What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
1,461
Points
903
Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

The point is that a requirement for a permit, and a requirement for specific training to obtain that permit, creates an irresistible opportunity for a corrupt state to make that training and permit difficult and/or expensive to obtain. The same principle, exactly, that was behind the poll taxes used to selectively disenfranchise certain elements of the citizenry a few generations ago.

I do agree that there is great value in having everyone who is going to exercise their Second Amendment rights, in being trained in how to safely and properly do so. But that training needs to be easily and freely available to any who wish to seek it, and there needs to be no opportunity to use anyone's inability to easily obtain it as an excuse to deny them their rights.

I say that such training should be made a standard part of every high school curriculum; and with that, there should be an underlying assumption that any adult has no excuse not to understand the principles instilled in such training.


Don't forget Literacy tests used by the democrats to also deny blacks and the poor the ability to vote......
They need to bring those back, actually. The reasons for doing away with them are long gone.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
1,461
Points
903
Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?
Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

I lot of things aren't in the Bill Of Rights, but in any case like most everything else it's a states' rights issue, and the Fed can't dictate how a state goes about handling the specifics of determining gun rights, at least according to the premises of original intent, same as was the case with established religious sects; the Fed couldn't order any state to dis-establish their state sects, the establishment clause barred the Feds from establishing a nationally favored sect, mainly aimed at heading off the Federalists from making the Anglican sect a national sect.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
1,461
Points
903
Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

The point is that a requirement for a permit, and a requirement for specific training to obtain that permit, creates an irresistible opportunity for a corrupt state to make that training and permit difficult and/or expensive to obtain. The same principle, exactly, that was behind the poll taxes used to selectively disenfranchise certain elements of the citizenry a few generations ago.

I do agree that there is great value in having everyone who is going to exercise their Second Amendment rights, in being trained in how to safely and properly do so. But that training needs to be easily and freely available to any who wish to seek it, and there needs to be no opportunity to use anyone's inability to easily obtain it as an excuse to deny them their rights.

I say that such training should be made a standard part of every high school curriculum; and with that, there should be an underlying assumption that any adult has no excuse not to understand the principles instilled in such training.
I say that such training should be made a standard part of every high school curriculum; and with that, there should be an underlying assumption that any adult has no excuse not to understand the principles instilled in such training.

That would work; it could be made part of the PE curriculum, as it is in some schools, or used to be. The ROTC training officers at our high school offered free rifle training to any student for free when I went to Jr. High. It was a small school, though; don't know how it would work at some of these monster schools that are the size of small towns, though.
 

Mr Joe

Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
32
Reaction score
8
Points
11
There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.

The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.

On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.

And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?

I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.

Opinions?
So I can buy a nuke?
Very wealthy Americans probably could.
But the rights you claim so often infringe on the rights of others and that's the problem with the 2nd. amendment clusterf--k rights.
Have all the weapons you like but just keep them in your own country for killing each other.
I'm in the US. Why can't I buy a nuke?
 

andaronjim

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
27,505
Reaction score
13,879
Points
1,415
Location
Floor E Da
Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?
Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

I lot of things aren't in the Bill Of Rights, but in any case like most everything else it's a states' rights issue, and the Fed can't dictate how a state goes about handling the specifics of determining gun rights, at least according to the premises of original intent, same as was the case with established religious sects; the Fed couldn't order any state to dis-establish their state sects, the establishment clause barred the Feds from establishing a nationally favored sect, mainly aimed at heading off the Federalists from making the Anglican sect a national sect.
The constitution is the end all when it comes to people's rights....Now if you break the law then you give up your rights, but alas progs cant have that, because they need criminals to vote for them...
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
16,091
Reaction score
7,991
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
I'm in the US. Why can't I buy a nuke?

Most sovereign nations do not have the resources to obtain a nuke.

If that ever changes—if the technology and materials necessary to produce a nuclear weapon become cheap enough and abundant enough to make it realistically possible for some individuals to obtain them—then we can have the argument about whether they should be allowed to do so.
 

Mr Joe

Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
32
Reaction score
8
Points
11
I'm in the US. Why can't I buy a nuke?

Most sovereign nations do not have the resources to obtain a nuke.

If that ever changes—if the technology and materials necessary to produce a nuclear weapon become cheap enough and abundant enough to make it realistically possible for some individuals to obtain them—then we can have the argument about whether they should be allowed to do so.
That's just it, "allowed", either the 2nd already allows it or the 2nd is being infringed. Which is it?
 

krichton

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
461
Reaction score
256
Points
168
I agree, the second amendment must be unconditional.. Every black person should be allowed to be armed to the teeth, including ex cons.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
16,413
Reaction score
6,050
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam

Well regulated means to be in good condition or to be well kept.

Which also means trained, so do you find it a violation of the Second Amendment to demand people have a permit to carry proving their shooting skills are "in good condition" and "well kept?"
.

The Federal, State and Local Governments are not forbidden from forming, arming and regulating a militia.
That can be done without restricting or infringing on the individual's right to bear arms.

There is no need to pretend otherwise,
and suggest the Second Amendment grants the Federal Government a power that is doesn't.


.
 
Last edited:

Damaged Eagle

Angels have fallen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
16,186
Reaction score
22,551
Points
2,445
Location
Inside a window that leads to your conscience
1623158138331.png


If law enforcement can have it in their armory then I should be able to purchase it and have it too.

If we're going to restrict certain weapons and accessories to the purview of the military and I can't purchase it legally then law enforcement should not have it either.

*****SMILE*****


:)
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
16,413
Reaction score
6,050
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
View attachment 498597

If law enforcement can have it in their armory then I should be able to purchase it and have it too.

If we're going to restrict certain weapons and accessories to the purview of the military and I can't purchase it legally then law enforcement should not have it either.

*****SMILE*****


:)
.

A private citizen could own this when the Constitution was ratified.

1623158570787.png


It wasn't for hunting, unless you were hunting Pirates.

.
 

Damaged Eagle

Angels have fallen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
16,186
Reaction score
22,551
Points
2,445
Location
Inside a window that leads to your conscience
View attachment 498597

If law enforcement can have it in their armory then I should be able to purchase it and have it too.

If we're going to restrict certain weapons and accessories to the purview of the military and I can't purchase it legally then law enforcement should not have it either.

*****SMILE*****


:)
.

A private citizen could own this when the Constitution was ratified.

View attachment 498607

It wasn't for hunting, unless you were hunting Pirates.

.
1623159526619.png


The police force where I live all have AR-15's in their patrol cars. My state hasn't called for a ban on AR-15's yet. However I asked a friend who's a police officer if they're ready to turn their AR-15's over to the National Guard armory in town if the state did ban them. He saw my point.

*****SMILE*****


:)
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top