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.
Of course, the liberal has forgotten (he has most carefully forgotten) that the Preamble is not a command and carries no legal weight.
Dodge, weave, evade. You seem to forget I was responding to a comment by someone trying to defend the perspective you prefer, which was making a pronouncement on the same order as my own (albeit corrupted by right-wing myopia) - yet you didn't think to raise this issue you're raising here back then. How does the mantle of hypocrisy feel, laid across your shoulders?
There are dozens of paragraphs in the various sections and amendments of the US Constitution, yet you still are wracking your brain trying to come up with excuses, like this one, to fixate and place such heavy emphasis on your corrupted interpretation of these several phrases.
People argue about gun rights a lot. They mostly seem to think they're arguing about the 2nd amendment. But the 2nd amendment is simple and clear, and provides nothing to argue about. The only argument about it is whether a well regulated militia is relevant to the right to keep and bear arms. But most people agree it isn't relevant, and therefore the 2nd amendment is even simpler than its brief wording.
Here is my theory of what people are really arguing about. My theory says, among other things, that the 2nd amendment is not really very relevant to their arguments.
The 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights, which exists to protect rights, not to grant them. Therefore, it doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms. It only protects that right, to the extent that it already exists.
Examples of complications people argue about, include whether a person being arrested for murder has a right to keep and bear the murder weapon, even while under arrest. And whether you can legally build a nuclear weapon in your basement.
To prohibit those, does not violate the 2nd amendment. The right to keep your murder weapon, and the right to build your nuclear weapon, are not protected by the 2nd amendment, because the 2nd amendment can only protect rights that already exist. Those rights never existed, so they can't be protected.
Gun rights are complicated because they're always been complicated. And rights to more primitive weapons before guns were invented. The 2nd amendment is very simple, and does nothing to change those rights. It makes them neither more complicated nor less complicated than they already were. It only protects them, and all of their complications.
You need to explain all this to the US Supreme Court. They seem to not understand your concept.
Something I hear in arguments is "law abiding citizen." I see nothing in the 2nd Amendment referring to such.
I agree and also note it doesn't say anything about not being allowed to keep and bear arms if I am mentally or emotionally impaired!!! Don't you feel safer already that a angry crazy person down the street can pack heat.
It is stated over and over again how the 2nd is so important for the protection of those most valuable of rights stated in the constitution BUT while those others are being daily eroded through enacted legislation serving to abrogate those most important of rights in a piecemeal manner; the ONLY one that seems to get everyone's knickers in a twist is the one that says they can keep their personal weapons so as to prevent tyranny.
It would seem you're all victims of the age old "shell game" where they have you intently focused upon the 2nd amendment while they are busily stripping away one right after another of those rights the 2nd was "supposed" to be about protecting.
Pretty soon you'll all be left standing there in your "Y" fronts with your Colt defender strapped to your thigh in the middle of a pasture with drones flying overhead, no access to food or water, a 15' razor wire topped fence containing you within a prescribed area with any intent you show to move out of that "zone" interpreted as a terrorist act and you get a drone zap up your azz making your .45ACP the most irrelevant thing still in your possession but by god, you've still got your gun. You'll be like the guy in the desert still carrying his 4 lbs of hog-leg and ammunition while dying of thirst.
Your rights to privacy went away. Your right to free and unrestrained movement within your borders went away. Your right to not be detained without formal charges being laid went away. Your right to no search or seizure without probable cause and a warrant being issued went away. Your right to legal representation went away. Your right to habeas-corpus went away. Your right to freedom of expression went away. Your right to freedom of association went away.
Cripes; what was it again the 2nd amendment was supposed to be all about? Keep your eye on that shell by all means. They've successfully got you focused intently on the little shell with what you term is your protection method of all your rights and privileges contained within while they have successfully removed a rather large portion of those rights and privileges right under your noses. You've made it so easy and once more reaffirmed P.T. Barnum's most embarrassing observation.
Damn!
You make a compelling case for citizens to all have full auto weapons, bazookas, mustard gas, drones and nukes.
Afterall, we were to have the very weapons that could be used against us.
Examples of complications people argue about, include whether a person being arrested for murder has a right to keep and bear the murder weapon, even while under arrest. And whether you can legally build a nuclear weapon in your basement.
To prohibit those, does not violate the 2nd amendment. The right to keep your murder weapon, and the right to build your nuclear weapon, are not protected by the 2nd amendment, because the 2nd amendment can only protect rights that already exist. Those rights never existed, so they can't be protected.
Funny! There are some very ignorant people, that truly believe the term bear arms, just refers to a gun.
Bows, crossbows, spears, clubs, hands, feet knives, cannons. Everything the government had to fight with, were the peoples personal weapons.
The founders knew full well how important it was to have the very weapons that could be used against you.
You need to explain all this to the US Supreme Court. They seem to not understand your concept.
Why would you say that?
The Court has been boringly consistent (for going on 140 years) in holding that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.
Discussions about what "militia" means, or "bear arms" and especially commas and their placement are useless, pointless diversions if one wants to discover the scope of the right.
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.
