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.
Back then we didn't have people mudered at a rate anywhere near today nor did they have the firepower we do today. Quite different, the constitution is far from infallible and the fear is not irrational, it's backed up by statistics.
Well one thing is clear the Republicans might not give a rat's asp about the whole rest of the Constitution -but they will
be clinging tightly to their guns and praising that second amendment for Eternity!
(I am not saying that it's not important but give some validity to the rest of the Constitution too please.) Like for instance the First
Amendment.
There has been reference made to town rules prohibiting the carrying of firearms in the American West, i.e. Dodge, Abilene and Tombstone type rules and equating these to laws in modern US cities such as NYC and Chicago. It should be noted that these old town rules were not actually "law" and nor did they extend the towns power into peoples homes or restrict ownership of firearms in any way. The modern laws do, and more.
The town rules in the old West were applied more to transients frequenting the saloons and such. Not to the residents of the town, and they were certainly not intended to be outright bans on ownership of guns. Laws that places like CA, Hawaii, NYC, Chicago etc have enacted are in clear violation of the national right of the 2A. They violate the Constitution of the United States. The caveat that state and municipal laws can be more strict should not be taken as meaning they can take away rights granted in the Constitution.
That was part of the premise behind the Heller decision. CA has gone he furthest of all the states, in enacting an outright ban and calling for guns to be turned in. They have thus refrained from door to door searches, but police can sieve personal firearms covered under the law if they find them. They passed a ban, but have had to stop short of forcible confiscation.
In the end the Constitution should prevail. Otherwise what good does it serve? If states and cities can just discard its provisions, it has no substance.
Well you are getting pretty close. The signers were revolutionaries. And they set up the second so the people could kill the politicians if they got out of line. Self defense would b a minor side issue.
But as arms and weaponry have progressed we have hit upon the grand conspiracy. The courts, the politicians, the lawyers, even much of the population claim the law does not say what it clearly says.
The reason for all that is that at this place in time the law is abhorrent to virtually all. We really do not want local groups killing off the government leadership when unhappy. But if we attempt to change it all hell breaks loose. If the USSC held that the law means what it says then anybody can own any arm. At that point the outcry would be sufficient to force an amendment. But any amendment that would pass would likely end the 2nd as we know it with perhaps some limited right to self defense weapons but allowing virtually any regulation the state or locality wished.
So we go with the grand conspiracy and use weird interpretations to allow some regulation but not all of arms. In fact if we end up someplace along the line with a leftist USSC the language of the Heller decision could be cited to allow virtually any regulation scheme short of an absolute ban. Single shot 18 guage shotguns as the only home defense weapon say. Hunting weapons that are kept at central depots and checked out for use. All compatible with Heller.
Well one thing is clear the Republicans might not give a rat's asp about the whole rest of the Constitution -but they will
be clinging tightly to their guns and praising that second amendment for Eternity!
(I am not saying that it's not important but give some validity to the rest of the Constitution too please.) Like for instance the First
Amendment.
OK how about we apply the same laws restrictions and regulations on the 1st ammendment that apply to the 2nd... I'll use NYs asinine laws and apply it to the 1st.
Using NY state pre resequites to obtain a concealed carry.
Like mandatory ELA course to ensure safe and proper grammer, words, and speech is used?
Then can we suggest seeking mental evaluations to ensure everything is okay upstairs?
Once cleared can we model it after liberals gun laws?
Like?
NEW YORK
IN ORDER TO CARRY THAT SPEECH YOU MUST HAVE CHARACTER WITNESSES TO VOUCH FOR YOU PAY 90 DOLLARS TO THE STATE GO SUBMIT THE PAPER WORK TO YOUR LOCAL COUNTY SHERIFF FOR HIS REVIEW?
ONCE APPROVED REGISTER THE WORDS YOU SEEK TO USE AND PAY PER WORD TO BE KEPT ON A PHOTO ID COMPLETE WITH THUMB/FINGER PRINT.
ADD IN IF THEY WANT TO SPEAK THEY HAVE TO SHOUT AT EAR SHATTERING DECIBELS SO IF THEY COMMIT AN OFFENSE IT MAY BE TRACKED?! LIMIT THEM TO 7 POSTS PER DAY IF IT IS CAPABLE OF BEING RAPID RESPONSE, AND 10 PER DAY AT A SPECIFIED AREA. REMOVE ANY THREATENING OR DANGEROUS ASSAULT FEATURES FROM SPEECH AND MAKE IT A FELONY OFFENSE WORSE THAN THAT OF A CHILD MOLESTER TO HAVE ANY OF THE STATES DEFINED FEATURES. AND BE LIMITED TO USING 3 DEVICES PER DAY BE IT PHONE COMPUTER PEN/PENCIL PAPER VOICE etc.
Folks would change their tune real quick. I just covered everything in NY others currently there can add in if I missed anything.
Or if there was a change...
Shouting=no suppressors
Limited to 3 devices a day to practice this right-3 boxes of ammo per day
Seeing the sheriff, permit fee, character witnesses-that's ccw
the shrink-that's what liberals want to be done before purchasing a modern sporting rifle
ELA course-that's your training courses.
Want me to apply it to the 3rd on up?
How about require mental evaluation before seeking a legal representative?
How about pay to have a permit to exercise the 5th? And under go back ground checks as well...
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed, disciplined population is necessary for security in a free country, the right of normal people to KBA cannot be restricted.
This is clearly a flat ban on any govt in the country making any law restricting our ability to purchase, own, and carry a gun. Yet a number of governments (Federal, State, local) have made laws restricting exactly those things.
What should we obey? The 2nd amendment? Or the government officials making the "gun control" laws?
The Second Amendment means what it says, OP. This topic has been beaten to death. California is getting close to some sort of rebellion. Well see what happens there.
The courts cannot change the meaning. If they were to make the wrong ruling, war would ensue.
Does this make it clear to the OP?
Any questions?
Last edited by finalmove; 06-23-2017 at 05:52 PM..
Reason: typo
Let this Liberal explain the Facts of Life:
The 2nd give us as Citizens the right to Bear Arms, no law can override the Constitution. That said, the huge number of gun owners are not going to be turning in their firearms or ammunition because some Un-Constitutional Law tries to do so. This in not a friendly world, if You want to live in it unarmed, that is Your choice, as for many of us we will not be living that way, even If you could push the SC to do so, we would ignore it. End of story, now go deal with the Real Problem of inner city crime and gangs, and the major mental health issue facing this Nation.
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.
