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.
So many think the second amendment, is just about the people having guns.
No, read it all, not just the last part. It is there, telling the government, we will kick your ass and kill you all by any means possible, if you get too big for your britches.
Let's think about this for a minute..gun free zones are usually schools, hospitals and public buildings right? So you want to arm postal clerks 7 year old kids and nurses?
Now you're getting it! If they have a carry-permit (if required), those places would have the same percentage of armed citizens as the general public.
I worked in retail for 21-years and was armed every minute. Don't recall ever shooting anyone.
So many think the second amendment, is just about the people having guns.
No, read it all, not just the last part. It is there, telling the government, we will kick your ass and kill you all by any means possible, if you get too big for your britches.
Now you're getting it! If they have a carry-permit (if required), those places would have the same percentage of armed citizens as the general public.
I worked in retail for 21-years and was armed every minute. Don't recall ever shooting anyone.
The 2nd amendment, is my conceal carry permit.
I never beg another man for my rights back. Some may choose to do so and consent to be governed
I never beg another man for my rights back. Some may choose to do so and consent to be governed
In theory, you're correct. It's rather silly that a law abiding citizen who has committed no crime has to obtain a permit to conceal their weapon! Those with malicious intent to harm others don't give a s***! Not only that, criminal types bank on the fact of having the element of suprise!
The only amendment, that is protected by its very wording, to never ever be altered or eliminated from the US Constitution.
People that do not understand law. Words mean everything in law, when they start yelling the 2nd amendment can be amended and the Supreme Court is now our creators, as GOD.
Shall not be infringed. Means just that. An Amendment would be an infringement, of individual rights.
It's to be assumed that the subtext in every single amendment within the bill of rights is that is it not to be infringed, yet we still have the PATRIOT Act, communist were arrested in the 1950s, and the concept of freedom of press and speech is always under fire.
Where are the conservatives backing those issues?
Governor Christie said he opposes encryption for the purposes of tracking ISIS. This would also make it easier for the government to collect data, and also easier for hackers to steal identities. He got applause.
Business man Donald Trump said he's willing to create a watch list for people of a certain religion, which is not freedom of religions, and if you consider professing a religion to be a form of speech, also contradicts that. He got applause.
It's worth noting that the only Republican who truly believes in a transparent government was not even invited to the last debate.
Why is it that God is always the source for the 2nd amendment, but everything else is apparently relative? Frankly, I consider the 4th amendment to be far more important that the 2nd. We can pretend that arming ourselves secure our other rights, but despite gun ownership still being perfectly legal and our military protecting our freedoms, the PATRIOT was passed with bipartisan support. Does this mean the 2nd amendment doesn't work? Or is the real problem that people don't give a ****?
See, the constitutional conservatives talk about guns the most because they just want guns. As it turns out, many of them are ideologically inconsistent. And of course, plenty of conservatives do believe in freedom of speech and religion and privacy rights alongside their support for gun ownership rights. But they are not the majority anymore. Tea Party conservatives are the majority, and they want their freedom. And that's it. If you want freedom, you can live like them or quit whining. Which is why Trump is leading the GOP race. He says what they want to here, which is that the government will solve their problems, but ignore others.
See, at the end of the day, people are too damn selfish. They have what they want, so everything is fine. But everything is not fine.
That's the kind of government enabling statement that will cost everyone their right to arms.
Why point to any act of man as the source of your right to arms?
The Supreme Court has been saying for nearly 140 years that the right to arms is not in any manner dependent on the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution in general) for its existence, and now you say it is?
And just to continue with this, because it is also profoundly wrong:
The federal power over the militia is an example of field preemption. This is well settled law and interestingly, the case that first recognized full federal preemption of militia powers, Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), is held as THE leading precedent for federal preemption. Others that followed are; Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827), Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917) and Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, 496 U.S. (1990).
Federal preemption means that the militia powers granted to the federal government are exclusive and exclusionary. There are no shared powers; there is no claimable authority for states to assume regulatory powers for their militias if the federal government ignores their duty or, as we have seen, if Congress completely absorbs state militia powers and extinguishes the constitutional (clause 16) militia. As a sidebar, note that this destroys the stupidity of the "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment -- if true, states should have claimed the 2nd to repel this federal overreach and assumption of state militia powers.
This takeover of the State Militias did leave the states vulnerable and removed from governors a defensive and civil aid force which is why Congress gave the states lovely parting gifts for stealing their militias called "State Defensive Forces". State Defensive Forces are entirely a creation of Congress under their war powers, Art I, § 8, cl's. 11, 12, 13, 14, represented in the US Code in Title 32, § 109, and are not clause 15 & 16 militia.
The Bill of Rights ensured the rights of individuals and the States while limiting the reach of the Federal government. I don't see why a State can set it's own rules and regulations on arms. That doesn't mean that they can violate a citizen's right to bear arms.
Quote:
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." Saying the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the state and that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
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.
