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.
"While we certainly have a right to own firearms, the g'ment still has the right to limit and legislate."
Don't you think that if thats what george washington wanted he would have put right in the constitution, the government has the right to strip us of all the rights we are given in the first place for no good reason. Thats just silly. If the founding fathers never wanted us to own blundbust, artillery and canons they would have put you have the right to own a gun except zyx.
"Local, State, and even Federal level g'ments can still mandate C&C licensing, registration, limits on caliber and magazine capacity, etc. Obtaining special permits even allows one to own military grade firearms as well."
I don't believe they have any of these powers but use legal tricks to do so. The purpose of the right to bear arms is to keep the government from being a dictator. Trust me, when the communist on capitol hill try to force healthcare and al gore energy down your throat, the first people we need are the crazy criminals like charles manson to start the war of liberartion against the tyranical government.If we only have the right to own pistols and not missle launchers and aka, and artillery, it takes away our right as citizens to collectively form well armed militias.
"BTW, criminals, those that haven't been convicted (yet) have every right as a citizen to legally obtain firearms and the neccessary registrations and licensing."
Well the criminals who have sevred there time in prison have paid there debt to society and have no reason to be debarred of their rights. We need gun totting criminals come obamacare.
" The insane simply do not retain that right or several other rights (BTW, in that period of our history, the insane were thrown into bedlams and not allowed to roam free), nor do convicted criminals who, through their actions, have voluntarily given up many rights."
They have a name for people like you, its called racist. Youa re being racist towards the handicap and mentally challeneged. Youa re saying that a guy with retarddation for no fault of his own should die under obama's death panel. You know what it is called when you don't hire a handicap guy because he is handicap, discrimination. You sir are discriminating against handicap people and that just mean.
If the founding fathers never wanted handicap people to own guns they would have just written in a clause that says all citizen's except handicap and cripple people, and criminal pass people have the right to have a gun. Most veterans were criminals back in the day, as it was a way to get off death row.
"Just as there isn't any absolute "free speech", there is no absolute right to own whatever weapons you wish, whenever you wish. For example, you have no inherent right to preach on private property, whether political or religious, nor do you have an inherent right to carry a firearm on private property without the express permission of the property owner as well."
well you can't own a nuke, but there i no reason why you can't own a fighter plane provided your rich enough to buy your own air port and bombing range.
"You also have no inherent right to carry a firearm on public property while in the presence of the POTUS, judges, congressmen, or other high profile public figures. While we have a right to own firearms, their safety trumps any right to carry in their presence.
"
If they never wanted people to carry guns infront of judges, congressmen and POTUS they would have put that in the constitution. Next uour going to argue judge never existed back then and neither did congress men. you sound like a liberal activist judge.
While we certainly have a right to own firearms, the g'ment still has the right to limit and legislate.
I know where the right for me to own a gun came from; where does the right for the government to infringe upon it come from?
Quote:
Local, State, and even Federal level g'ments can still mandate C&C licensing, registration, limits on caliber and magazine capacity, etc. Obtaining special permits even allows one to own military grade firearms as well.
Again, where in the constitution is this right spelled out? Or is it a case of the government simply started doing it and no one questioned their supposed 'right' to do so?
Quote:
You also have no inherent right to carry a firearm on public property while in the presence of the POTUS, judges, congressmen, or other high profile public figures. While we have a right to own firearms, their safety trumps any right to carry in their presence.
Says who? What the hell is a 'high profile public figure'? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove? Rahm Emmanuel? Scooter Libby? Is this restriction spelled out in people's concealed carry permits? I seriously doubt it. What are you supposed to do if carrying, lay down your gun and walk away from it because there may be a judge or high-profile public figure in the crowd at the shopping mall?
This is incremental violation of the spirit of the law. The LAW, being the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. Where people have conjured up these dubious interpretations and infringements is a mystery.
What part of "...shall not be infringed" is so damn difficult to understand?
"
If they never wanted people to carry guns infront of judges, congressmen and POTUS they would have put that in the constitution. Next uour going to argue judge never existed back then and neither did congress men. you sound like a liberal activist judge.
Read through the US Law Code, if you can.
Let's make it simple for you, however, as the Codes are rather complicated...
U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."
The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.
I know where the right for me to own a gun came from; where does the right for the government to infringe upon it come from?
Same source, the men who wrote the document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969
Again, where in the constitution is this right spelled out? Or is it a case of the government simply started doing it and no one questioned their supposed 'right' to do so?
I've noticed that most of the people who complain the most about our "Constitutional Rights being infringed" have actually little knowledge about the document.
There is no "pure" free speech, there is no "pure" freedom of the press or of religion, and there certainly is no "pure" right to own whatever firearms one wishes.
In Heller vs DC, the SCOTUS noted that, while g'ment may not eliminate gun ownership, they are well within their mandate to put certain restrictions on firearm ownership in the interest of public safety. C&C licensing for example, at least in my area, requires hours of safety classes and keeps convicts from legally owning firearms. They are also designed to keep powerful military grade weapons out of the hands of average Joe Citizen. There is no reasonable explination to own a SAW for home defense, sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969
Says who? What the hell is a 'high profile public figure'? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove? Rahm Emmanuel? Scooter Libby? Is this restriction spelled out in people's concealed carry permits? I seriously doubt it. What are you supposed to do if carrying, lay down your gun and walk away from it because there may be a judge or high-profile public figure in the crowd at the shopping mall?
This is incremental violation of the spirit of the law. The LAW, being the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. Where people have conjured up these dubious interpretations and infringements is a mystery.
See my prior reply above concerning the Secret Service. I suggest you READ the law before commenting on it. Title 18, Sec. 3056 to be precise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969
What part of "...shall not be infringed" is so damn difficult to understand?
What part of "right to bear arms..." did you miss?
The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.
]
There have been at least ten incidents in US history in which gunshots were fired at presidents. In all but two of those incidents, the shooter was a "law abiding" citizen---until he pulled the trigger. Most of the assassins were, therefore, perfectly entitled to carry a loaded gun in the president's presence. They could not have been legally disarmed until they were actually in the act of shooting.
There have been at least ten incidents in US history in which gunshots were fired at presidents. In all but two of those incidents, the shooter was a "law abiding" citizen---until he pulled the trigger. Most of the assassins were, therefore, perfectly entitled to carry a loaded gun in the president's presence. They could not have been legally disarmed until they were actually in the act of shooting.
Let's make it simple for you, however, as the Codes are rather complicated...
U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."
The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.
If Washington was president, don't you think he would have put it in the constitution that no one should carry a gun near him? Obama is a communist and wants to take away all the rights from the white man to emasculate them. If it were up to Obama all white people would sit in the back of the bus next to his grandma and crazy pastor. Obama is just making up new laws that no one ever heard of because thats what communist do they don't care about our constituiton. If we keep changing the constitution then in 100 years there won't even be an America, It will be the USSA
I know one of the top of my head, that president assassinated william mc kinely was assassinated by a polish guy who had the right to legally have a gun at the time.
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.
.
