Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clearly one should not require a license to own chemical, biological, or nuclear arms either. Forgetting about the Constitution, do you think it's OK for any of the 314 million people in the US to be able to own an AK-47 or purchase a nuclear bomb if they have the money?
In that case, I want some ricin, some plutonium, some anthrax and a surface-to-air missile.
I can has enemies.
cars and space heaters are not rights. you do not have a right to own or use a car. you have the right to travel, but you can travel all you want without a car.
But requiring a license for a gun doesn't mean you cannot possess one. No right is absolute. It makes no sense to say any restriction of any kind whatsoever, no matter reasonable, is automatically an infringement. We don't treat any right that way...
Which is still another iota of piecemeal application of the Bill of Rights to the states rather than a blanket "all of the Bill of Rights applies to all of the states all of the time."
The acceptance of a state of the Bill of Rights being applicable to that state is evidence that without that state's acceptance...it would not have been applicable.
Hardly. States that refused to acknowledge the government protections under the Bill of Rights had them forced upon them by the courts as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such as in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), which forced the States to acknowledge the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, whether they wanted to or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
You mean Miranda v Arizona and Brown v Topeka don't count?
I meant precisely what I posted, do not go imagining anything more than what I actually posted.
So let's live like it's 1800 for the rest of time, huh? Should Americans in the year 9000AD have to sit back and call up historians to find out how a small group of men intended for our country to be run?
Hey, the law is the law. You can amend the Constitution. Article 5 makes that possible. What you can't do is just side step it because you think it's too hard to accomplish. It's supposed to be difficult. Until then, we as citizens have a 2nd Amendment Right and people will just have to deal with that whether they like it or not.
The word regulated in the amendment applies only to the militia, not the right of the people to keep arms.
Secondly, regulated means well practiced, well drilled, and well armed.
Thirdly, when we consider the intent of the amendment, which is protection, the notion that the founders wanted us to have inferior arms is just moronic....
you fail
Everyone quotes this particular amendment as the right for EVERONE to own whatever arms they want.
How the hell do you know what they meant? Who is the militia anyway? Everyone, including crazy Joe Blow down the street who is hearing voices, or a select few? Do you need to belong to a club, with a membership card, to be in the militia, or does it mean the general populace?
You fail.
Everyone quotes this particular amendment as the right for EVERONE to own whatever arms they want.
How the hell do you know what they meant? Who is the militia anyway? Everyone, including crazy Joe Blow down the street who is hearing voices, or a select few? Do you need to belong to a club, with a membership card, to be in the militia, or does it mean the general populace?
You fail.
Exactly why our Constitution sucks. WTF is a militia? Did anyone back then explain it? Why do we have to sit here and debate it when they could have spelled it out for us?
You people with your nuclear warhead arguments....
You guys make yourselves look foolish with this.
lol
Your LOLing is very charming but you're actively declining to answer my question: is it unconstitutional to stop a terrorist in the USA from possessing a nuclear weapon?
Hey, the law is the law. You can amend the Constitution. Article 5 makes that possible. What you can't do is just side step it because you think it's too hard to accomplish. It's supposed to be difficult. Until then, we as citizens have a 2nd Amendment Right and people will just have to deal with that whether they like it or not.
"The law is the law" is an awful argument for anything. You can defend anything written into law with this (Man 1: "Why should I be enslaved to another human being?" Man 2: "The law is the law, buddy.")
I'd like to actually understand your OWN personal opinion on the issue, but it seems a lot of right-wingers like yourself are simply unable to think outside of what their government laws tell them to do.
Exactly why our Constitution sucks. WTF is a militia? Did anyone back then explain it? Why do we have to sit here and debate it when they could have spelled it out for us?
It is spelled out for you, rather plainly I might add. A well regulated militia is the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. It doesn't say you have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
