CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[progressive hunter]

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?

none,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

and also foreign threats,,,

 

[ding]

Opinions?

My opinion is don't you believe you should be honest about your desire to ban and confiscate all guns?

 

[alang1216]

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?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

 

[meaner gene]

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,,,

I have to quote you by saying WRONG WRONG WRONG

Well regulated militia was for the states arming and training their able bodied men to act as a fighting force they could use to defend their state or their country.

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,,

I have to quote you by saying WRONG WRONG WRONG

Well regulated militia was for the states arming and training their able bodied men to act as a fighting force they could use to defend their state or their country.

the well regulated part of the 2nd is just a qualifier for the second part that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,

other than that it has no power,,,

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

The practice of Constitutional rights is unrestricted so long as you do not interfere with the Constitutional rights of others.

 

[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"

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

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

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Opinions?

They're gonna get the guns eventually.

The Second Amendment Requires Private Citizens to Form a Posse and Shoot All Rioters Dead

The Democrats will take away your God. They will take away your guns. They will take away your guts.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

all those effect other people and are bad examples,,

try using the 5th and say a state can change it and execute people without trial,,,

 

[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,,

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

wheres it say that??

 

[alang1216]

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?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

The practice of Constitutional rights is unrestricted so long as you do not interfere with the Constitutional rights of others.

Do I have a Constitutional right not to get shot by your gun?

 

[meaner gene]

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,,

Wouldn't needing a permit to hold a rally, be a restriction of the 1st amendment akin to a carry permit being a restriction on the 2nd.

Yet how can a secondary amendment, require greater rights than a primary one.

How they can restrict the 1st, says they can place the same upon the the 2nd.

 

[Blues Man]

Opinions?

They're gonna get the guns eventually.

Who is again?

The government. They'll win. It'll be like in Europe eventually.

Not before I'm dead. After IDGAF

 

[alang1216]

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?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

all those effect other people and are bad examples,,

try using the 5th and say a state can change it and execute people without trial,,,

Many guns are sold explicitly to affect other people, as in to stop them from living.

 

[Blues Man]

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?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

The practice of Constitutional rights is unrestricted so long as you do not interfere with the Constitutional rights of others.

Do I have a Constitutional right not to get shot by your gun?

No one has the right to discharge a weapon.

In fact there are many laws that restrict when and where firearms can be legally discharged. And you have a 99.9997% chance of not being murdered by a person using a gun so stop being so afraid.

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,

Wouldn't needing a permit to hold a rally, be a restriction of the 1st amendment akin to a carry permit being a restriction on the 2nd.

Yet how can a secondary amendment, require greater rights than a primary one.

How they can restrict the 1st, says they can place the same upon the the 2nd.

I disagree with the restrictions on the first when it doesnt effect other people,,

now if they want to block a street or take over a campus that requires a permit because it effects other peoples rights,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

all those effect other people and are bad examples,,

try using the 5th and say a state can change it and execute people without trial,,,

Many guns are sold explicitly to affect other people, as in to stop them from living.

wrong,,,

that is what people do with them,, just like knives, bats or even a rock,, do we need permits for those??

 

[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"

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

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

wheres it say that??

All of the founders said it.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr

 

[Anomalism]

After IDGAF

Selfish.