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.
As for the court issue. The courts were created by the Framers to be part of the checks and balance system. If the Supreme Court rules some law invalid as not being supported by the Constitution, Congress may address the issue. In the extreme event, The People may also address the issue by amending the Constitution.
Hear, hear. Probably no posters are lawyers or judges, and the ones who continue to push their personal interpretation ignore the simple fact that the court system-up to the Supreme Court-can and must interpret laws for their compliance with modern conditions that the original Constitution did not address, or addressed in a way that leaves a shred of doubt. That's part of their role.
If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, that's it, end of discussion unless and until Congress passes a law changing the rules.
The words "well regulated militia" leave a shred of doubt. If ALL people are the militia, as some claim, then what is wrong with regulation? The words "well regulated" are clearly used prior to militia.
If that statement needs to be altered or clarified in a way that people who are for unrestricted gun rights like, it's for a Congress to pass a law that survives judicial scrutiny, or for an Amendment.
Hear, hear. Probably no posters are lawyers or judges, and the ones who continue to push their personal interpretation ignore the simple fact that the court system-up to the Supreme Court-can and must interpret laws for their compliance with modern conditions that the original Constitution did not address, or addressed in a way that leaves a shred of doubt. That's part of their role.
If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, that's it, end of discussion unless and until Congress passes a law changing the rules.
The words "well regulated militia" leave a shred of doubt. If ALL people are the militia, as some claim, then what is wrong with regulation? The words "well regulated" are clearly used prior to militia.
If that statement needs to be altered or clarified in a way that people who are for unrestricted gun rights like, it's for a Congress to pass a law that survives judicial scrutiny, or for an Amendment.
Well regulated=in well working order.
It's not a pro gun argument.
See the NFA=highly unconstitutional along with every other restrictive form of gun laws following.
To make it a Neutral not left not right argument here is the truth to it.
Either side can be radical. Either side can push a law written in obscurity to the common man, which grants the government unlimited power.
The 1934 NFA act neutered the citizens of America.
There is no chance today, for the common man to overthrow/revolt against a tyrannical government.
Who's got the fully automatic weapons?
Who's got explosives?
Who's got armor?
Who has artillery?
I don't care what your political point of view is.
It is your right to bear and keep as you see fit, not how uncle Sam sees fit.
To make it a left VS right argument... the left looks really tyrannical...
Let's push legislation via fear mongering by exploiting tragedy. Let's instill fear to the populace with language that strikes them in the feels.
Weak people who will exchange liberty for comfort shall receive neither.
History, and foreign nations, who've been led by tyrannical governments/leaders, have shown time and time again, without an armed populace, that many innocent folks were subjected to extermination from religious beliefs to political beliefs.
That's a fact.
How is the left tyrannical? This isn't tin foil here say.
Look at NY/MA.
Restrict ownership of arms. Ban types of arms and capacity of said arms. Restrict ammo one can purchase for said arms.
Make it a crime to defend ones life or property. Lefts law perpetuates the use of heroin in those states. They enable it to continue with laws that protect the junkie and their dealer. How? Well we must remove the stigma of addiction to save lives. Mr policeman you can't arrest anyone at the scene of an overdose. Guess where some of these overdoses occur? Inside what's called a "trap house" dope dealer buys or rents, junkies go in, shoot up. They OD 911 is dispatched, police arrive no arrest can be made even with outstanding physical evidence.
How do I know? I have friends who are police officers that have relayed that info to me. Some have taken photos on their personal phones for evidence. Can't do anything about it. Basically ordered to stand down.
Junkie is revived with narcan and a trip to the hospital, they choose rehab, 90 days and go relapse. Or are out later that week and out and OD again. The drugs they use, highly addictive, will cause them to seek any means necessary to support the habit. You think a Junkie cares about your life? They'll kill you for a 5 dollar bill if they think you have it. Not just heroin, coke, crack, meth, pills.
Shoot said Junkie you are going to the steel bar motel for life. Family/Lawyers will pander to emotions and win every time. The left has made the criminals the victim, the police and the citizens into criminals.
Now. What stops NY from dispatching the state police from rounding up citizens as Cuomo sees fit? Other than the federal government, the county sheriffs? Nothing.
Bet if the citizens of NY had tanks, anti aircraft missiles, military grade hardware, and were in well working order, there would be no opportunity for that to even be a thought. His tax hikes would be kept in check as well. His ridiculous laws would be kept in check as well.
Which goes to say
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.
When the playing field is leveled there is no threat to security of a free state.
How many Chinese died under Mao?
How many Europeans and Jews died under Hitler?
How many Russians and eastern Europeans died under Stalin?
Pol-pot?
Kim dynasty in North Korea?
It's not an emotion based argument, it is fact.
If you don't like the law of the land, how it was written and intended, there's Canada Mexico France Belgium Germany Australia Venezuela.
I like the laws of the land. I left NY to go be in America and if you think you're going to pass a law to encroach on my freedom, or anyone else's in other free states, you're in for a rude awakening.
I like the video as well. One problem though. Where does it say or even imply in the Constitution that the right to fly commercially is guaranteed to citizens. And he also implies that it would be OK to block non citizens without due process. How does that work.
How many here speak normal English? Let's see a show of hands.
I thought so. And how many think the basic sentence structure of today's English doesn't really differ much from that of 1789? A few of the words are more quaint, but it's sill easy to read. And the Constitution was written to be easy to read for the average literate person, which was most Americans even in 1789.
Those of you who held up your hands know that the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment are merely an explanation for why the right cannot be infringed. It doesn't modify the fact that infringement is banned, in the slightest.
If a militia were ever proven somehow to NOT be necessary (hasn't happened yet), that would in no way change the command that the right shall not be infringed.
Gun-rights-haters who dwell on whether a militia is "well regulated" or not, or exactly what that means, are completely on the wrong track. Probably deliberately, since they know they cannot win by acknowledging the truth.
It doesn't matter whether your militia exists, doesn't exist, is or isn't regulated etc., the fact remains that no govt in the U.S. can take away or restrict your right to keep and bear arms. And the 2nd amendment has always meant that.
Sorry, gun-rights-haters. Your so-called "gun control" laws are unconstitutional, by the 2nd amendment. If you don't like that, you can always pass another constitutional amendment to change the 2nd. The procedure is laid out right in that same document. Except you know you are in such a small minority in this regard, you'll never get it through 3/4 of the states, don't you? The vast majority of normal Americans want nothing to do with your schemes.
No wonder you keep resorting to sniveling little attempts to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn't say what it does, has dark hidden meanings, etc. It's straightforward, factual meaning doesn't support your agenda. So rather than obeying it, you scuttle around trying to avoid, ignore, or lie about it.
Sucks being you, doesn't it?
To answer the question in the thread title, when a govt makes a law that is hostile to the 2nd amendment, the govt's law is null and void; and must yield.
How many here speak normal English? Let's see a show of hands.
I thought so. And how many think the basic sentence structure of today's English doesn't really differ much from that of 1789? A few of the words are more quaint, but it's sill easy to read. And the Constitution was written to be easy to read for the average literate person, which was most Americans even in 1789.
Those of you who held up your hands know that the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment are merely an explanation for why the right cannot be infringed. It doesn't modify the fact that infringement is banned, in the slightest.
If a militia were ever proven somehow to NOT be necessary (hasn't happened yet), that would in no way change the command that the right shall not be infringed.
Gun-rights-haters who dwell on whether a militia is "well regulated" or not, or exactly what that means, are completely on the wrong track. Probably deliberately, since they know they cannot win by acknowledging the truth.
It doesn't matter whether your militia exists, doesn't exist, is or isn't regulated etc., the fact remains that no govt in the U.S. can take away or restrict your right to keep and bear arms. And the 2nd amendment has always meant that.
Sorry, gun-rights-haters. Your so-called "gun control" laws are unconstitutional, by the 2nd amendment. If you don't like that, you can always pass another constitutional amendment to change the 2nd. The procedure is laid out right in that same document. Except you know you are in such a small minority in this regard, you'll never get it through 3/4 of the states, don't you? The vast majority of normal Americans want nothing to do with your schemes.
No wonder you keep resorting to sniveling little attempts to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn't say what it does, has dark hidden meanings, etc. It's straightforward, factual meaning doesn't support your agenda. So rather than obeying it, you scuttle around trying to avoid, ignore, or lie about it.
Sucks being you, doesn't it?
To answer the question in the thread title, when a govt makes a law that is hostile to the 2nd amendment, the govt's law is null and void; and must yield.
I agree with you as to what the amendment actually says. But that is not how the USSC has ruled.
They have made it clear that regulation is allowed. And, for the moment, that ends the discussion. Another court may well reverse that or further erode it. But for now arms are regulateable.
As such, in the past we have had laws banning ownership of certain classes of weapons (military grade weapons, and I think the old 'Saturday Night Special' of the 1970s). I have always thought that such bans were Constitutional, for The People still had the right to arm themselves with a wide range of other weapons.
If you can ban one class of firearms you can ban them all. That's the issue. That's the ultimate goal of gun prohibitionists. "Saturday Night Special" was the terminology for small, easily concealable, cheaply made handguns. They have not been banned although attempts have been made by using such terminology to convince the public that nobody needs one of those and that their only purpose is to commit criminal acts. However who's to determine what is small, easily concealable or cheaply made? I can easily conceal a .44 Magnum with a 7 1/2 inch barrel in a shoulder holster. For some people $500 would be considered cheap for a handgun.
Now the push is to ban semi automatic firearms by calling them either "assault weapons" or "assault rifles". Often times they will call these weapons "automatics" of which they are not. There's a big difference between semi automatic and fully automatic. The objective is to scare the public using this type of terminology in order to gain support of a widespread ban on them.
They use these same tactics by calling all of those who have illegally invaded our country as "immigrants" or "undocumented" as if there were some type of paperwork error. When in fact they are anything but. They are illegal invaders, pure and simple and have absolutely no business being here. It's this type of deception that fosters animosity and distrust of those who are pushing an agenda. An agenda that is contrary to the principles of which this country was founded. If they are lying using false terminology to push their agenda they will lie about anything. People will only lie in order to deceive as they know that if they were to tell the truth they would never get any support otherwise. It's all about lies and deception to push an agenda that most would find repulsive once they found themselves living under it. Just try and ask the good citizens of Venezuela, who coincidentally have been disarmed by their government.
By your logic as long as one can own a single shot firearm they still retain a right to arm themselves. We can take that a little bit further and say: Well as long as, knives, clubs or even your own fists are still available we still have the right to arm ourselves.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for the people to fight off a tyrannical government as they did the British and to be comparably equipped with weapons of the time.
The Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decision has already confirmed that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right not related to service in a militia and that it applies to weapons that are "in common use". Semi automatic rifles and handguns are ubiquitous and are indeed in "common use". Therefore to ban them would be a direct violation of that decision and unconstitutional.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 06-24-2017 at 11:41 AM..
I like the video as well. One problem though. Where does it say or even imply in the Constitution that the right to fly commercially is guaranteed to citizens. And he also implies that it would be OK to block non citizens without due process. How does that work.
As for commercial flight, it is a privelege not a right. As is driving and boating. Those are privileges not rights.
You pay your government to exercise those privileges to drive and boat jet ski even snowmobiles and atvs and RVs in the form of registration.
If you own private or commercial air craft you pay the government to use those as well.
Drive down the road without license plates registration or insurance.
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.
