CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[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??

All of the founders said it.

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

I didnt ask what they said,, I asked where is it written in the 2nd A or constitution??

 

[meaner gene]

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,,,

Qualifiers control. Such as the rights given "americans with disabilities" grants them based on the qualifier.

And you can't claim a right to handicapped parking, by ignoring the qualifier.

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,,

Qualifiers control. Such as the rights given "americans with disabilities" grants them based on the qualifier.

And you can't claim a right to handicapped parking, by ignoring the qualifier.

parking isnt a right,,

 

[meaner gene]

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

Not if it's an inalienable right.

adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   
   
   
   

 

[meaner gene]

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?

Pretty much says anything that infringes on "life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness" can be restricted.

 

[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.

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?

thats a stupid comment,,

 

[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.

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,,

Any time a group uses a public space, it's an infringement upon the rest of the people. Whether it's a parade or a demonstration. Hence the 1st amendment can be legally infringed upon for a compelling government interest.

 

[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,,

Any time a group uses a public space, it's an infringement upon the rest of the people. Whether it's a parade or a demonstration. Hence the 1st amendment can be legally infringed upon for a compelling government interest.

not always,,

 

[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.

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

A criminal matter. Laws outline penalties for such behavior.

The misbehavior of one does not cancel the rights of others.

 

[meaner gene]

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

Guns are in a different category. Those you site are short range weapons. A confrontation has to be personal. With guns, a person can exercise their force at great distances, against a great number of people.

 

[ding]

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

Not if it's an inalienable right.

adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   
   
   

Locke and the founding fathers disagree. They believed that we have a duty and an obligation to the Creator to be good stewards and that if we aren't our rights are conditional. It's all in here.

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

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Guns are in a different category. Those you site are short range weapons. A confrontation has to be personal. With guns, a person can exercise their force at great distances, against a great number of people.

making shit up doesnt prove anything,,,

 

[meaner gene]

parking isnt a right,,

It is under ADA.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Not if it's an inalienable right.

adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   
   

Locke and the founding fathers disagree. They believed that we have a duty and an obligation to the Creator to be good stewards and that if we aren't our rights are conditional. It's all in here.

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

where does it say in the 2nd A or constitution what you claim???

 

[progressive hunter]

parking isnt a right,,

It is under ADA.

thats a law not a right,, they lied to you and you believed them,,

 

[meaner gene]

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

thats a stupid comment,,

Actually it's at the heart of being able to restrict a constitutional right.

As long as it doesn't infringe upon others, was how one person put it, as the reasonable standard.

 

[ding]

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

Not if it's an inalienable right.

adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   

Locke and the founding fathers disagree. They believed that we have a duty and an obligation to the Creator to be good stewards and that if we aren't our rights are conditional. It's all in here.

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

where does it say in the 2nd A or constitution what you claim???

Legal positivism leads to idiots only following the letter of the law and was our nations downfall. You sound like one of those people.

Again.... read this.

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

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

thats a stupid comment,,

Actually it's at the heart of being able to restrict a constitutional right.

As long as it doesn't infringe upon others, was how one person put it, as the reasonable standard.

Your logic is amusing.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

It is the way of the progressive to put the restrictions to rally, why is that?

 

[meaner gene]

Any time a group uses a public space, it's an infringement upon the rest of the people. Whether it's a parade or a demonstration. Hence the 1st amendment can be legally infringed upon for a compelling government interest.

not always,,

If not always, give an example. I can wait.