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

[Contumacious]

[. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

THERE WAS A BLIND DEPUTY PRESENT AT COLUMBINE HS>


The Jefferson County sheriff's deputy who traded gunshots with Eric Harris in the opening moments of the Columbine massacre was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, according to records unsealed this week.

That Neil Gardner was instead wearing non-prescription sunglasses while firing at a target 60 or 70 yards away could become an issue in negligence lawsuits filed by victims' families against the sheriff's department.

Might Gardner have had a better chance of hitting Harris if he'd been wearing his glasses? When the two traded shots, 11 of the 13 people killed by Harris and Dylan Klebold were still alive.

"If his vision is 20/30, no big deal," said James Rouse, an attorney who represents six families. "If it's 20/300, what's he doing shooting a gun?"

 

[Little-Acorn]

You have to read the bill of rights - amendments in context..

I did. The 2nd is carefully set separately from the rest of the amendments. It stands alone, and is complete within itself, unaffected by anything any other amendments in the BOR say.

These amendments included restrictive clauses on the feds and statements. The 2nd amendment is a restrictive clause on the feds.

Yes, it is. And it's also restrictive on state and local governments, as I explained in a previous post.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

Orwell called that “doublethink”—to hold two contradictory and mutually-exclusive ideas in one's head, to be fully aware that the two ideas cannot rationally coexist, and yet to fully believe them both.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

 

[ChrisL]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

Orwell called that “doublethink”—to hold two contradictory and mutually-exclusive ideas in one's head, to be fully aware that the two ideas cannot rationally coexist, and yet to fully believe them both.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

I don't believe that ALL regulations infringe upon a person's second amendment rights though. Some, most definitely. Others are just common sense laws.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Not at all. All school shootings have taken place in "gun free zones." That is not propaganda. That is a fact. I never said I thought students should be packing. I think if a teacher maybe should be allowed to with certain requirements.

Mentally impaired? There is another interesting point. What consists of "mentally impaired?" What if a person was treated for depression at one time? Is that person considered mentally impaired? Who determines the level of mental impairment is enough to restrict one's right to self defense?

Not that I am wanting seriously mentally ill people to be walking around packing heat, but I am curious about these things and wonder who sets the bar? The government? Is that appropriate when the 2nd amendment was written to protect that "right" from being infringed upon by the government?

The second sentence is false of your first paragraph is false. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

You should be able to find a legal definition of "mentally impaired". Within the last week or so a cop was gunned done by a person who had been adjudicated incapable of standing trial due to mental impairment in 2012 and spent 6 month in a mental facility. Depressed people are quite capable of harming themselves or others. I know a bit about PTSD, perhaps, and medication doesn't rid one of all the demons forever for just one example with which I am familiar!

IF you have read and understood what J. Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, which I and others have posted numerous times, you would have your answers to all your questions in your last paragraph.

You post requesting a response to your "bad check" question was given due consideration. It was another open ended question without specifics, and you had already been noticed that I won't go down a rabbit hole such as that. Flesh it out with the full range of circumstances and I'd be happy to reply with the same degree of detail.

And thank you for allowing a calm discussion to continue. I truly appreciate that!

It is not a rabbit hole. It is a legitimate question. You have to draw a line somewhere, especially when it comes to restricting an individual's rights since they are not "given" by government and the BOR is meant to protect us from tyranny and give us some rights.

About gun free zone shootings, I said MOST, so my statement still stands.

You also have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to restricting the rights of the mentally ill. They are still citizens with their individual rights in this country.

I'm not asking about the court's opinions. I've read that. I am asking you for YOUR opinions on this matter. After all, this is a discussion board.

OK that's fair and so are differing views.

For me it boils down to what the Law of the Land says for specific cases and as for drawing a line, I'd have to know all the facts to judge the right or wrong of any given proposal, regulation or statute. Check kiting may or may not be grounds for denying a CC permit or a gun purchase depending on the background of that person. The empirical facts are an unknown at this time!

 

[2aguy]

Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?

I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.

Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

 

[ChrisL]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

Orwell called that “doublethink”—to hold two contradictory and mutually-exclusive ideas in one's head, to be fully aware that the two ideas cannot rationally coexist, and yet to fully believe them both.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

If an individual has violated other citizens' rights by committing violent crimes with a gun against the community, then that person should probably lose his or her right or be jailed. Actually, if they cannot be trusted with the right, then they should probably be locked up. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to lock people up for life. There are never any "easy" answers to these kinds of problems. Never.

 

[2aguy]

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Not at all. All school shootings have taken place in "gun free zones." That is not propaganda. That is a fact. I never said I thought students should be packing. I think if a teacher maybe should be allowed to with certain requirements.

Mentally impaired? There is another interesting point. What consists of "mentally impaired?" What if a person was treated for depression at one time? Is that person considered mentally impaired? Who determines the level of mental impairment is enough to restrict one's right to self defense?

Not that I am wanting seriously mentally ill people to be walking around packing heat, but I am curious about these things and wonder who sets the bar? The government? Is that appropriate when the 2nd amendment was written to protect that "right" from being infringed upon by the government?

Gun free zones do not prohibit armed security personnel.

And if the armed security person is on break, or is just bad at his Job?

 

[2aguy]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

Orwell called that “doublethink”—to hold two contradictory and mutually-exclusive ideas in one's head, to be fully aware that the two ideas cannot rationally coexist, and yet to fully believe them both.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

If an individual has violated other citizens' rights by committing violent crimes with a gun against the community, then that person should probably lose his or her right or be jailed. Actually, if they cannot be trusted with the right, then they should probably be locked up. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to lock people up for life. There are never any "easy" answers to these kinds of problems. Never.

It costs way more for them to be loose on the street. You always only hear about how much it costs to keep a violent criminal locked up.....the actual expense of having them loose is even greater, but it isn't a specific number....consider hospital bills, missed work, insurance payments, counseling, court time, police time....the costs go on for each crime...and criminals are committing crime almost daily, creating victims daily.....

It is far cheaper for society to lock them up....

 

[ChrisL]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

Orwell called that “doublethink”—to hold two contradictory and mutually-exclusive ideas in one's head, to be fully aware that the two ideas cannot rationally coexist, and yet to fully believe them both.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

If an individual has violated other citizens' rights by committing violent crimes with a gun against the community, then that person should probably lose his or her right or be jailed. Actually, if they cannot be trusted with the right, then they should probably be locked up. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to lock people up for life. There are never any "easy" answers to these kinds of problems. Never.

It costs way more for them to be loose on the street. You always only hear about how much it costs to keep a violent criminal locked up.....the actual expense of having them loose is even greater, but it isn't a specific number....consider hospital bills, missed work, insurance payments, counseling, court time, police time....the costs go on for each crime...and criminals are committing crime almost daily, creating victims daily.....

It is far cheaper for society to lock them up....

All of those things have to be considered in prison too. Inmates get sick and need medical attention, food, clothing, toiletries, counseling, etc., etc.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have to read the bill of rights - amendments in context..

I did. The 2nd is carefully set separately from the rest of the amendments. It stands alone, and is complete within itself, unaffected by anything any other amendments in the BOR say.

These amendments included restrictive clauses on the feds and statements. The 2nd amendment is a restrictive clause on the feds.

Yes, it is. And it's also restrictive on state and local governments, as I explained in a previous post.

No you are still reading it out of context.
Here:

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

Amendment I

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.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


These restrictive clauses were not to the states at the time of the bill of rights. It was not until the 14th amendment that some dumb asses from the North drunk from their murderous victories over the south decided to screw up our constitution and apply some of these restrictive clauses to the states.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have to read the bill of rights - amendments in context.. These amendments included restrictive clauses on the feds and statements [sic]. The 2nd amendment is a restrictive clause on the feds.

In context, it is a restriction on all government. Consider the Tenth Amendment (perhaps the only one even more blatantly and relentlessly violated than the Second Amendment). It states that any power not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government, belongs to the states, or to the people.

Since the power to restrict the ownership and possession of arms is not delegated to the federal government, it does not belong to the federal government. The federal government has absolutely no legitimate authority, whatsoever, to intrude on this right.

So, to whom does this power belong? On the Tenth Amendment alone, you might conclude that it belongs to the states, and that the states have the power to impose restrictions on the people's ownership and possession of arms. But the Second Amendment very clearly states otherwise.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

This right belongs to the people. Not to the federal government, and not to the states.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Then why do the states currently restrict my right to keep and bear arms?

For exactly the same reason that every other form of government corruption occurs.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

 

[Contumacious]

You have to read the bill of rights - amendments in context..

I did. The 2nd is carefully set separately from the rest of the amendments. It stands alone, and is complete within itself, unaffected by anything any other amendments in the BOR say.

These amendments included restrictive clauses on the feds and statements. The 2nd amendment is a restrictive clause on the feds.

Yes, it is. And it's also restrictive on state and local governments, as I explained in a previous post.

No you are still reading it out of context.
Here:

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

Amendment I

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.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


These restrictive clauses were not to the states at the time of the bill of rights. It was not until the 14th amendment that some dumb asses from the North drunk from their murderous victories over the south decided to screw up our constitution and apply some of these restrictive clauses to the states.

EXACTLY



"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"



THE PURPOSE WAS TO PREVENT FEDGOV FROM EVEN THINKING ABOUT INFRINGING ON THOSE RIGHTS.


SO SCALIA'S COMMENTS ARE PURE BULLSHIT.


.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If an individual has violated other citizens' rights by committing violent crimes with a gun against the community, then that person should probably lose his or her right or be jailed. Actually, if they cannot be trusted with the right, then they should probably be locked up. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to lock people up for life. There are never any "easy" answers to these kinds of problems. Never.

Rope isn't very expensive at all, and if one deems the cost of building a proper gallows to be too burdensome, then a tree will do just fine.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have to read the bill of rights - amendments in context.. These amendments included restrictive clauses on the feds and statements [sic]. The 2nd amendment is a restrictive clause on the feds.

In context, it is a restriction on all government. Consider the Tenth Amendment (perhaps the only one even more blatantly and relentlessly violated than the Second Amendment). It states that any power not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government, belongs to the states, or to the people.

Since the power to restrict the ownership and possession of arms is not delegated to the federal government, it does not belong to the federal government. The federal government has absolutely no legitimate authority, whatsoever, to intrude on this right.

So, to whom does this power belong? On the Tenth Amendment alone, you might conclude that it belongs to the states, and that the states have the power to impose restrictions on the people's ownership and possession of arms. But the Second Amendment very clearly states otherwise.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

This right belongs to the people. Not to the federal government, and not to the states.

No. At the time of it's passing and for hundreds of years after, there was never an understanding that the 2nd amendment applied to the states. You are completely clueless in this regard. Only recently has there been a push to change the meaning of the constitution through incorporation based on the 14th amendment. But again that's the 14th amendment not the 2nd amendment. Your reading on the clear definition of the constitution is 100% wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting issues.

According to Obama's 10 million dollar study on gun defense uses, more people defend themselves with a gun than are killed by one. The thing is, a lot of these cases go unreported because people won't report that they actually drew their gun on a person. I can link you to the study if you would like.

 

[2aguy]

Right. We already have laws regarding weapons. I'm not confused. The point is, the founders wanted all citizens to have 2nd amendment rights. Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to take away an individual citizen's 2nd amendment right because of something like a bounced check?

NO, NO, NO not so very fast. To respond to your possible trap question properly, first respond to mine which goes to the REAL question which is intrinsically and overridingly linked to yours, well the other way around, actually. I don't respond to hypotheticals without all boundaries being defined. Do you agree that what Scalia wrote in Heller is established law? "Something like a bounced check" can be redefined so easily to twist meanings. So where are you with the bounds Scalia set for Amendment II and those proscriptions and inclusions?

Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?

I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.

Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

I love how you anti gun nuts say "Yeah...criminals ingore the laws....but....but....the NRA made them do it...." When these gun runners get caught they can be put in jail....that is all the gun control we need. if they are bringing the guns to Chicago, Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the country...so they failed not the NRA. At every sale they are breaking the law and can be arrested....you want the Bureau of Pre-Crime, where they can be arrested and stopped before they commit the crime.

Guns are legal products and as long as the person buying them isn't a felon it isn't your business.....when they break the law with the gun.....treat it like any other crime and arrest them when they break the law.

There are no loopholes...it is against the law to sell guns to criminals, no loophole, you do it, you can be arrested and jailed. If I am a normal citizen, and not a felon, I can sell my legal products to other people...end of story....you guys hate that freedom, but screw you. If the guy buying it is a felon...he knows he can't buy it....arrest him.

We are not cops....you want to make us cops when we sell guns......that aint happening.

If you don't like gun shows....send in cops to buy and sell and catch the criminals who can't pass background checks...

leave the law abiding alone.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following.

No....Gun Free Zones have been killing fields since they were first created...now we are calling out you morons who insist on creating more of them...and then blaming guns for the shooters who go there and shoot people.

Telling the truth about Gun Free Zones is what you call "propagandizing" them. Of course, as Dennis Prager says, the Truth is offensive to the left.....Gun Free Killin Zones and their truth is offensive to you.

 

[ChrisL]

If an individual has violated other citizens' rights by committing violent crimes with a gun against the community, then that person should probably lose his or her right or be jailed. Actually, if they cannot be trusted with the right, then they should probably be locked up. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to lock people up for life. There are never any "easy" answers to these kinds of problems. Never.

Rope isn't very expensive at all, and if one deems the cost of building a proper gallows to be too burdensome, then a tree will do just fine.

No thanks. I'm anti death penalty and pro justice system and fair trial.