What would you do with the second amendment?

[ThunderKiss1965]

No its the prefatory clause it's just an introduction, the operative clause is the functional part of the 2nd Amendment "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",

Only Congress may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and them enacted as laws in our Republic.

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied; and clearly Expresses what is Necessary to the security of a free State. It is Not, implied.

Capitalism is not expressed, but merely implied in our Constitution.

I know; socialism is always the answer, when it really really matters. Capitalism "cannot be trusted".

Socialism and all of its forms are responsible for more deaths than any sociopolitical ideology in history. Around 150 million and counting and all of those deaths have come in a little over 100 years.

socialism requires social morals for free; coincidence or conspiracy, right wingers.

Riiiiight. 150 million dead that's some fucked up morals.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

No its the prefatory clause it's just an introduction, the operative clause is the functional part of the 2nd Amendment "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",

Only Congress may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and them enacted as laws in our Republic.

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied; and clearly Expresses what is Necessary to the security of a free State. It is Not, implied.

Capitalism is not expressed, but merely implied in our Constitution.

I know; socialism is always the answer, when it really really matters. Capitalism "cannot be trusted".

Nothing I said either expressed or implied anything about socialism. The simple fact is that the Constitution says nothing directly about capitalism.

It does recognize ownership, so there fore implies capitalism to some degree.

Try to read what is written and not pay attention to all those bugs flying around in your brain.

Social-ism starts with a social Contract.

And ends with the suppression of the people.

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

COTUS never mentions guns. The 2nd A. uses the term arms. If the verbiage is to be taken literally, every form of arms should be available to every person within our borders, including those who are not citizens of the US.

Do you agree, or do you believe such an interpretation is not what the Founders meant?

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

 

[kaz]

Congress should pass an amendment that does not reverse, but instead clarifies the 2nd amendment right to own guns.

It should allow the federal government, states and local governments to place limits on who can own guns and what types of guns can be owned.

It would pretty much just restate the current defacto status of gun laws and regulations - except that the federal government could create limitations that would apply nationally..

So why would the founding fathers have bothered? Why bother writing a right that Congress can determine what it means? Isn't that saying you don't have a right to bear arms? Why would they waste their time putting that in the Bill of Rights?

You have the right to bear arms. But only how and if Congress decides that you do. That is an inviolable right!!!! If Congress decides you can bear arms, darn it, you can bear them!

BTW, you obviously haven't read their additional writing where they talked about how disarming the population was a great way to foster tyranny

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

COTUS never mentions guns. The 2nd A. uses the term arms. If the verbiage is to be taken literally, every form of arms should be available to every person within our borders, including those who are not citizens of the US.

Do you agree, or do you believe such an interpretation is not what the Founders meant?

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

A. We the People

Q. Who wrote "We the People" and who signed off on COTUS

Q. Who wrote the 2nd A. and what was their motivation, given the circumstances most observed during the Revolutionary War. [Hint: Read the 3rd. A.]

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

COTUS never mentions guns. The 2nd A. uses the term arms. If the verbiage is to be taken literally, every form of arms should be available to every person within our borders, including those who are not citizens of the US.

Do you agree, or do you believe such an interpretation is not what the Founders meant?

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

A. We the People

Q. Who wrote "We the People" and who signed off on COTUS

Right. We the People are Citizens of the United States. The Constitution wasn't written by foreigners, it was written by and for the Citizens of the United States.

Leftists constantly throw in the stupid shit that you did

 

[ptbw forever]

Expand it to include the private ownership of nuclear and atomic weapons.

 

[kaz]

Expand it to include the private ownership of nuclear and atomic weapons.

That isn't an expansion, that's what it says. Again though, I'll ask you the question that other leftists always run and hide from. Where are you going to get those? The Second Amendment says government cannot prohibit you from having them. It does not say Government must provide you with them

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

We already know what the Constitution says about the matter, you’ll find it in Heller/McDonald and its subsequent case law.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Although the Second Amendment right is fundamental, it is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to regulation and restrictions by government through the pollical process, reflecting the will of the people, as decided by the people.

And when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely affected are at liberty to seek relief in the courts through the judicial process.

So again: there’s no need to ‘repeal,’ ‘replace,’ or ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment, or any other like nonsense.

We need only allow the political and judicial process to continue to function as the Framers intended, allow Second Amendment jurisprudence to continue to evolve until we have a comprehensive understanding of what firearm regulatory measures are appropriate and Constitutional, and what firearm regulatory measures are not.

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

We already know what the Constitution says about the matter, you’ll find it in Heller/McDonald and its subsequent case law.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Although the Second Amendment right is fundamental, it is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to regulation and restrictions by government through the pollical process, reflecting the will of the people, as decided by the people.

And when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely affected are at liberty to seek relief in the courts through the judicial process.

So again: there’s no need to ‘repeal,’ ‘replace,’ or ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment, or any other like nonsense.

We need only allow the political and judicial process to continue to function as the Framers’ intended, allow Second Amendment jurisprudence to continue to evolve until we have a comprehensive understanding of what firearm regulatory measures are appropriate and Constitutional, and what firearm regulatory measures are not.

According to you, the Constitution also says that abortion is protected. Does that include the same limitation that you assign to guns that Congress can regulate abortion? Can Congress restrict abortion access to minors, for example, as you advocate for guns? Can Congress impose a tax and require registration, as you advocate for guns? Can the executive branch bypass due process and deny the right to an abortion without judicial remedy as you advocate for guns?

 

[ptbw forever]

Expand it to include the private ownership of nuclear and atomic weapons.

That isn't an expansion, that's what it says. Again though, I'll ask you the question that other leftists always run and hide from. Where are you going to get those? The Second Amendment says government cannot prohibit you from having them. It does not say Government must provide you with them

A nuclear bomb is not used to defend yourself against a government, it is used to wipe out life in cities and even small countries.

The 2nd amendment would have to be expanded to include weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

COTUS never mentions guns. The 2nd A. uses the term arms. If the verbiage is to be taken literally, every form of arms should be available to every person within our borders, including those who are not citizens of the US.

Do you agree, or do you believe such an interpretation is not what the Founders meant?

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

A. We the People

Q. Who wrote "We the People" and who signed off on COTUS

Right. We the People are Citizens of the United States. The Constitution wasn't written by foreigners, it was written by and for the Citizens of the United States.

Leftists constantly throw in the stupid shit that you did

Kaz, I know you to be damn liar, but now I'm beginning to wonder if your brain is addled by drugs, alcohol or trauma. If you are going to respond with your biases, you add nothing to any discussion no matter the topic, you might as well not bother since you have no credibility from anyone other than the fools.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Expand it to include the private ownership of nuclear and atomic weapons.

That isn't an expansion, that's what it says. Again though, I'll ask you the question that other leftists always run and hide from. Where are you going to get those? The Second Amendment says government cannot prohibit you from having them. It does not say Government must provide you with them

Nor does it prevent a foreign nation from providing a nuclear device/bomb to a private person; which then would be considered legal if we are to take the language in the 2nd A. to be the law of the land.

Thankfully rational people understand that "shall not infringe" is bogus.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nor does it prevent a foreign nation from providing a nuclear device/bomb to a private person; which then would be considered legal if we are to take the language in the 2nd A. to be the law of the land.

Thankfully rational people understand that "shall not infringe" is bogus.

"Rational people" are ******* wrong and are the enemy. The enemy deserve to die.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nor does it prevent a foreign nation from providing a nuclear device/bomb to a private person; which then would be considered legal if we are to take the language in the 2nd A. to be the law of the land.

Thankfully rational people understand that "shall not infringe" is bogus.

"Rational people" are ******* wrong and are the enemy. The enemy deserve to die.

i'm sure glad the deep state and the FBI's clandestine cabal is spying on this message board. And I have it on good authority that you are being watched.

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

COTUS never mentions guns. The 2nd A. uses the term arms. If the verbiage is to be taken literally, every form of arms should be available to every person within our borders, including those who are not citizens of the US.

Do you agree, or do you believe such an interpretation is not what the Founders meant?

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

A. We the People

Q. Who wrote "We the People" and who signed off on COTUS

Right. We the People are Citizens of the United States. The Constitution wasn't written by foreigners, it was written by and for the Citizens of the United States.

Leftists constantly throw in the stupid shit that you did

Kaz, I know you to be damn liar, but now I'm beginning to wonder if your brain is addled by drugs, alcohol or trauma. If you are going to respond with your biases, you add nothing to any discussion no matter the topic, you might as well not bother since you have no credibility from anyone other than the fools.

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

We already know what the Constitution says about the matter, you’ll find it in Heller/McDonald and its subsequent case law.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Although the Second Amendment right is fundamental, it is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to regulation and restrictions by government through the pollical process, reflecting the will of the people, as decided by the people.

And when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely affected are at liberty to seek relief in the courts through the judicial process.

So again: there’s no need to ‘repeal,’ ‘replace,’ or ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment, or any other like nonsense.

We need only allow the political and judicial process to continue to function as the Framers’ intended, allow Second Amendment jurisprudence to continue to evolve until we have a comprehensive understanding of what firearm regulatory measures are appropriate and Constitutional, and what firearm regulatory measures are not.

According to you, the Constitution also says that abortion is protected. Does that include the same limitation that you assign to guns that Congress can regulate abortion? Can Congress restrict abortion access to minors, for example, as you advocate for guns? Can Congress impose a tax and require registration, as you advocate for guns? Can the executive branch bypass due process and deny the right to an abortion without judicial remedy as you advocate for guns?

Clayton? Where did you go? BTW, my answer is no. The Federal government has no power to tax or restrict abortions, no power to deny abortion rights without due process of law, no power to regulate them.

But you argue that government can do all those things to gun ownership. Hypocrisy much?

 

[sparky]

has anyone considered a gub'mit allowing an armed citizenry creating it's own anarchy , much to the point that every other freedom is compromised?

it would appear to me that this is occuring

~S~

 

[Wry Catcher]

COTUS never mentions guns. The 2nd A. uses the term arms. If the verbiage is to be taken literally, every form of arms should be available to every person within our borders, including those who are not citizens of the US.

Do you agree, or do you believe such an interpretation is not what the Founders meant?

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

A. We the People

Q. Who wrote "We the People" and who signed off on COTUS

Right. We the People are Citizens of the United States. The Constitution wasn't written by foreigners, it was written by and for the Citizens of the United States.

Leftists constantly throw in the stupid shit that you did

Kaz, I know you to be damn liar, but now I'm beginning to wonder if your brain is addled by drugs, alcohol or trauma. If you are going to respond with your biases, you add nothing to any discussion no matter the topic, you might as well not bother since you have no credibility from anyone other than the fools.

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

 

[kaz]

has anyone considered a gub'mit allowing an armed citizenry creating it's own anarchy , much to the point that every other freedom is compromised?

it would appear to me that this is occuring

~S~

Can you translate your post to English? I don't speak gibberish. Using the actual dictionary definition of words would help