The 2nd Amendment Was The Founding Fathers' 'Carry Permit' Right ('Constitutional Carry') Established For American Citizens

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

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.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Don't even bother arguing with Dan Palos. It will take you down a rabbit hole of circular reasoning, platitudes, and nonsense.

You are arguing with a guy who believes the Dick Act supersedes the intent of the 2A and that the right of "The People" is a collective right, to the direct exclusion of the individual, therefore you have no gun rights.

His arguments are so fucking worthless, your time is better spent elsewhere. I suggest the ignore function.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody believes right wingers are for fair arguments or elections.

 

[easyt65]

Our Constitution is express not implied.

Said no Socialist Democrat EVER.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.

And? So? That changes nothing.

The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia

I live in Texas. why should I give a fuck about what New York's constitution says?

But if anything, it further illustrates the point that the 2A is nothing more than a bar on federal authority, leaving the authority to the states.

But along came the 14th amendment and fucked that all up.

No matter how many different ways you ramble on about your misguided collectivist interpretation, all evidence suggests that the individual right was paramount.

No one with any knowledge of the history and circumstances surrounding the ratification of the US Constitution can say with a straight face that the primary intent of the 2A was anything other than protecting people from an oppressive or tyrannical government. there is no historical dispute among any expert that all of the founders feared a standing army. Both sides of the Federalist and anti-Federalist debate agreed that he standing army was the fastest way to oppress. They both agree that the first thing tyrants would do when taking power, would be to create a standing army and confiscate all weapons from private individuals.

For your interpretation to be correct, you would have to completely disregard all of the historical facts and context surrounding the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.

The best way to secure a free state is to have armed citizens independent of government. More than a few of the founding fathers have made statements in writing to that effect. The clearest example is from not other than George Washington himself.

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
--Washington, 2nd State of the Union Address.


https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0361

 

[danielpalos]

All States have equivalent articles or statutes. It is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

You make a good argument in my opinion, however if, as you assert, it's "Constitutional carry for American citizens" [only], that excluded alot of people, some of whom really needed the protection. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment of your post.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!

lol

Ignorant nonsense.

Laws that require a permit or license to carry a concealed firearm are perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment – they too are Constitutional carry.

Moreover, firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment case law in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

be a man and OWN IT.

You first.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because they understand the Founding Fathers made the right to bear arms an equal right to freedom of speech, the press, etc...a right that does not require government approval / permit and prohibits the government from restricting or stripping that right from them.

Wrong.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

And just as laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons are perfectly Constitutional, so too are laws that license the carrying of concealed firearms perfectly Constitutional.

Indeed, such licensing requirements are needed in jurisdictions where the carrying of a concealed weapon is illegal.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

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.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Don't even bother arguing with Dan Palos. It will take you down a rabbit hole of circular reasoning, platitudes, and nonsense.

You are arguing with a guy who believes the Dick Act supersedes the intent of the 2A and that the right of "The People" is a collective right, to the direct exclusion of the individual, therefore you have no gun rights.

His arguments are so fucking worthless, your time is better spent elsewhere. I suggest the ignore function.

You nailed it. The only part I disagree with is putting him on ignore. His posts are so ridiculously nonsensical they're always good for a laugh.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

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.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Also wrong.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” ibid

An individual right pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘combat’ crime, or act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ and certainly not to oppose ‘tyranny.’

There’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that supports wrongheaded insurrectionist dogma – the ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy of the right.

The Second Amendment does not authorize a minority of citizens to overthrow a lawfully, constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the people because those citizens incorrectly and subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to allow the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

You make a good argument in my opinion, however if, as you assert, it's "Constitutional carry for American citizens" [only], that excluded alot of people, some of whom really needed the protection. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment of your post.

Lawful permanent Resident Aliens and other non-citizens lawfully in the country are protected by the Second Amendment.

May aliens legally in the United States purchase firearms? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit. [18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5)...

www.atf.gov

And both you and the OP are wrong about concealed carry permits, they are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

 

[BlackSand]

That is some imagination. Well regulated militia.

.

Nothing in the Second Amendment forbids Federal, State or Local governments from
forming, arming and regulating a militia ... It does however say that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can satisfy either provision (or both) without violating the other.
There is no reason to pretend otherwise.

.​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

You make a good argument in my opinion, however if, as you assert, it's "Constitutional carry for American citizens" [only], that excluded alot of people, some of whom really needed the protection. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment of your post.

Lawful permanent Resident Aliens and other non-citizens lawfully in the country are protected by the Second Amendment.

May aliens legally in the United States purchase firearms? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit. [18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5)...

www.atf.gov

And both you and the OP are wrong about concealed carry permits, they are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

I was referring to Native Americans and people of African descent not having 2nd amendment right protections.

As far as concealed carry permits being lawful or rather constitutional you're arguing semantics because once SCOTUS makes a ruling then we're stuck with that ruling for the most part - it doesn't mean it was correct.

For example SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no legal duty to protect any particular member of society that they are only required to protect society in general. They have also ruled that the police are allowed to enforce laws that don't actually exist.

So say you are a member of society who needs protection from one or more individuals who keep anonymously threatening to kill you. If you live in one of the may issues states that refuses to issue to you a concealed carry permit you quite likely will be told that your only option is to rely on the police who have already demonstrated no interest or ability to assist you nor do they have a legal obligation to protect you, even if you have been granted a restraining or protection order.

The only legal solution that you have is completely ineffective in serving your needs or offering any protection so it is disingenuous in the least to hold up any of those case law rulings as not infringing upon the rights of a person who finds themself in this particular set of circumstances.

 

[busybee01]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The words well regulated is in there as well. It allows for regulation. Only a far right wing Nazi would come up with this garbage.

 

[BlackSand]

The words well regulated is in there as well. It allows for regulation. Only a far right wing Nazi would come up with this garbage.

.

You can form, arm and regulate a militia without restricting or infringing upon the Citizens rights.
Any absence of a law that does so, is not an excuse to pretend the Federal Government is granted the power to infringe upon the Citizen's rights.

Stop pretending, and making shit up because it doesn't suit your desires.
What you suggest is not what the Second Amendment states or means.

.​

 

[jillian]

Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....

If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

And the only crime set forth in the constitution was treason, ihit. The right to a gin was to defend the governments. they said well-regulated militia because there was no standing army at that time.

thanks for once again pricing the lack of education exhibited every day by ignorant trumpscum.

 

[jillian]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The words well regulated is in there as well. It allows for regulation. Only a far right wing Nazi would come up with this garbage.

Or someone spreading Russian BS

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

Here.....started reading this, he covers all of this....

 

[2aguy]

Pro gun anti gun nuts, we have way to many people with no respect for guns, Who started this whole deal with carrying Guns in public places? why would you need a gun at the grocery store flea mt or to go to lunch?

The colonists did.........and before that the English.........

When a crazy person targets a gun free zone, that is why you need a gun.....

Mass public shooters stop shooting people when good people with guns show up....then the shooters commit suicide, surrender or run away.....

Then you have other criminals conducting robberies and democrats beating up Asian people and Jewish people in public places...we need guns to stop those democrats.