CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[ding]

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.

Well regulated was a phrase used commonly back then and means in proper working order. When the constitution refers to regulations it specified the regulations.

 

[Donald H]

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.

You're suggesting some conditions or restrictions to the 2nd. amendment?

You've come to the right place to spell them out!

As a reminder, the premise of this thread is that the 2nd. amendment isn't conditional or limited.

At least that's true until the conditions or limits can be stated.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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?"

Do you have any idea about concealed carry? What it takes to earn that title? In Florida it usually takes 2 months to have your conceal license issued but being a veteran the process was sped up to 2 weeks. But then again, i already had a Utah CC and Virginia CC before i had my Florida one.

I do. I own five guns, have a concealed carry permit for my state of Nevada and I too have the Utah permit. My brother has around 40 to 50 guns, but he's also a cop and kind of nuts.

So back to my question, do you find the requirement of some states to have a permit to carry concealed an infringement of the 2A?

Why is it an infringement to carry concealed if all law abiding citizens are allow to conceal carry? Now what is happening in Blue States like New York is an infringement on the second amendment and is being heard at the Supreme Court.

MSN

www.msn.com

This argument can be used that if a Gay Marriage certificate (which is state issued) must be recognized in other states, then a conceal carry license(which is state issued) must be recognized inn other states. Equal Protection Clause....

 

[meaner gene]

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.

Imagine how much differently January 6th would have gone if the Trump supporters had unfettered 2nd amendment rights.

 

[ding]

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?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."​

​

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28​

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."​

​

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28​

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."​

​

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788​

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"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; …"​

​

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"​

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788​

​

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787​

​

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789​

​

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788​

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[Kilroy2]

Gun rights cannot be unconditional and there will always be conditions. The 2nd amendment was for the use of guns for militia purposes which is a condition. Militia referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and even states from the British. Since the British are no longer a threat it is not necessary. IF they ever become a threat then the 2nd amendment will be useful. Now it just a reason for the NRA to collect money. IF the state wants citizens to carry guns then they will regulate it as they should.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

Yes indeed. Scalia in his decision upheld the Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, and other similar gun control laws.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

WRONG WRONG WRONG,,,

regulated in this context mean to make regular and that means all must have well working weapons equal to that which could be used against them,,,

if it meant what you say it would be in the second part of the statement where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

 

[Donald H]

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.

Well regulated was a phrase used commonly back then and means in proper working order. When the constitution refers to regulations it specified the regulations.

You're about as ignorant on the meaning of conditions here on this thread as you've proven to be in the 'religion' section.

What's to stop the gun murderer from walking into a gun shop and buying a truckload of AR-15's?

His skin colour?

 

[progressive hunter]

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?"

Do you have any idea about concealed carry? What it takes to earn that title? In Florida it usually takes 2 months to have your conceal license issued but being a veteran the process was sped up to 2 weeks. But then again, i already had a Utah CC and Virginia CC before i had my Florida one.

I do. I own five guns, have a concealed carry permit for my state of Nevada and I too have the Utah permit. My brother has around 40 to 50 guns, but he's also a cop and kind of nuts.

So back to my question, do you find the requirement of some states to have a permit to carry concealed an infringement of the 2A?

of course its an infringement,,

 

[meaner gene]

Felons forfeit their rights to own guns--or even possess them when they commit the crime.

Where does the constitution say they can do that?

It doesn't. And any sort of absolute right to guns, has to include ALL of "the people"

 

[ding]

The intent is for peaceable law abiding citizens to own and possess the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that would be semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, Donald H

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Nope. That is definitely NOT what it means.

 

[meaner gene]

Well Regulated refers to the Militia, no effect on the Right of the People to keep and Bear arms.

In their day, the people were the militia. There was no standing army, and the states guards were made up of able bodied men, who were required to be equipped with gun, flask and 30 bullets.

 

[ding]

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.

Well regulated was a phrase used commonly back then and means in proper working order. When the constitution refers to regulations it specified the regulations.

You're about as ignorant on the meaning of conditions here on this thread as you've proven to be in the 'religion' section.

What's to stop the gun murderer from walking into a gun shop and buying a truckload of AR-15's?

His skin colour?

Again... The intent of the 2nd Amendment is for peaceable law abiding citizens to own and possess the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that would be semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines.

 

[progressive hunter]

The intent is for peaceable law abiding citizens to own and possess the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that would be semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, Donald H

wrong,,
its for any weapon that may be used against you,,

and no where does it say law abiding citizens,,

 

[ding]

The intent is for peaceable law abiding citizens to own and possess the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that would be semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, Donald H

wrong,,
its for any weapon that may be used against you,,

and no where does it say law abiding citizens,,

Inalienable rights are not unconditional. If you are a felon you give up your rights.

"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; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

 

[Donald H]

When you people get over the shock of having to face reality, just let me know.

The intent of this thread is to make it crystal clear that paying the price of dozens of little children murdered in their classrooms is a price that has to be paid for upholding your 2nd. amendment.

Concealed carry on not, the children won't appreciate the difference.

So back to the topic: What possible gun laws can be enacted?

 

[progressive hunter]

The intent is for peaceable law abiding citizens to own and possess the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that would be semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, Donald H

wrong,,
its for any weapon that may be used against you,,

and no where does it say law abiding citizens,,

Inalienable rights are not unconditional. If you are a felon you give up your rights.

"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; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

if thats what they meant they would have wrote it that way,,

 

[meaner gene]

Militia referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and even states from the British. Since the British are no longer a threat it is not necessary.

The 2nd wasn't written for a specific threat, but threats in general against the tyranny that states feared from a strong central government.

It was so the states could muster a well regulated force to repel against the federal government if need be. Such as if they tried to impose taxes without representation.