Supreme Court should rule 2nd Amendment as absolute for all states in the United States.

[Abatis]

Here's what it says.

Since you seem so concerned over what the Constitution "says", you should try to align your thinking with the foundational principles of the Constitution. Someday you might understand the right of the people to keep and bear arms in no manner depends on what the 2nd Amendment "says".

The right to arms is possessed by the people because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

IOW, the RKBA does not depend on what the 2nd Amendment says, it depends on what the body of the Constitution doesn't say . . .

 

[M14 Shooter]

See my point? You don't need semi automatic weapons nor most of the others ones either.
Its pure tough guy ego.

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Here's what it says.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Notice you are not regarded as the militia?


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
I don't disagree. My point is and always has been, why do you all have 6 guns that are never used for the purpose they are made. Youve never attempted to get rid of tyrannical govts like Obama and Biden. You said the relation was fraudulent and still never fired a shot.

See my point? You don't need semi automatic weapons nor most of the others ones either.
Its pure tough guy ego.

We absolutely need semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles. We need automatic weapons, too.

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?

 

[Colin norris]

We absolutely need semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles. We need automatic weapons, too.

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?

Why would you need those weapons?
You have no use for them. There will be no invasion. You havent the guts to storm the wh. You don't need it for personal protection. You want it because of your egotistical tough guy American image. End of story.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why would you need those weapons?
You have no use for them. There will be no invasion. You havent the guts to storm the wh. You don't need it for personal protection. You want it because of your egotistical tough guy American image. End of story.

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Stiff shit. The 2nd is well out of date.
It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.

And you have no justification for your opinion.

 

[Colin norris]

And you have no justification for your opinion.

My opinion is good enough for me. If you dont like it, get a ticket, get in line and kiss my butt.

Its no different to you not having a reason to own a cupboard full of guns you don't use.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Not whatever. You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.

The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?

And also clearly states the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders are clear about and individuals rights as well. all you loons have is feelings and opinions.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"The said Constitution [shall] 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." — Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

My opinion is good enough for me. If you dont like it, get a ticket, get in line and kiss my butt.

Its no different to you not having a reason to own a cupboard full of guns you don't use.

I don't need a reason for exercising my Constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[Colin norris]

I don't need a reason for exercising my Constitutional right to bear arms.

Duuuuuuuh
Thats what i just said dickhead. If you were any slower you'd be in reverse.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Duuuuuuuh
Thats what i just said dickhead. If you were any slower you'd be in reverse.

No, you said the is no reason to have firearms. For some reason you loons do not understand that without the 2nd Amendment there are no other rights. Your freedom of speech will be gone the moment the government takes away my right to bear arms.

 

[Colin norris]

No, you said the is no reason to have firearms.

no. I said you have no reason to have so many guns.

For some reason you loons do not understand that without the 2nd Amendment there are no other rights.

only a fool would believe owning a gun would give you freedom and rights. The people who don't have a gun have the same rights and freedoms as you. Your argument is shit.

Your freedom of speech will be gone the moment the government takes away my right to bear arms.

When have you ever exercise you freedom of speech accompanied by a gun? Do you think you are entitled to write on this forum because you have a gun,,? Of course not. I don't have one and I'm on here.
You don't seem to give your ramblings much thought.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

no. I said you have no reason to have so many guns.

only a fool would believe owning a gun would give you freedom and rights. The people who don't have a gun have the same rights and freedoms as you. Your argument is shit.

When have you ever exercise you freedom of speech accompanied by a gun? Do you think you are entitled to write on this forum because you have a gun,,? Of course not. I don't have one and I'm on here.
You don't seem to give your ramblings much thought.

The freedoms we have are because of the 2nd. The government can not take away the rights of an armed populace willing to use those firearms to retain those freedoms, not without killing a large faction of the population. I took an oath to defend the Constitution even for worthless people like yourself who won't fight for shit.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Why would you need those weapons?
You have no use for them. There will be no invasion. You havent the guts to storm the wh. You don't need it for personal protection. You want it because of your egotistical tough guy American image. End of story.

You got it backwards: there hasn't been an invasion because we have guns. The government hasn't oppressed the citizenry because we have guns. So, yes we need them and because we have them, we are safer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My opinion is good enough for me. If you dont like it, get a ticket, get in line and kiss my butt.
Its no different to you not having a reason to own a cupboard full of guns you don't use.

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.

 

[Open Bolt]

Stiff shit. The 2nd is well out of date.

No. Freedom and civil liberties will never be out of date.

It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.

That is the thing about free people. We do whatever we want, and we never justify ourselves to anyone.

You sir, should be asked for a reasonable excuse to carry that weapon.

We won't be. As free people we do not have to justify ourselves.

Personal protection, hunting and the 2nd are not justification.

That is incorrect. People carry guns for both hunting and personal protection.

The saturation of guns has caused hundreds if thousands if unnecessary deaths if bliss but you still use that as a by product not freedom.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but changes in gun availability do not cause any significant changes in homicide rates.

What a pathetically irresponsible human being you are.

Nonsense. Most gun owners are quite responsible.

Rubbish. There is not one mention of a god given right in the constitution.
Perhaps you could post where it says that.
I know you can't.

God given rights is just another way of saying natural rights.

The thing about natural rights is, they don't have to be mentioned anywhere. By their very nature they automatically transcend all law.

Not whatever. You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.

He is not wrong (and I doubt that he assumed). Self defense is indeed a natural right that transcends all law.

The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?

You are mistaken. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to members of any military body.

Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.

The spoon comment was a reference to obesity, not to killing.

You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.

No we won't. Free people do what we want, and we don't bother making excuses.

Notice you are not regarded as the militia?

Irrelevant. The right belongs to the people, not to members of any military body.

 

[Open Bolt]

The two are not connected by the constitution.
Your right self defense doesn't include to use guns to do it.

However, when you combine "the natural right to self defense" with "the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms" you end up with people who have the right to have guns, and the right to use those guns in self defense.

It does not mention self defense in the 2nd.

It doesn't have to. It mentions that people have the right to keep arms.

The right to defend yourself with your arms comes automatically with the possession of those arms.

Got it. Wheres the well armed militia? Youre not it.

Who cares? Why are you changing the subject to the militia when we are talking about the right of the people?

thats right and it doesn't say anything about self defence.

It doesn't have to. It says the people have the right to keep arms.

The self defense part come automatically.

thats because it makes a specific reference to a military type protection. Not a rag tag bunch of wannabe rambos puffing up their egos.

Are you changing the subject to the militia again? It clearly states that it is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms.

They do not disagree with me nor have they ever adjudicated on the validity if the 2nd.

Wrong. The Supreme Court has done both, multiple times.

Why don't you accept you are incapable of interpreting what it meant.

Probably because he is more than capable of interpreting it.

no. I said you have no reason to have so many guns.

Free people don't need a reason.

only a fool would believe owning a gun would give you freedom and rights.

That's all twisted around and backwards. It is our freedom and rights that allow us to have guns.

The people who don't have a gun have the same rights and freedoms as you.

Not all of them. Some people are without guns because they lack freedom.

When have you ever exercise you freedom of speech accompanied by a gun?

Open carry advocates do it all the time.

 

[Open Bolt]

I don't need a reason for exercising my Constitutional right to bear arms.

^This.

That's all that needs to be said.

Bravo!

 

[Open Bolt]

The Second Amendment is neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose; the Court will be making no such ruling, nor should it.

No right is unlimited. Otherwise there would only be a single right, and it would be a right to do anything you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want.

Rights are pretty absolute though. If a law violates a right, that law is unconstitutional.

The may issue provision before the Court now concerns solely that provision, nothing else.

The ruling on New York's may issue carry law will impact all other may issue carry laws.

The new standard of review will impact every single gun law in the Untied States.

 

[Colin norris]

However, when you combine "the natural right to self defense" with "the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms" you end up with people who have the right to have guns, and the right to use those guns in self defense.

When was the last time you defended yourself. I'll say never and you know it.

It doesn't have to. It mentions that people have the right to keep arms.

That doesn't relate to the issue in the op.

The right to defend yourself with your arms comes automatically with the possession of those arms.

It does not and it doesn't say that anywhere.

Who cares? Why are you changing the subject to the militia when we are talking about the right of the people?

Because it says well armed militia in the 2nd. Rambos like you are not militia.

It doesn't have to. It says the people have the right to keep arms.

I know that but its not compulsory.

The self defense part come automatically.

Rubbish. Thats your take on it. You lot haven't come far from the wild west.

Are you changing the subject to the militia again? It clearly states that it is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms.

It also says states to keep a well armed militia. Youre right to bear arms is not militia connected. It means military.

Wrong. The Supreme Court has done both, multiple times.



Probably because he is more than capable of interpreting it.



Free people don't need a reason.

Isn't everyone in modern Western societies free? America didn't invent freedom and neither does any country want to import it. Youre all gun nuts.

That's all twisted around and backwards. It is our freedom and rights that allow us to have guns.

Well whoopee. Does it say anything g about you not needing them other than your ego?

Not all of them. Some people are without guns because they lack freedom.

How can you possibly interpret that a person without a gun doesn't have freedom? What about half thr population that chose to not carry? Do they have a different freedom to you? Of course not you idiot. Youre just a wannabe tough guy rambo and smear people who won't concede to you egotistical gun culture. Its gutless bastardsblije you who won't walk anywhere without a gun. home of the brave my arse.

Open carry advocates do it all the time.

Good luck to them. That doesn't make it right.

Stick with yoir bible son. Ask God is it ok to act like an idiot.