Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public

[frigidweirdo]

Road Rage Causes Drivers to Shoot and Kill Each Other

Great! You finally found one. You had to go back four years, but you did it.

Lots of shady characters. I won't continue, but they are easy to find.

Find all you like. But the truth is that road rage incidents that involve CCW holders actually shooting somebody is probably a fraction of 1%. So the idea of CCW holders being armed in their vehicles will lead to uncontrollable road rage deaths is a fallacy.

But probably more than the number of Muslims killing people in terrorist acts, but you would take extreme measures against Muslims....

How many Middle Eastern men have you invited to stay with you?

Enough. Ignore list. You're just a waste of time.

 

[JBond]

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

I believe you and a few other leftist wackados need to educate yourselves regarding the rate of ownership vs homicides and get back to us afterwards. Hint: there is comprehensive study on the topic, complete with pictures even the dumbest liberal will comprehend.

You didn't write anything to respond to. You only use insults.

No, I asked you to gain useful knowledge and report back. Obviously some/most liberals are unable to do so.

I couldn't give a shit about your silly games, you're very close to the ignore list.

Oh no! Look at something relevant. Look at the rate of gun ownership vs homicides. Include every country on the planet.

 

[JBond]

Great! You finally found one. You had to go back four years, but you did it.

Lots of shady characters. I won't continue, but they are easy to find.

Find all you like. But the truth is that road rage incidents that involve CCW holders actually shooting somebody is probably a fraction of 1%. So the idea of CCW holders being armed in their vehicles will lead to uncontrollable road rage deaths is a fallacy.

But probably more than the number of Muslims killing people in terrorist acts, but you would take extreme measures against Muslims....

How many Middle Eastern men have you invited to stay with you?

Enough. Ignore list. You're just a waste of time.

It's not my fault you won't back up your big talk with personal action. Step up. Invite then in.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public


One little quibble: The case might cause SCOTUS to point out that all Americans have always had the right to carry concealed guns in public.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Getting a license to carry a gun is not a violation of the Constitution.

That's true.

But a govt refusing you the right to carry a gun because you didn't have that license, IS unconstitutional.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

The usual twisted claptrap from the usual suspects.

From "U.S. v. Heller", Opinion Of The Court written by Antonin Scalia:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

....the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed.

Former Justice Scalia says your definition is not only wrong, it is ABSURD.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So this means I can walk around with a gun and if one you right wing pieces of shit threaten me I can shoot you?

 

[westwall]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

It's not a states rights issue because it is addressed in the US Constitution.

But it's not, you see.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that says anything about any right to carry arms.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's pretty clear here

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

What, declare people religious scrupulous of carry arms around in public, in order to destroy the constitution. Er... what? No....

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

As Mr Gerry said, it's "militia duty", not "carry arms around".

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Or, "render military service".

Nothing about carry arms.

Also, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) said:

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Okay, so, men associating together as military organizations isn't protected, not is drilling or parading with arms in towns or cities.... that is basically "carrying arms".

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They won't be changing their view any time soon on this one. This is too hot for them to handle, they'll probably reject it.

I find it amusing that you people think that the COTUS gives the GOVERNMENT rights. It doesn't, it specifies what government may NOT do.

 

[westwall]

So this means I can walk around with a gun and if one you right wing pieces of shit threaten me I can shoot you?

Nope. What it means is that if you are THREATENED, you may defend yourself. Just like we get to defend ourselves against nutjobs like you. There is no right to go out and shoot someone because you don't like them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

The usual twisted claptrap from the usual suspects.

From "U.S. v. Heller", Opinion Of The Court written by Antonin Scalia:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

....the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed.

Former Justice Scalia says your definition is not only wrong, it is ABSURD.

I've already discussed this.

The problem here is that "bear" can mean "carry". Just like "stool" can mean "feces", does't mean it does.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If you look here, and read it, and understand it, you'll see they saw "bear arms" as "render military service" or "militia duty". In fact, if you read what they wrote with "bear arms" meaning "carry arms", it's just laughable. Like somehow "carrying arms" is done for the protection of the people. Er... I don't think so.

There's no reason for an amendment of the Constitution to protect walking around with guns. All of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights have a specific purpose... the Second Amendment is there to protect the militia, which in turn protects the people.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in the militia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So this means I can walk around with a gun and if one you right wing pieces of shit threaten me I can shoot you?

Nope. What it means is that if you are THREATENED, you may defend yourself. Just like we get to defend ourselves against nutjobs like you. There is no right to go out and shoot someone because you don't like them.

Anyone can defend himself from a legitimate threat. No one is threatening you, westwall. Go to.

 

[Rustic]

Just like having more tax laws having more gun laws is a very bad thing…

 

[hardcoreconservative98]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The "correct way" or the way the right wants people to vote?

I've stated the facts on the 2A many times, and almost every time people will IGNORE the facts because they don't suit their agenda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gorsuch does not think like hardconservative98. Despite the publicity, Gorsuch is not an originalist (no originalist could accept the creation of Citizens United from nothing), and he does believe in precedent.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public


One little quibble: The case might cause SCOTUS to point out that all Americans have always had the right to carry concealed guns in public.

Which they clearly haven't had. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean there is a right to do so.

 

[hardcoreconservative98]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The "correct way" or the way the right wants people to vote?

I've stated the facts on the 2A many times, and almost every time people will IGNORE the facts because they don't suit their agenda.

The correct way, as in the way that is mandated by a thorough reading of the Constitution on this issue.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The "correct way" or the way the right wants people to vote?

I've stated the facts on the 2A many times, and almost every time people will IGNORE the facts because they don't suit their agenda.

The correct way, as in the way that is mandated by a thorough reading of the Constitution on this issue.

Okay, which would mean that the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Seeing as this is how the founders decided it should be, seeing as this is how the Supreme Court has ruled it, and seeing as this is the only way for it to make any sense.....

 

[hardcoreconservative98]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The "correct way" or the way the right wants people to vote?

I've stated the facts on the 2A many times, and almost every time people will IGNORE the facts because they don't suit their agenda.

The correct way, as in the way that is mandated by a thorough reading of the Constitution on this issue.

Okay, which would mean that the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Seeing as this is how the founders decided it should be, seeing as this is how the Supreme Court has ruled it, and seeing as this is the only way for it to make any sense.....

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gorsuch is an originalist and a conservative who believes in gun rights. I have no doubt he'll vote the correct way on this issue, and affirm the Second Amendment's protections are not string you can snap whenever you want to.

The "correct way" or the way the right wants people to vote?

I've stated the facts on the 2A many times, and almost every time people will IGNORE the facts because they don't suit their agenda.

The correct way, as in the way that is mandated by a thorough reading of the Constitution on this issue.

Okay, which would mean that the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Seeing as this is how the founders decided it should be, seeing as this is how the Supreme Court has ruled it, and seeing as this is the only way for it to make any sense.....

I reject your interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly in District of Columbia v. Heller that there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun, and that the Founding Fathers didn't just intend it for militia purposes. I doubt that self-defense was blank from the Founders' minds when they drafted the Constitution.

Well it's not surprising that you reject my interpretation. Everyone does. Why? Well because they have an agenda.

The point is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points to what I have said. I had a debate with someone on here, and they presented nothing, but managed to just ignore everything I presented, which included the Supreme Court both past and present, the Founding Fathers including George Washington.

Also, you don't understand my interpretation, so again, hardly surprising you're rejecting it.

There is an individual right to own a weapon. This is NOT reliant on Militia service. The reason it is protected in the 2A is so that the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need. Rather than relying on govt arms, it relies on those in the general populace.

There is an individual right to be in the militia. This is NOT reliant on militia service. You don't need to be in the militia to then, in a time of need, to then join up the militia.

There is other evidence of this. In the early 20th Century there Dick Act was passed, which made the National Guard. Now, if everyone has the right to be in the militia, then the National Guard would be as ineffective as the militia was at dealing with more modern threats and wars. So they made the "unorganized militia" so that all males aged 17-45 would automatically be in the "militia", but technically rather than in reality, so then these people could demand to be in the militia, which would in effect be the National Guard. There is not other reason to make an "unorganized militia" which has, in over 100 years, never done a single thing, never met, never operated, never called up, never done one thing. It exists for one reason, and that, as I explained, is because the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia, or as the Founding Fathers said "render military service" or "militia duty".