Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
08 17, 17, 09:26:07:PM

Login with username and password

The good thing about being a Conservative is that I can do exactly what I say.
I don't have to say one thing and then do something else. -Bill Whittle

Search:     Advanced search
1893497 Posts in 219812 Topics by 294 Members
Latest Member: jack_montana
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: DC Federal Court Ruled Carrying Guns In Public A 2nd amendment Right 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 Print
Author Topic: DC Federal Court Ruled Carrying Guns In Public A 2nd amendment Right  (Read 495 times)
Local5th
Sr. Member

Posts: 24066


« Reply #120 on: 08 12, 17, 07:16:04:PM » Reply

Point out exactly where the Second Amendment affords the right of civilians to own or possess firearms, or to carry arms--concealed or openly.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, is the reason the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
1965hawks
Sr. Member

Posts: 22510


« Reply #121 on: 08 12, 17, 08:10:17:PM » Reply

Amendment II, US Constitution: 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.


local5th (and the NRA) : "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed."



local5th,

When you and the NRA omit the Second Amendment's first clause, the amendment's preamble, and quote only the second clause, you quote the second clause out of context. Notice that in the Second Amendment, the peoples' right to bear arms (render military service) is within the context of serving in the Militia, not within the context of private citizens (civilians) using their privately owned firearms for their personal use.

If the Second Amendment simply read, "The right of a person to carry firearms for his or her personal use," then you could make the credible argument that Second Amendment protection extends beyond protecting the arms of a state's legitimate militia from arbitrary abuse from federal official abuse and protects an individual's right to keep a handgun in the home, or carry a handgun--openly or concealed-- while out in public. But, in actuality, the wording of the amendment itself prevents that claim from being a valid one. Doesn't it, local5th?
duke_john
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 57734


« Reply #122 on: 08 12, 17, 08:40:38:PM » Reply

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

Or in 21st-century plain English: "Because the National Guard is essential to protecting the lives and property of a state's inhabitants and protecting the state's government itself, and, when called into federal service, aiding the regular armed forces in its defense of the country and the national government, Congress is forbidden to pass any law or laws that would interfere with a state's right to arm its National Guard.

So, whenever there is a matter that endangers lives or property of a state's inhabitants, such as a derailed train, then the National Guard can be called?
Local5th
Sr. Member

Posts: 24066


« Reply #123 on: 08 12, 17, 09:34:01:PM » Reply

When you and the NRA omit the Second Amendment's first clause, the amendment's preamble, and quote only the second clause

The first clause is just a clause. What you call the the second clause is actually a sentence. Diagram it son.
D2D
Republicans believe every day is the fourth of July! Democrats believe every day is April 15!
Sr. Member

Posts: 82532


« Reply #124 on: 08 13, 17, 04:19:54:AM » Reply

1965hawks continues to claim only the law abiding should be disarmed!

Criminals and corrupt Democrat politicians should be well armed in his perverted view!
wmdn_bs
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own."
Sr. Member

Posts: 25784

Bob


« Reply #125 on: 08 13, 17, 06:05:11:AM » Reply

The second amendment is inarguably a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. "Shall not be infringed.", means something. That something is pretty clear.
duke_john
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 57734


« Reply #126 on: 08 13, 17, 07:12:52:AM » Reply

^^^ Yes ^^^   
captain_kook
Laughing at the right-wingrrrr corporate-front-Tea Party-GOP-TalkRadio Cult! Yes - YOU!
Sr. Member

Posts: 23315


« Reply #127 on: 08 13, 17, 07:25:51:AM » Reply

"Shall not be infringed.", means something. That something is pretty clear.

That right was extended to the States - representing "The People"

The reason was some states refused to agree to join the Union under the new Constitution
unless their rights to maintain their militias and armories was preserved.

Not until Heller was any personal right to possess weapons established.

And even that is not open-ended.


"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
- Antonin Scalia for the SCOTUS
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

from
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),
a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment
to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves
and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm
for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defense within the home.
Local5th
Sr. Member

Posts: 24066


« Reply #128 on: 08 13, 17, 08:29:13:AM » Reply

Not until Heller was any personal right to possess weapons established.

So it took awhile to get it right. That happens sometimes.

When the Constitution was first written federal and state rights and responsibilities/rights were defined. The bill of rights was written to include rights/protections for the people.

The fact the 2nd amendments appears in those bill of rights should tell you something.
Sadie402
Honored Member

Posts: 9342


« Reply #129 on: 08 13, 17, 08:53:43:AM » Reply

Imagine if all those highly charged protesters in Charlottesville all had guns. It would easily turned into a bloodbath.....

Some people on this board would have rather enjoyed that scenerio........could have been far more deadly than a white guy with a car.
Local5th
Sr. Member

Posts: 24066


« Reply #130 on: 08 13, 17, 09:17:36:AM » Reply

Imagine if all those highly charged protesters in Charlottesville all had guns. It would easily turned into a bloodbath.....

They all had cars and one was used to kill.
Sadie402
Honored Member

Posts: 9342


« Reply #131 on: 08 13, 17, 09:50:07:AM » Reply

See local......they would have to have gone to their cars....got in their cars.....drive their cars into a crowd. And said crowd upon seeing the first car barreling towards them would get out of the way before the rest of the cars came. Ample time to avoid being killed.

However a gun within inches of your trigger finger would be far more deadly. And flying bullets are ever so much harder to avoid than a bunch of cars.

Bad analogy local.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: DC Federal Court Ruled Carrying Guns In Public A 2nd amendment Right
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats


Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam



Lend a hand


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.081 seconds with 38 queries.