Help for gun control folks to understand the 2nd amend... (enemy, FBI)

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

LOL. And the term "arms" at that time meant blunderbusses, muskets and flintlocks.

"LOL. And the term "arms" at that time meant blunderbusses, muskets and flintlocks".

AND WARSHIPS and CANNONS AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC arms which WERE made at the time of the Constitution being ratified.

I wonder who is being LAUGHED at NOW?

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Leo58

Yes, I agree with you.

You may keep (own) a gun
You may carry it around with you (bear)

But it has to be unloaded. Is that infringement?
It has to be registered. Is that infringement?
It has to be visible, not concealed. Is that infringement?
But you can't sell it. Is that infringement?

I'm not taking a particular stance here, just pointing out that there are laws that could be passed to regulate arms that would not violate the terms of the 2A

" just pointing out that there are laws that could be passed to regulate arms that would not violate the terms of the 2A'


ALL of you examples violate NOT BE INFRINGED!

[Leo58]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

An unloaded gun is rendered useless, so yes that is an infringement. We know government often oversteps its bounds, so registration is an infringement. Not being able to sell, or buy private property is an infringement. Requiring a certain method of carry is an infringement.

You haven't offered any reason why these things would be considered infringement. These are not specifically protected by the 2A. You did say that an unloaded gun is useless, which is not true, you could carry a gun in one pocket and bullets in the other. 2A doesn't say that you have to be able to discharge your weapon within a specified time frame, just that you can keep and carry it.

[spider99]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

The Constitution doesn't "grant" anything.

It LIMITS government from INFRINGING on natural rights which already exist.

There's no such thing as natural rights. Jokes on you fatBob.

[spider99]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"but I could care less what the constitution says"


Being you feel so strongly about NOT caring what the legal framework of our country says, WHY are you STILL here?


Why don't you go to somewhere that supporter YOUR "laws"?

Simple people need things like organized religion, the Constitution, or even grocery shopping lists to simply live their lives. I understand why you need that structure. It's basic, and you can understand it. It's something that you can point your finger at, and it's there. That's just the way you're wired. I have no problem with that.

Carry on.........

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Militia?
Go try and train a bunch of guys and gals in Domestic Tactical Warfare and let the FBI/ATF catch wind of it!!!


If Militia is a right, what are the rules?
I gotta know???

Yea, exactly, they would be labelled domestic terrorists and very quickly shut down. FBI/ATF would be protecting the tyrannical govt.


IN the eyes of a tyrannical govt...a patriot IS a terrorist.

[Troyfan]

The 2nd Amendment lets the states ban assault rifles and guns that shoot too fast or too many bullets at once.

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by Troyfan

The 2nd Amendment lets the states ban assault rifles and guns that shoot too fast or too many bullets at once.

Determined by whom?

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by Troyfan

The 2nd Amendment lets the states ban assault rifles and guns that shoot too fast or too many bullets at once.

but how effective were those laws?!! LOL


Not very, from what I have seen.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by Troyfan

The 2nd Amendment lets the states ban assault rifles and guns that shoot too fast or too many bullets at once.

McDonald v. Chicago says differently.


It is not a 10th amendment issue.