does not violate that right.
How can a right be violated if the restriction placed on it is consistent with limitations of freedoms present when the constitution and BoR were ratified?
Such as?
Prohibitions on where firearms can be discharged for practice, and regulations on storage that don't "infringe" on self-defense.
 
Sigh.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.
Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.
No right is unlimited -- and no one argues otherwise.
That, however, does not mean that any limit you might want to place on a right does not violate that right.
How can a right be violated if the restriction placed on it is consistent with limitations of freedoms present when the constitution and BoR were ratified?
Such as?
Prohibitions on where firearms can be discharged for practice, and regulations on storage that don't "infringe" on self-defense.
Cite?
 
Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.
Except that will not work to make you any safer whatsoever. This has been shown time and time again. The evidence is solid - gun bans do not curb homicide rates. That is simply a fact.

You might 'feel' safer but that is about it and, quite frankly, how you feel is irrelevant to my rights. You do not get to limit or remove a right simply because you don't like the fact it exists.

Agree. The government had better have a damn good reason for taking away a right from a citizen.


INCORRECT.


THE GOVERNMENT HAS A MASSIVE WELL ARMED DOMESTIC PARAMILITARY FORCE - THEY DON'T NEED A GOOD REASON . ASK THE DAVIDIANS .



.
 
My whole stand on the difficulties we're experiencing about firearms is background checks.
We've had background checks for more than 20 years.
:dunno:
Anybody who thinks it's OK for some half crazy numb nuts who's been arrested for domestic violence a few years before to own an AR-15 or 9mm Glock needs to rethink their position.
Anyone who believes it is OK to restrict the rights of the law abiding in a useless attempt to prevent these people from getting guns doesn't really care about keeping guns from said people.
I understand the NRA wanting him to have five loaded guns at all times...
Oh look - lie.

Yep...there's some lies there alright but not anything I said.

The NRA is tee totally the cause of major sponsorship of ads and activities related to the maximum sale of firearms. You didn't think Charlton Heston the movie actor served as president back in the 90's just to take care of some of his spare time did you?

ap_nra_president_charlton_heston_ll_131025_16x9t_384.jpg
 
Last edited:
My whole stand on the difficulties we're experiencing about firearms is background checks.
We've had background checks for more than 20 years.
:dunno:
Anybody who thinks it's OK for some half crazy numb nuts who's been arrested for domestic violence a few years before to own an AR-15 or 9mm Glock needs to rethink their position.
Anyone who believes it is OK to restrict the rights of the law abiding in a useless attempt to prevent these people from getting guns doesn't really care about keeping guns from said people.
I understand the NRA wanting him to have five loaded guns at all times...
Oh look - lie.
Yep...there's some lies there alright but not anything I said.
Really?
Cite the lies.
Then cite where he NRA said it wants anyone to have five loaded guns at all times
 
The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

And yet there are many exceptions to the 4th Amendment.

Consent
Plain view, open fields
Exigent Circumstances
Motor Vehicle exceptions
Searches incident to a lawful arrest
Border search exception
Foreign intelligence
"good faith" rule
"inevitabel discovery" test


These and more all came about through SCOTUS and federal case law.

That's how our system works.

Obviously you don't understand that.

No right is unlimited and without reasonable exceptions and special circumstances.
 
And yet there are many exceptions to the 4th Amendment.

These and more all came about through SCOTUS and federal case law.
Yet again little hazelnut ignores what the amendment says and changes the subject, talking about what judges and lawyers say again.

It's becoming clear that the leftist fanatics are helpless in the face of what the amendments say, and can do nothing but change the subject again and again.

They can cite NOTHING in the Constitution that allows any exceptions to the 2nd amendment's total ban on government restricting people's guns.
 
And yet there are many exceptions to the 4th Amendment.

These and more all came about through SCOTUS and federal case law.
Yet again little hazelnut ignores what the amendment says and changes the subject, talking about what judges and lawyers say again.

It's becoming clear that the leftist fanatics are helpless in the face of what the amendments say, and can do nothing but change the subject again and again.

They can cite NOTHING in the Constitution that allows any exceptions to the 2nd amendment's total ban on government restricting people's guns.
Another generalization....I was a hard boiled Republican for the first thirty years I voted. I cast votes for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times. I even voted for the ex Democrat turned Republican one time. Then I saw his game in action. Cut taxes for the wealthy, never cut spending a dime and borrow three trillion from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. The modern Republican party is a bunch of money grubbin' pricks who want all taxes for the rich and corporations cut. It would be different if they ever wanted to cut benefits for anybody except the poor, the mentally ill etc. I'm ashamed of the modern Republican party.....they're not even good Americans. They invest in foreign companies and hide their big money off shore or in Swiss banks. Look closely at the effects of Republican tax cuts: Bill Clinton had us on a paty to completely pay off the national debt then along came slo talkin George. Cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003 using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition. Look closely at the upper 1% coming out of the Clinton years. Then look closely at what happened when George W. Bush pulled the dual tax cuts for the wealthy. I might add that he increased spending and doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion.

inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png


One thing you can hang your hat on. They've lost the popular vote in five of the last six national elections and they'll more than likely never see another Republican president. After the Poor, the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Gays and young people vote they don't stand a chance.
 
Last edited:
Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.
No right is unlimited -- and no one argues otherwise.
That, however, does not mean that any limit you might want to place on a right does not violate that right.
How can a right be violated if the restriction placed on it is consistent with limitations of freedoms present when the constitution and BoR were ratified?
Such as?
Prohibitions on where firearms can be discharged for practice, and regulations on storage that don't "infringe" on self-defense.
Cite?
No interest in doing so again, it's in the thread.

I don't see anything unconsitutional with background checks, nor does the Supreme Court. Colonies mandated the specific arms milita members had to buy, and made inquiry into anyone suspected on evading duty. There they actually had lists of who owned.
 
No right is unlimited -- and no one argues otherwise.
That, however, does not mean that any limit you might want to place on a right does not violate that right.
How can a right be violated if the restriction placed on it is consistent with limitations of freedoms present when the constitution and BoR were ratified?
Such as?
Prohibitions on where firearms can be discharged for practice, and regulations on storage that don't "infringe" on self-defense.
Cite?
No interest in doing so again, it's in the thread.
Uh-huh.
I don't see anything unconsitutional with background checks, nor does the Supreme Court.
Really? Cite the case, please, and the text of the ruling to hat effect.
Colonies mandated the specific arms milita members had to buy, and made inquiry into anyone suspected on evading duty.
That's great, but the 2nd protects a right not related to service in the militia.
So...?
 
How can a right be violated if the restriction placed on it is consistent with limitations of freedoms present when the constitution and BoR were ratified?
Such as?
Prohibitions on where firearms can be discharged for practice, and regulations on storage that don't "infringe" on self-defense.
Cite?
No interest in doing so again, it's in the thread.
Uh-huh.
I don't see anything unconsitutional with background checks, nor does the Supreme Court.
Really? Cite the case, please, and the text of the ruling to hat effect.
Colonies mandated the specific arms milita members had to buy, and made inquiry into anyone suspected on evading duty.
That's great, but the 2nd protects a right not related to service in the militia.
So...?



IGNORE HIM


BENDOVER LIKES TO , ER, UHUM, WELL, BENDOVER




.
 

Forum List

Back
Top