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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The drafters of the second amendment obviously assumed that thinking, breathing human beings would not need every potential "infringement" defined for them, and chose to make the blanket statement "Shall not be infringed" to cover ANY AND ALL infringements.
1) A waiting period - is an infringement, preventing a person's ability to secure a firearm in at the time THEY feel they need one ... it's not up to you or the US Government or the State of California to decide when THEY need one. The waiting period of 10 days prevents them from keeping and baring arms for those ten days, and that, BY DEFINITION is an infringement.
2) Carry Permit or License - implies the need for permission from some other authority, based on their criteria, and by definition, is an infringement.
3) Various proposals requiring training, insurance, standards are all forms of infringement. There are some legislators who have tried to pass a mandate requiring 1 Million Dollars of liability insurance in order to own a firearm .. which could infringe the right to keep and bare arms for those who cannot afford such insurance or fees for complying with the various permits and licensing requirements.
4) Any limitation on make model or calibre is an infringement. Banning a type of riffle for example is a gun ban ... and does infringe on the rights of those who's only weapon might be the type banned.
5) Classifying any citizen as not eligible to own a firearm is an infringement. No where in the second amendment does it state, "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed ... except ...." There is no "except" in the statement ... there is no qualifier or disqualifier in the language.
Just like the 5th Amendment ... you have the right to refuse to testify against yourself in a criminal proceeding ... it doesn't say if you are innocent or guilty ... it's no selective ... it covers the innocent and the guilty. It's there to protect the innocent, not reward the guilty .. even though it does protect the guilty too ... it's just the cost of freedom.
Though not a state, prior to the recent supreme court ruling, the District of Columbia had an outright ban on guns, while also enjoying a high position on the list of most violent crimes and murder.
But why hide behind such a false argument? Because to support false arguments you need to, that's why. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about outright bans as the definition of infringement ... this is your false argument, and it won't work!
Illinois (Obama land) has been working feverishly for years to have a total ban on firearms .. many states unfriendly to the 2nd amendment have engaged in many attempts to ban most guns .. including semi-automatics that make up the vast percentage of modern guns.
Oh yeah baby ... the gun grabbing spirit is willing but the flesh has been weak ... and for the most part, it is the liberal democrats who have historically been the most flagrant of the gun grabbers.
Obama is a extreme leftist gun grabber himself, and always has been, as has been his minions like Eric Holder, a long time, unapologetic anti 2nd Amendment, anti-American scumbag.
There is NOTHING these guys want more (except maybe our money) than our guns ... why? Because they are SUPREME CRIMINALS and they KNOW sooner or later the fools will one day get smart .. and they don't want them getting smart and armed at the same time.
No state has banned any weapon. They have banned "bling bling" that makes them look more like military weapons, but they haven't banned a weapon.
You can go and buy a rifle that fires the same round as the M16, the AK-47, or any other assault rifle, they just don't look like the military grade stuff.
So, keep spinning in circles.
The Supreme court has ruled its ok to ban certain things off of weapons. Home defense doesn't mean an assault rifle. Hunting doesn't mean a flash guard.
Face it, you're argument that the constitution is being infringed upon, is bull, and you know it.
The Supreme court has ruled, and I wager to bet they know a hell of a lot more about the Constitution than anyone else on this board.
No state has banned any weapon. They have banned "bling bling" that makes them look more like military weapons, but they haven't banned a weapon.
You can go and buy a rifle that fires the same round as the M16, the AK-47, or any other assault rifle, they just don't look like the military grade stuff.
So, keep spinning in circles.
You're the one spinning here, claiming bans on common and popular arms are not bans.
Quote:
The Supreme court has ruled its ok to ban certain things off of weapons. Home defense doesn't mean an assault rifle. Hunting doesn't mean a flash guard.
No they have not.
And they were rather clear the second amendment is not just about self-defense or hunting, but enabling the people to overturn the government.
If it weren't for the NRA, the right for people to "keep and bear" firearms would have disappeared long ago. ....and not long after, the right to free speech, and most, if not all, the other guarentees under the Constitution would have as well.
I'd like for you to show me where the 2cnd Amendment mentions "hunting."
An un-armed population has no way of defending and protecting themselves from a government intent on stripping the people of any of their rights.
The reason guns and ammo go "flying off the shelves" is because they know the record of the gun-grabbing leftists, and that includes the current occupant of the WH. In fact he has done more for the firearm industry than the NRA has."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Do you have proof of any of this, or is it just part of a hyper paranoid opinion?
Try studying some US history. Find out how many times the efforts of the NRA have thwarted attempts by the government to disarm the people. Hell do some research on how many times the government has TRIED to ban guns.....even using incremental steps.
Try reading the Second Amendment for yourself. Also consider the following website: Founders Quote Database - PatriotPost.US (http://patriotpost.us/historic/quotes/ - broken link)
Do also your own research on the history of dictatorships, and the fact that one of the first things they do when they take power is to disarm the people. There's a reason they do this....and it's the reason the Framers put the Second Amendment into the Constitution.
The Liar-in Chief is on record as supporting laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's a mainstay of the demorat party. So, when it looked like the messyiah would win the election, gun sales and ammo sales skyrocketed.
Do you watch or read any news other than the MSM BS?
Do you have proof of any of this, or is it just part of a hyper paranoid opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
These two statements probably outlines the issue as clearly as any statements made thus far:
First, it is NOT up to each state to make it's own laws if those laws violate the constitution, and clearly, any law that infringes on the right to keep and bare arms, by definition, is an illegal law.
Secondly, I cringe at the "I have no problem 'submitting' comment. That is perhaps the most telling statement of all ... and the precise reason why we have so many difficulties these days ... too many Americans seem to have no problem in "submitting" to all sorts of infringements, violations, and indignities today, all at the whim of our "masters".
In fact, our founding fathers would be disgusted by such a mindset, and consider those "submissives" mortal enemies of the republic, as is so clearly conveyed in the words of Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Many more statements from several of our greatest minds of the time recognized that liberty was not something that is "won" or "granted", but is an idea that must be constantly attended to, and guarded, as there will always be men who seek power to deny that liberty.
The "Bill of Rights" is not called the "Bill of Privileges", because those wise men understood the difference ... "rights" cannot be denied to men by other men because they are birth rights. The very idea that the right to defend oneself can be denied is absurd ... this is your first and most important right ... self defense, and the defense of your your family, your property, your means of survival from those who would take those things from you the moment you were rendered defenseless (disarmed).
Those that would ignorantly "submit" to granting their right of self defense to another (police), are waving all of their rights in so doing, and accepting their role as an inferior, subject to the whims of others. Children require the protection of others ... not grown adults.
You may think that you have the right to "submit" and give up that responsibility ... but you do not. Because, in so doing ... you simultaneously wave the rights of your children, and your children's children, and you have no such right to do that.
If it weren't for the NRA, the right for people to "keep and bear" firearms would have disappeared long ago. ....and not long after, the right to free speech, and most, if not all, the other guarentees under the Constitution would have as well.
I'd like for you to show me where the 2cnd Amendment mentions "hunting."
An un-armed population has no way of defending and protecting themselves from a government intent on stripping the people of any of their rights.
The reason guns and ammo go "flying off the shelves" is because they know the record of the gun-grabbing leftists, and that includes the current occupant of the WH. In fact he has done more for the firearm industry than the NRA has."
Try studying some US history. Find out how many times the efforts of the NRA have thwarted attempts by the government to disarm the people. Hell do some research on how many times the government has TRIED to ban guns.....even using incremental steps.
Try reading the Second Amendment for yourself. Also consider the following website: Founders Quote Database - PatriotPost.US (http://patriotpost.us/historic/quotes/ - broken link)
Do also your own research on the history of dictatorships, and the fact that one of the first things they do when they take power is to disarm the people. There's a reason they do this....and it's the reason the Framers put the Second Amendment into the Constitution.
The Liar-in Chief is on record as supporting laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's a mainstay of the demorat party. So, when it looked like the messyiah would win the election, gun sales and ammo sales skyrocketed.
Do you watch or read any news other than the MSM BS?
Show me when the government tried to disarm the people.
Not one case in american history, other than a few militias and cults, who had usually obtained illegal weapons.
Show me where the federal government tried to outlaw guns.
The judge I quoted before, answered those questions. He used the Supreme courts own rulings, wording, and decisions to defend his.
The SC is going to go right along with him
You said the supreme court had ruled that. They did not. That same district court dismissed the Heller case. They are frequently overruled.
Furthermore, he relied primarily on the dissenting opinions in Heller not the majority.
Quote:
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.
Show me in the line, where it says you have the right to every arm available?
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It means what it says. When it was written the people had the right to own any arm available, including artillery, hand grenades, and more. Everything that was in common use.
Quote:
Again,
YOU CAN BUY THE SAME HUNTING RIFLE, THAT FIRES THE SAME AMMUNITION THAT AN ASSAULT RIFLE WILL FIRE.
Thats the crux of the argument, they aren't preventing you from buying anything, just the packaging.
Still,
That argument that a gun ban is okay because another gun is legal, was very strongly rejected by the SCOTUS.
If as you insist it's only "the packaging," why would you support banning it?
Quote:
I've heard infringed on the second amendment, and can't buy weapons, and no one can show me where either of those things has happened.
Rabid, emotional, anti-second amendment activists will never see an infringement.
No state has banned any weapon. They have banned "bling bling" that makes them look more like military weapons, but they haven't banned a weapon.
You can go and buy a rifle that fires the same round as the M16, the AK-47, or any other assault rifle, they just don't look like the military grade stuff.
So, keep spinning in circles.
The Supreme court has ruled its ok to ban certain things off of weapons. Home defense doesn't mean an assault rifle. Hunting doesn't mean a flash guard.
Face it, you're argument that the constitution is being infringed upon, is bull, and you know it.
The Supreme court has ruled, and I wager to bet they know a hell of a lot more about the Constitution than anyone else on this board.
Don't do much service rifle competition do ya. CA has banned the AR 15 in it's proper form, the M1A, AR 10 etc. Fortunately, I do not live in CA, but did used to go there to compete in service rifle and IPSC. No more. Yep, their laws have made LEGAL use of certain types of firearms pretty much extinct. These so called 'assault rifles' as you say, are used for a lot of legitimate purposes, but, thanks to thinking like yours, are now only available to criminals. In TRUE military trim, I might add. The little switch on the side has that nifty extra notch. I find it interesting how you demonize such things as flash guards, and throw out the term "assault rifle" to describe such pieces as the good ol' AR. Talk about spin. Do you know what the top competition rifle is at the Camp Perry competitions is these days? Yea, the 'evil' AR 15. Hunting and home defense are not what the 2nd ammendment is written for. Like it or not, service style rifles, in the tradition of the American Rifleman, training in proper marksmanship with same, is what the Constitution guarantees us the right to. The rifles of choice today are the ones you say we do not need, in your infinite knowledge. The arrogance is appalling.
I own guns, I carry them regularly. Living on the Mexican Border has its risks, between the Drug Cartels and the looney minutemen I'd be a fool not to carry
How are the minutemen loony?
They are doing the job our government should be doing... protecting our border.
The judge I quoted before, answered those questions. He used the Supreme courts own rulings, wording, and decisions to defend his.
The SC is going to go right along with him.
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.
Show me in the line, where it says you have the right to every arm available?
Again,
YOU CAN BUY THE SAME HUNTING RIFLE, THAT FIRES THE SAME AMMUNITION THAT AN ASSAULT RIFLE WILL FIRE.
Thats the crux of the argument, they aren't preventing you from buying anything, just the packaging.
Still,
I've heard infringed on the second amendment, and can't buy weapons, and no one can show me where either of those things has happened.
You have been shown where this has happened numerous times, and choose to ignore it. Check CA state law regarding 'assault weapons", then read the list of what they classify as an "assault weapon". Not that it would mean anything to you. Gun rights groups, competition coalitions, many manufacturers, all the competitive shooter I know and a LOT of cops even, boycott CA because of the bite they have taken out of our sport. Effectively punishing law abiding people in the name of curbing crime. Just because a rifle fires the same round as a service rifle, does not make it suitable for service rifle competition. Your arguments are ridiculous and show a total lack of any real knowledge of shooting, shooters, and the traditions and true meaning of our Constitution. You are in love with the courts, which most left wingers are, and do like to cite decisions made by wacko left wing appeals justices in regards to the 2nd amendment. Your positions certainly do not go very far to 'burning up the straw man' that liberals and left wingers actually do support the right to bear arms.
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.
