What would you do with the second amendment?

[Leo123]

The second amendment should not be necessary....Every citizen should be capable of defending their land.

 

[IM2]

Is the second amendment the only one we got?

 

[there4eyeM]

If age requirements are not infringement, what is infringement? If AR15s can be bought but nearly identical M16s cannot, what is infringement? If covicted criminals cannot buy firearms, what is infringement?
This is obviously one major area that can be visited in the firearms debate. That some arms be available and that those arms may be born can be interpreted as conforming to the Constitutions provisions of a 'right'.
Remember, definitions of words are not the domain of minority extremists, but the subjective interpretation of the majority that uses the words.

 

[2aguy]

If age requirements are not infringement, what is infringement? If AR15s can be bought but nearly identical M16s cannot, what is infringement? If covicted criminals cannot buy firearms, what is infringement?
This is obviously one major area that can be visited in the firearms debate. That some arms be available and that those arms may be born can be interpreted as conforming to the Constitutions provisions of a 'right'.
Remember, definitions of words are not the domain of minority extremists, but the subjective interpretation of the majority that uses the words.

You can buy M16s....age requirements beyond 18 are an infringement.......criminals have been through due process before they not only lost the Right to bear arms but lost their actual freedom by being locked up.....

The Supreme Court already ruled on this over and over again....the following are only the most recent rulings the case law and legal precedent go back all the way to before we were the United States....

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's Dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Caetano v Massachusetts
Miller v United States
McDonald v City of Chicago
Cruickshank v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania

Staples v United States...
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire.

 

[Norman]

If age requirements are not infringement, what is infringement? If AR15s can be bought but nearly identical M16s cannot, what is infringement? If covicted criminals cannot buy firearms, what is infringement?
This is obviously one major area that can be visited in the firearms debate. That some arms be available and that those arms may be born can be interpreted as conforming to the Constitutions provisions of a 'right'.
Remember, definitions of words are not the domain of minority extremists, but the subjective interpretation of the majority that uses the words.

The constitution is a clearly written document with as little room for ambiguity as possible.

You don't need to "interpret it", you need to only read and apply it. It's not written in French (although, I bet many anti-Americans wish it was).

 

[SmileyFaze]

The Second Amendment is from the "Bill of 'Rights' ", not the "Bill of 'Needs' "......

 

[sparky]

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?

legislate every able bodied 18 yr old to solicit a state militia & receive proper firearms training

those that opt to serve in said militia receive college incentives

~S~

It sounds like you're trying to be funny somehow, but it just sounds like you're stupid

The Swiss model would do perfectly fine here Kaz

there would then be no argument about 'militia', as we'd be walkin' the walk

there'd also be no need for state guards, lot of $$ saved

and i suspect the AL's & VFW's would be repurposed ,with new members

win / win for everyone

~S~

 

[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?

The 2A merely emphasizes that we have a right to bear arms to defend our lives and property.

IT IS NOT A GRANT OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY.


..

Yes, exactly. Leftists are trying to turn the Bill of Rights into powers of government. They are limits on government power.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment

You have total disdain for the people, Clayton. So you seriously believe that the legitimate authority of the Federal government is not what the people told the government, it's what the courts decided it is? That's sick, even for a leftist blowhard like you.

People like you are the ones who have warped and perverted our rights turning the bill of rights into powers of government rather than limits on government. You can read "the right to life, liberty and property cannot be deprived without due process of law," then say that government can confiscate our property and deny our Constitutional gun rights without due process of law

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

NOTHING

And I have ZERO gun rights

 

[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?

The 2A merely emphasizes that we have a right to bear arms to defend our lives and property.

IT IS NOT A GRANT OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY.


..

Wrong.

And if you disagree with the fact that government has the authority to regulate firearms, you’re at liberty to express your displeasure with the Supreme Court’s conservatives.

Unlike you, Contuacious must have read the Constitution

 

[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?

legislate every able bodied 18 yr old to solicit a state militia & receive proper firearms training

those that opt to serve in said militia receive college incentives

~S~

It sounds like you're trying to be funny somehow, but it just sounds like you're stupid

The Swiss model would do perfectly fine here Kaz

there would then be no argument about 'militia', as we'd be walkin' the walk

there'd also be no need for state guards, lot of $$ saved

and i suspect the AL's & VFW's would be repurposed ,with new members

win / win for everyone

~S~

Can you translate that to English? I don't speak gibberish

 

[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?

NOTHING

And I have ZERO gun rights

That can be read either way

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

NOTHING

And I have ZERO gun rights

That can be read either way

Not to anyone who knows me

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have no problem with the bump stock ban.
I honestly dont give a shit about magazine size..
But the grab for "assault" weapons is ignorant

 

[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?

NOTHING

And I have ZERO gun rights

That can be read either way

Not to anyone who knows me

I don't agree with that. You're conservative most of the time. But you take flyers and go left on random issues

 

[kaz]

I have no problem with the bump stock ban.
I honestly dont give a shit about magazine size..
But the grab for "assault" weapons is ignorant

I don't have a problem with a bump stock ban other than that I have a huge problem with banning bump stocks.

It isn't a slippery slope fallacy, the left does want to ban guns and every step justifies further restrictions

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

NOTHING

And I have ZERO gun rights

That can be read either way

Not to anyone who knows me

I don't agree with that. You're conservative most of the time. But you take flyers and go left on random issues

Sue me for anti totem pole thoughts....


Fucking hell

 

[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?

NOTHING

And I have ZERO gun rights

That can be read either way

Not to anyone who knows me

I don't agree with that. You're conservative most of the time. But you take flyers and go left on random issues

Sue me for anti totem pole thoughts....


Fucking hell

Non-sequitur. The only conclusion I came to is that I don't know when you're going to go left so a statement from you that can be read either way isn't unambiguous.

Tell me what your fur throwing response had to do with that.

Not to mention I'm a libertarian, I go further left than Democrats on many issues.

Nope that response made no sense in any direction

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have no problem with the bump stock ban.
I honestly dont give a shit about magazine size..
But the grab for "assault" weapons is ignorant

I don't have a problem with a bump stock ban other than that I have a huge problem with banning bump stocks.

It isn't a slippery slope fallacy, the left does want to ban guns and every step justifies further restrictions

I served in the US penal reserves. Don't question me