Aren't mentally ill Americans protected by the 2nd Amendment? (Brown, revolution, speech)

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Not without due process to determine that they are a danger to themselves or others. If someone is so dangerous to fit in this category then they are not safe to be part of society anyways.

So then gun regulations are perfectly safe and constitutional?

[Boris347]

Originally Posted by Utopian Slums

^ THIS

It is your right to own a MUSKET.

And no, i DO NOT think the founding fathers, as smart as they were, ever considered citizens owning automated weapons to the point of machine guns.

Of course it is my right to own a Musket. And I do, Thank you...

Bet they never considered them owning "Cell Phones" either.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

From the exterior of the car.

They play fast and loose with civil rights in this area unfortunately.

But they do..... do it. Founding fathers be damned.....

Now do you think it s the liberal police state that want this...... Or do you find law enforcement more right leanin?

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by dv1033

So then gun regulations are perfectly safe and constitutional?

Not with my personal understanding of the constitution, but under the current societal understanding some regulations pass constitutional muster. You have to be specific on the actual regulations.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by dv1033

But they do..... do it. Founding fathers be damned.....

Now do you think it s the liberal police state that want this...... Or do you find law enforcement more right leanin?

Both parties are for infringing on civil right for "safety" and to prop up the drug war.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Not with my personal understanding of the constitution, but under the current societal understanding some regulations pass constitutional muster. You have to be specific on the actual regulations.

But the founding fathers left constitutionality with the supreme court.....

You'd be okay with the supreme court ruling that gun ownership is a privilege not a right huh?

[mm4]

Originally Posted by dv1033

Does he or she have bearing on the 2nd amendment?

Mr. Coxe championed the proposed Amendment and assisted in its ratification.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by dv1033

But the founding fathers left constitutionality with the supreme court.....

You'd be okay with the supreme court ruling that gun ownership is a privilege not a right huh?

No.

I have my opinion on what is constitutional
Scouts has an opinion on what is constitutional

One of those is worth more than the other.

You are basically arguing that scotus has free reign to nix the constitution.


It is in mans nature to try and control other men. The constituon was out in place to establish a set of principals that people have rights that other men cannot take. Becausean does what he does, the rights of men are slowly eroded as mans nature. At which time the Declaration of Independence allows the formation of a new government to better establish the original principals of liberty.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

How can you call yourself a constitutionalist if you want to deprive mentally ill citizens their right to bear arms? Isn't that gun regulation in itself?

The Second Amendment makes clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people and that the people are the militia.

It is not an individual right such as the right to free speech, association or trial by jury.

It is also not a right of the militia or the states.

Moreover, the Second Amendment does not ensure everyone who can fog up a mirror can have a gun.

What it does guarantee is that the state will not prohibit the people from arming themselves even if certain individuals are deemed unfit to do so.


Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Utopian Slums]

Originally Posted by mm4

To own the technology of the day as sufficient self defense. Read Tench Coxe's statement a few posts above.

Those quotes can be interpreted either way.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

I guess freedom of press doesn't apply to radio, television or the Internet, cars do not require warrants for searching, etc.


The founders would be up in arms if they ever became aware of how "shall not be infringed" has been misconstrued to almost any type of regulation goes.

Maybe. But i think you missed the point of my post.

I think that the founder fathers would be enraged at all of the mass shootings, suicides and homicides that they would swiftly amend the second amendment to reflect the realities of today. (e.g., population explosion, automobiles, drug dealing, mass communications, doors that lock, etc.)

Just because you have a right to do something, does not mean the public does not have a right to AMEND SUCH RIGHT for our own safety and liberties.

"The 10 Amendments" are not "The 10 Commandments." We CAN AND SHOULD add and subtract to them when needed. Take the Volstead Act- 18th amendment voted it into law. The 21st amendment repealed it.