CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[BlackSand]

​

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*****

.

They aren't stupid ... A deputy told me that if the Government lost their mind, and he showed up at my house,
It would just be for more ammo and figuring our what we were going to do next.

That was after I was giving crap about needing to roll the Sheriff Department's Urban Combat Vehicle and SWAT team,
to round up some loose cows on Highway 5.

.​

 

[Mac-7]

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.

The problem is that its democrats who want to restore full civil rights to convicted felons and republicans who do not

 

[sartre play]

Gun owner, But two recent incidents, Lady shoots up a car with family with children Because she was tailgating & the driver flashed his lights at her. Woman out with young son shoots at barking dog, misses and shoots own son. Some people should Not have guns.

 

[badbob85037]

The Second Amendment also says well regulated, which mean reasonable restrictions are allowed, which even Justice Scalia acknowledged in the decision of Heller v D.C. The ongoing issue is what is considered to be reasonable.

Oh so that's what that means. Which one of our founders said that? Thomas Jefferson said “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Washington said “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping THEIR OWN ARMS; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of someone or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” “The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Alexander Hamilton Maybe you should read this next one twice. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin "To disarm the people... is the most effectual way to enslave them." – George Mason I still haven't ran across any founder saying that shit you were barkin

 

[BlackSand]

The problem is that its democrats who want to restore full civil rights to convicted felons and republicans who do not

.

There is a difference in an individual suffering the consequences of breaking the law ...
And the Federal Government overstepping its powers and writing a law that punishes the citizens who aren't breaking the law.

Furthermore ... The people that support the Government overstepping their powers
are going to point to the Federal Government's inability to effectively enforce the laws they already have
as a reason to grant them more power.

If the only way the Federal Government can handle the crime, is to punish the people not breaking the law ...
Get A Clue ... They are not looking out for your best interests, but protecting themselves from you.

.​

 

[DudleySmith]

the Fed can't dictate how a state goes about handling the specifics of determining gun rights

And his is supposed to be a "clean" debate zone. Get that wad of chewing tobacco out of your mouth.

Pipe down, troll. Just because it's the CDC doesn't mean you aren't still a moron.

 

[2aguy]

Gun owner, But two recent incidents, Lady shoots up a car with family with children Because she was tailgating & the driver flashed his lights at her. Woman out with young son shoots at barking dog, misses and shoots own son. Some people should Not have guns.

Yep...that is why we have laws that make it a crime to shoot people....unless it is self defense......

The problem?

The cops actually arrest known, repeat gun offenders over and over again.....the democrat party prosecutors plea bargain the gun charges away, and the judges set low bail, home monitoring, or cashless bail.....and then they sentence the known, repeat, violent gun offenders to light sentences, allowing them back on the street, sometimes in less than 3 years......all thanks to laws created by democrat party politicians......

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Unlike the First Amendment, however, Second Amendment case law is in its infancy, still evolving, as to what regulations and restrictions are within the scope of the Second Amendment and which are not – but the fact remains that the Second Amendment is in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute.’

Here is where we disagree as to intent.

There are countless attempted interpretations of the 2A, but only ONE interpretation gives meaning to the Amendment, in its entirety.

The original meaning of the 2A is unequivocally a ban on federal authority. That's all. Nothing more.

Each and every other way in which the 2A is interpreted leads us to a stupid result.

So, yes, the 2A is absolute, in that it SHOULD BE interpreted as a ban on federal authority and nothing more.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Which is why the 14th Amendment is such a clumsy POS. Now the Feds can dictate ANYTHING via the 14th.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gun owner, But two recent incidents, Lady shoots up a car with family with children Because she was tailgating & the driver flashed his lights at her. Woman out with young son shoots at barking dog, misses and shoots own son. Some people should Not have guns.

MANDATORY gun safety training in all government high schools could fix a lot of that nonsense.

 

[sarahgop]

The best idea is to obey the constitution. The founding Fathers were wise far beyond us.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The original meaning of the 2A is unequivocally a ban on federal authority. That's all. Nothing more.

Each and every other way in which the 2A is interpreted leads us to a stupid result.

So, yes, the 2A is absolute, in that it SHOULD BE interpreted as a ban on federal authority and nothing more.

The rights to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated as belonging to THE PEOPLE, and the Second Amendment explicitly states that this right shall not be infringed.

It does not say that only the federal government is forbidden from infringing this right. Especially when you make note that the Tenth Amendment refers to powers belonging to the federal government, powers that belong to the states, and powers that belong to THE PEOPLE; and then make note of to whom the Second Amendment attributes the right to keep and bear arms; I do not see any honest or rational argument to be made that any level of any part of government, from the federal government all the way down to the smallest township, is permitted to infringe on this right.

 

[DudleySmith]

The original meaning of the 2A is unequivocally a ban on federal authority. That's all. Nothing more.

Each and every other way in which the 2A is interpreted leads us to a stupid result.

So, yes, the 2A is absolute, in that it SHOULD BE interpreted as a ban on federal authority and nothing more.

The rights to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated as belonging to THE PEOPLE, and the Second Amendment explicitly states that this right shall not be infringed.

It does not say that only the federal government is forbidden from infringing this right. Especially when you make note that the Tenth Amendment refers to powers belonging to the federal government, powers that belong to the states, and powers that belong to THE PEOPLE; and then make note of to whom the Second Amendment attributes the right to keep and bear arms; I do not see any honest or rational argument to be made that any level of any part of government, from the federal government all the way down to the smallest township, is permitted to infringe on this right.

States had gun control laws both before and after the Constitution was passed, most of them were changed by state courts, not Federal courts over most of our history. Not a single SC case was ever filed over western marshals and sheriffs imposing restrictions on carrying firearms in many town and cites, which was pretty often, and nobody would have thought they didn't have a legal right to do so. Going by actual practice over ideological rhetoric, it's clear the vast majority did indeed accept that states and municipalities had every right to restrict firearms in their jurisdictions.

As for 'The People', the states also decided who the elites thought qualified as 'People', too, as evidenced by the restrictions on who could vote and own property.

 

[DudleySmith]

The best idea is to obey the constitution. The founding Fathers were wise far beyond us.

Yes, well most people here think there were only three 'Founders', one of which wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention at all and had no say in it until after the fact. And, most entirely ignore all that other stuff they said that doesn't fit their personal beliefs.

And, the majority of Founders rejected having a Bill of Rights at all at the Convention; those weren't passed til a few years later, in 1791.

 

[danielpalos]

The rights to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated as belonging to THE PEOPLE, and the Second Amendment explicitly states that this right shall not be infringed.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

 

[justinacolmena]

The cops actually arrest known, repeat gun offenders over and over again....

The "cops" in these cases need to be taught a lesson in constitutional, civil, and human rights. That sort of life-ruining misconduct on the part of hired enforcers of city hall mob rule is capital.

 

[DudleySmith]

The rights to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated as belonging to THE PEOPLE, and the Second Amendment explicitly states that this right shall not be infringed.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

The whole 'Militia' fantasy went away pretty quickly; too many couldn't afford the equipment for one, and Jefferson as President had to resort to a standing Federal Army to enforce his embargoes in his second term.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Disagree. The 2nd Amendment should never be taken out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility of using defense to uphold laws, rights and protections. Not to violate any.

All the 2A advocates I've encountered already assume responsibility for the law as part of Constitutional beliefs.

If you notice, the opponents pushing further regulations do so because they don't believe in Constitutional laws and limits as their belief system.

That is why these arguments go back and forth.

The solution would involve specifying instead of just assuming the person bearing arms agrees to the same Constitutional protections, and right to life liberty and security, or else the people who take laws out of this context will try to add such protections back in if they aren't stated.

Conservatives take this for granted, but liberals need it spelled out.

 

[danielpalos]

The rights to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated as belonging to THE PEOPLE, and the Second Amendment explicitly states that this right shall not be infringed.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

The whole 'Militia' fantasy went away pretty quickly; too many couldn't afford the equipment for one, and Jefferson as President had to resort to a standing Federal Army to enforce his embargoes in his second term.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[justinacolmena]

All the 2A advocates I've encountered already assume responsibility for the law as part of Constitutional beliefs.

If I am not a murderer, others shouldn't have any problems at all with my owning or possessing or carrying firearms.

Otherwise they are bearers of false witness against me.