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.
Both sides play this game a little and the gun control debate provides a good example.
Some on the left are okay with some questionable infringement on the 2nd amendment to control guns but bring up the 4the amendment in response to stop and frisk.
Some on the right are okay with some questionable infringement on the 4th for stop and frisk while bringing up the 2nd in response to any gun control ideas.
Both sides play this game a little and the gun control debate provides a good example.
Some on the left are okay with some questionable infringement on the 2nd amendment to control guns but bring up the 4the amendment in response to stop and frisk.
Some on the right are okay with some questionable infringement on the 4th for stop and frisk while bringing up the 2nd in response to any gun control ideas.
Back to the subject:
If govt can't violate the 14th amendment ban on keeping black people out of a Federal building,
what gives govt the power to violate the 2nd amendment ban on keeping law-abiding people carrying a gun, out of a Federal building?
The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.
Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.
Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.
We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?
You cant bring your gun into my home if I tell you otherwise. In fact, you shouldnt bring your gun into my home without my prior consent.
If a business (private property) says no guns allowed, why do you think that you can overwrite those rules of private property?
If an airline says no guns allowed, why do you think you should be able to carry on an airline, which, after all, is private property.
Government buildings? I understand the ambiguity here, but in the end, somebody can set the rules, and government buildings can, in many respects, be considered private property.
(irrelevant references to private property deleted)
Government buildings? I understand the ambiguity here, but in the end, somebody can set the rules, and government buildings can, in many respects, be considered private property.
Nonsense.
If govt can't violate the 14th amendment ban on keeping black people out of a Federal building,
what gives govt the power to violate the 2nd amendment ban on keeping law-abiding people carrying a gun, out of a Federal building?
Back to the subject:
If govt can't violate the 14th amendment ban on keeping black people out of a Federal building,
what gives govt the power to violate the 2nd amendment ban on keeping law-abiding people carrying a gun, out of a Federal building?
First, a federal building houses US government officials, so security of the government (national security)comes into play. Secondly, saying you can't bring it into this location for security reasons does not preclude you from having a gun or even having it in public.
It's high time to repeal the constitution and replace it with something that is not so archaic. Gun rights should be the first to go. Guns have no place in modern society except in the hands of the police who need them to keep order.
Why dont you move to Iran? They dont have an American style constitution and they aren't restricted by such things as enumerated rights. No free speech, no private ownership of guns, no freedom for those pesky Christians and Jews and Shintoists. You would be very happy there, it seems.
If govt can't violate the 14th amendment ban on keeping black people out of a Federal building,
what gives govt the power to violate the 2nd amendment ban on keeping law-abiding people carrying a gun, out of a Federal building?
Oh I dont know .... people bringing guns into courtrooms and gunning down judges and enemies? disgruntled losers gunning down scumbags who have been found not guilty by juries?
How does anyone know that you in particular are "law abiding" ???
Why is it that you think that public buildings are not "private property" to a certain extent? Are you saying that you should be able to enter any public building any time day or night for any reason, armed or not?
PS NO enumerated right is unlimited, as has been tested in court time and time again. You do not have the unlimited right to say whatever you want at any time in any place. The context defines and limits that right. The 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms (often overlooked is the "militia" clause but that is a complex argument that most of the bear arms folks choose to ignore) but that doesnt mean that you can carry any time, any place. Not on my property, not on any private property, and not when reasonable circumstances dictate otherwise. Betting there is case law regarding your right to carry on government property.
Still waiting for that citation to the part of the Constitution that says gun owners can bear arms in any or all locations. I simply can't find a single reference to where people can bear arms. So frustrating!
Why dont you move to Iran? They dont have an American style constitution and they aren't restricted by such things as enumerated rights. No free speech, no private ownership of guns, no freedom for those pesky Christians and Jews and Shintoists. You would be very happy there, it seems.
Why don't I (and all my socialist buddies) just make the US into what I would like it to be? Repeal and replace.
Why don't I (and all my socialist buddies) just make the US into what I would like it to be? Repeal and replace.
The process is laid out for how to do it. If you think you have enough buddies, go ahead.
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.
