Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller."... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.
And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!
The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative
, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.constitutioncenter.org
What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.
It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.
The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller."... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.
And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!
The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative
, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.constitutioncenter.org
What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.
It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.
The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.
Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.
I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government
Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.
Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government
Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.
Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Is sales tax on arms considered "infringement'?
No, it didn't. But that has already been pointed out....They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.
And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!
The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
Did someone make the claim that a or the militia has a legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command. Anyone at all?
Just the Constitution.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller."... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.
And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!
The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative
, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.constitutioncenter.org
What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.
It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.
The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.
Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.
I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.
You left out the last part.... care to address?What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government
Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.
Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.
For his specific examples:
Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons
Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.
Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller."... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.
And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!
The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative
, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.constitutioncenter.org
What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.
It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.
The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.
Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.
I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.
That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.
A states militia is that states police force and state guard, is it not?No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.
Correct, the States went to the people (aka property owning White males mostly) and said form a militia based on and trained according to the specification of Congress!
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.constitutioncenter.org
You left out the last part.... care to address?What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government
Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.
Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.
For his specific examples:
Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons
Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.
Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?You left out the last part.... care to address?What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government
Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.
Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.
For his specific examples:
Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons
Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.
Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.
Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.
"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
A states militia is that states police force and state guard, is it not?No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.
Correct, the States went to the people (aka property owning White males mostly) and said form a militia based on and trained according to the specification of Congress!
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.constitutioncenter.org
Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?You left out the last part.... care to address?What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government
Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.
Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.
For his specific examples:
Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons
Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.
Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.
Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.
"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
Im not calling the militia a limit. I’m just asking about what it is. Don’t get ahead of the conversationA states militia is that states police force and state guard, is it not?No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.
Correct, the States went to the people (aka property owning White males mostly) and said form a militia based on and trained according to the specification of Congress!
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.constitutioncenter.org
You could consider them part of the State's militia, but the militia is not limited to that.
It's irrelevant since if you two brainiacs could read then you'd know militia is an explanation of the second and not a limit
Back to the subject captain random. Want to explain more about how Scalia was wrong about what the constitution says about the second amendment?? And what you have to back up your perspective?? Because history and law is certainly not on your sideApparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?You left out the last part.... care to address?What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government
Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.
Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.
For his specific examples:
Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons
Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.
Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.
Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.
"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.
Hypocrisy has just reached fatal levels, run, do not walk to the nearest exit and scream like a banchi
Back to the subject captain random. Want to explain more about how Scalia was wrong about what the constitution says about the second amendment?? And what you have to back up your perspective?? Because history and law is certainly not on your sideApparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?You left out the last part.... care to address?What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government
Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.
Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.
For his specific examples:
Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons
Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.
Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.
Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.
"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.
Hypocrisy has just reached fatal levels, run, do not walk to the nearest exit and scream like a banchi
