Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

[progressive hunter]

I'm trying not to point out how stupid your question is.

please point it out,,

 

[BULLDOG]

come on man,, just tell us what hrs of the day we dont need to be armed and we wont need to be armed 24/7 and you dont have to be so offended by it,,

I'm not offended by your question. I'm amused.

 

[BULLDOG]

you ever going to tell us what hrs we should be armed??

No.

 

[progressive hunter]

No.

you wont only because it shows your narrative to be that of a crazy person,,

 

[BULLDOG]

please point it out,,

No need. You have pointed it out yourself.

 

[progressive hunter]

No need. You have pointed it out yourself.

yes I did,, and it shows what a nutjob you are,,

 

[BULLDOG]

yes I did,, and it shows what a nutjob you are,,

I'm sure you hope it did.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thank you. That's a perfect example of twisted right wing logic. Either every nutjob in America is fully armed at all times, or we become China, Russia, or N Korea. You realize there is a vast range in between those two possibilities, don't you?

Not interested in any "vast range" only "Shall not be infringed"

 

[BULLDOG]

Not interested in any "vast range" only "Shall not be infringed"

I understand. You're mind is made up, and facts just confuse you. What else could be expected from your cult?

 

[westwall]

I'm trying not to point out how stupid your question is.

Good, because your prior statement is about as retarded as they come.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

These gun grabbers actually believe that this case helps them.


"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."

Thus, ALL Federal gun laws are unconstitutional ON THEIR FACES and all should be universally stricken immediately.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

Same as Cruikshank.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."

ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

This one is even WORSE for the gun-grabbing commies.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

By deduction, ANY WEAPON used by the military would be a part of "ordinary military equipment" and WOULD BE protected by the 2A, including the M60 and M249 machine guns.

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

Not familiar with this one.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Pretty much shoots them down again, as it applies to D.C.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

Makes Heller apply to the states under the 14th Amendment.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)

Not familiar with this one.

 

[woodwork201]

Thus, ALL Federal gun laws are unconstitutional ON THEIR FACES and all should be universally stricken immediately.

*snip*

ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

All state and local gun control laws are unconstitutional as well.

 

[Batcat]

We are more alike than you know, and situational awareness is quite often called for, but that is not the same as a rational belief that you need to be armed 24/7.

Well if I had the gift of knowing my future and I woke up one day realizing that I would have to use lethal force to protect my health or life, I would just stay home.

Unfortunately I lack that ability.

I have been legally carrying a concealed hand gun for over a quarter of a century and since I don’t play with it in public, it just sits quietly in a pocket holster in my jacket or pants pocket endangering no one.

I took the time and effort and spent the money to get my concealed weapons permit with the intention of carrying on a regular basis and I have and will continue to do so.

Why are you so concerned? Do you distrust honest citizens? Perhaps you feel we are not responsible.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders More Law Abiding Government Police

2nd Amendment critics commonly portray concealed carry permit holders as dangerous to American society. They are More Law Abiding Government Police.

ncsportsmenslaw.com

7 Reasons More People Should Concealed Carry

Police are the ideal intermediaries, but personal safety cannot be entirely entrusted to others. It is time for citizens to responsibly conceal a firearm.

thefederalist.com

 

[woodwork201]

I’d like to thank the conservatives subscribing to this thread for proving correct the thread’s premise.

What regulatory law does the 2nd Amendment require? Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. There's no reason to expound on that with regulations or additional law, certainly not in laws that infringe. Because of the infringements, though, many states have had to create laws to protect the right but if all the laws, supporting and infringing, were removed, we'd have exactly what we need: Shall not be infringed.

 

[BULLDOG]

Good, because your prior statement is about as retarded as they come.

I'm sure you are an expert on the subject.

 

[woodwork201]

Well no. If the cowards had ever actually been a victim, that would at least be a rational for feeling the need to be armed 24/7. Being afraid of something that has never happened, and is likely to never happen is just being a coward.

There are thousands of dead, unarmed, innocent, people who might have been saved had they been armed. Worst case, they wouldn't be more dead for having been armed.

There are thousands more of alive, armed, innocents, who are alive because they were armed. Thousands more alive who were innocent and unarmed because someone else was armed and saved them.

 

[woodwork201]

No, but I do have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. I don't strap a fire extinguisher to my leg every time I go out, though.

That's completely senseless. It's a different problem and a different tool. If you cross the room to grab your fire extinguisher, your small fire isn't going to reach out and kill you first. If your home is invaded and you have to cross the room, open your safe, and grab a gun, you're very possibly dead.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well if I had the gift of knowing my future and I woke up one day realizing that I would have to use lethal force to protect my health or life, I would just stay home.

Unfortunately I lack that ability.

I have been legally carrying a concealed hand gun for over a quarter of a century and since I don’t play with it in public, it just sits quietly in a pocket holster in my jacket or pants pocket endangering no one.

I took the time and effort and spent the money to get my concealed weapons permit with the intention of carrying on a regular basis and I have and will continue to do so.

Why are you so concerned? Do you distrust honest citizens? Perhaps you feel we are not responsible.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders More Law Abiding Government Police

2nd Amendment critics commonly portray concealed carry permit holders as dangerous to American society. They are More Law Abiding Government Police.

ncsportsmenslaw.com

7 Reasons More People Should Concealed Carry

Police are the ideal intermediaries, but personal safety cannot be entirely entrusted to others. It is time for citizens to responsibly conceal a firearm.

thefederalist.com

I distrust gun nut Rambo wannabees who dream of the chance to shoot somebody.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's completely senseless. It's a different problem and a different tool. If you cross the room to grab your fire extinguisher, your small fire isn't going to reach out and kill you first. If your home is invaded and you have to cross the room, open your safe, and grab a gun, you're very possibly dead.

How many people have you had to gun down in your kitchen?

 

[woodwork201]

Of course there are victims of violent crime, and there are times when being armed is the best logical choice. I have always said that. Not everywhere you might be, and not 2/47. My neighbor keeps bees, but he doesn't wear his bee suit 24/7.

Bees are not a threat everywhere you go and you can predict the likelihood that you won't get stung. And, unless you're allergic, the damage caused by a sting is not permanent.

On the other hand, with the very same odds of a sting away from one's own hives, a person who's allergic will always carry their EpiPen. The chances of getting stung are very low. When I go out, the chances of me being attacked are very low - though getting higher and higher every day. But the potential outcome is serious so I prepare for that risk.