The second amendment...

[water505]

You really don't know, do you?

Thank you for your insightful post, Dick Daley.

 

[phrodeau]

Ooh look, a sexy video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7DTjSla-O8

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Well it is in order. We've already got 45 going after the 1st amendment. So then 2nd, 3rd, 4th... it's all very ordered and logical you see.

Gott-damn liberals! Always following logic and ordered progression!

 

[Sean]

I must have missed the bit where Obama took the guns, as scarified by the NRA every couple of months for eight years.

 

[phrodeau]

I must have missed the bit where Obama took the guns, as scarified by the NRA every couple of months for eight years.

You know where the real threat of losing your guns is? These guys coming up to you and taking them.

http://billmoyers.com/story/militiamen-charlottesville-violence/

 

[Colonel Hogan]

America is unique in enjoying the freedoms of the US Constitution, and especially to have the protections of the Bill of Rights. Among these is the protection to keep and bear arms, our Second Amendment, and it is a personal right, as supported by SCOTUS decision.

There is currently an initiative for 'national carry'. In theory, this is fine... if you trust the Federal government to support the 2nd amendment, which I don't. We came within a hairs breadth of losing the right in this last election, and to trust the right to Federal approval is only as secure as the next election.

It's sad the promises made by the Federal government to every citizen are as tenuous as they are, but due to the fact that they simply cannot be trusted, I remain in favor of the current policy of County Sheriff issuance of conceal carry permits. We know we have the Bill of Rights, we simply no longer have the guarantee that those few politicians who refuse to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution (as their oath demands) are not going to push to deprive us of that right, and others, and are an eminent threat.

Let me see if I'm following you correctly.

Because the federal government cannot be trusted with expanding our Second Amendment right in the form of a national carry law for the simple reason that they might later turn around and repeal it, you think the option of "concealed carry" is better protected by being left to local jurisdictions.



Simply put, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. We don't have a national carry law now. If Congress passed one only to repeal it later, then the option would ONCE AGAIN be left to the states, just like it is now. Duhhhhhh.

For that matter, the individual right to "keep and bear" ensconced by the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald would arguably NOT be infringed by a national law PROHIBITING CONCEALED CARRY. Under such a theoretical construct, you could still own firearms for self-defense and hunting just like people did for years before concealed carry came into vogue.

The Supreme Court has been known to reverse itself on numerous occasions. Our rights are ALWAYS, in some measure, contingent upon the next election regardless of whether their "protection" appears to rest primarily with the state or federal government.

Whether we follow your advocacy on this question could not be more inconsequential.

http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg546/imagine686868/Brian-Regan-Dumb-Look_zpsfbad762d.gif

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/13/12836/giphy_28.gif

welp, so much for the Second Amendment!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/13/12836/giphy_28.gif

welp, so much for the Second Amendment!

And if that's the OP holding the weapon, I'm not at all certain you have to move nearly that fast.

 

[Hypoxia]

The typical liberal is a firearms illiterate...

I could say shit about the "average conservative" -- and I'd be just as wrong because such averages don't exist except as strawmen in arguments. Y'all might be surprised how many folks with progressive views have military and other firearms training. My own marksmanship awards are packed away because irrelevant. Suffice to say that I could do your dental work with my .45 ACP at fifty yards.

ObTopic: The 2nd amendment's background was, who would be allowed to to defend the country? Rather than a standing army, USA would depend on an organized, well-regulated militia composed of all those willing to bear arms in defence of their nation. The 2nd says, none are excluded. Its background had NOTHING to do with empowering individuals to fight-off the gov't. Such is a deliberate misreading.

Not that banning firearms is possible. That cat is out of the barn. Such can now be produced with 3D printers, totally unregulated, totally irresponsible. Any interpretation of the 2nd is now meaningless. Amerikkka is armed. You have the right to kill or be killed. Have fun.

 

[coachdb18]

We don't have a national carry law now.

In fact, our national carry law IS the second amendment.

Personally, I think the Federal government should enforce the right to carry in the same way it enforced the right to go to public school for blacks in 1960's Alabama... when the states of NY, NJ, MA, CA, etc decide to deny the right to carry and to jail those who do, they should take that governors axe handle away and lock him up, and impose federal penalties (ie the voting rights act of 1964) to preserve those rights. No citizen should be pushed to the back of the bus by a backward thinking 'progressive' state. EVER.

 

[coachdb18]

I could say shit about the "average conservative" -- and I'd be just as wrong because such averages don't exist except as strawmen in arguments. Y'all might be surprised how many folks with progressive views have military and other firearms training. My own marksmanship awards are packed away because irrelevant. Suffice to say that I could do your dental work with my .45 ACP at fifty yards.

ObTopic: The 2nd amendment's background was, who would be allowed to to defend the country? Rather than a standing army, USA would depend on an organized, well-regulated militia composed of all those willing to bear arms in defence of their nation. The 2nd says, none are excluded. Its background had NOTHING to do with empowering individuals to fight-off the gov't. Such is a deliberate misreading.

Not that banning firearms is possible. That cat is out of the barn. Such can now be produced with 3D printers, totally unregulated, totally irresponsible. Any interpretation of the 2nd is now meaningless. Amerikkka is armed. You have the right to kill or be killed. Have fun.

Justice Scalia, and the SCOTUS, disagree. Further, the Declaration of Independence disagrees. It is an individual right, not just a government right doled out at its discretion.

 

[jaF0]

In fact, our national carry law IS the second amendment.

In fact, it isn't. Not for private individuals, hence the 'well regulated militia' portion rather than any goon that want to go plinkin' at road signs.

Personally, I think the Federal government should ...

... ban the sale, possession and manufacturing of ammunition by private individuals. Let folks have their shootin' irons with nothing to go boom, boom, boom. Turn 'em all into wall decorations or clubs.

 

[coachdb18]

Far be it for the government to require anyone to buy anything that they feel they neither want nor need... OH, Wait! The SCOTUS ALREADY ruled that the Federal government can, and indeed has, ruled that it can as a national interest mandate that all US citiens have to purchase something they feel they neoither want nor need, or be levied a Federal income tax fine for not having done so.

SOOOooo... in enhancing that ruling, in the interests of safeguarding the general health of the public at large, it should be an amendment to Obamacare to require every US citizen to purchase and carry a sidearm, for their and their families protection from the harm of a potential criminal act. Or pay the fine.

 

[jaF0]

to require every US citizen to purchase and carry a sidearm, for their and their families protection from the harm of a potential criminal act. Or pay the fine.

Right. Arm all the felons and melon heads.

 

[coachdb18]

Right. Arm all the felons and melon heads.

No, I'm not against Democrats also being among the citizens whose second amendment rights are also preserved...

If you can legally vote, you should have the right (and yes, the responsibility) to carry a gun.

 

[doowdniw]

Where did I put that rocket launcher?

 

[coachdb18]

Where did I put that rocket launcher?

https://i.imgur.com/tI6PpC0.jpg
So inconvenient!!!

 

[Izadora]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/79/7979a99761bb0299812b8b5a4e1f9707970b0355d5d1bab8d9f77ba17185d017.jpg

 

[Colonel Hogan]

In fact, our national carry law IS the second amendment.

Nope.

Concealed carry laws became prevalent in the early nineteenth century as states tried to control violence and limit public dueling, and the laws were upheld by the courts as important public safety measures.43 Nor were the laws seen as violating the Second Amendment. The influential legal scholar John Norton Pomeroy, writing on the Second Amendment in 1879, stated, “[T]his constitutional inhibition is certainly not violated by laws forbidding persons to carry dangerous or concealed weapons, or laws forbidding the accumulation of quanti- ties of arms with the design to use them in a riotous or seditious manner.”44 Prior to 1840, the state legislatures of Kentucky, Louisiana, Indiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia all passed laws prohibiting the concealed carrying of weapons.45 State courts in Arkansas,46 Georgia,47 Kansas,48 Tennessee,49 and West Vir- ginia50 upheld these concealed carry laws. One exception was the Supreme Court of Vermont, which in 1903 held that under the Vermont Constitution, an individual has a right to carry a weapon, openly or concealed, for self-defense.51

In 1897, the Supreme Court indicated that concealed carry laws did not violate the Second Amendment. Justice Brown, writing for the Court in Robertson v. Baldwin,52 stated, “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”53 State courts in New York,54 North Carolina,55 Maryland,56 and elsewhere have upheld laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons in public. The Supreme Court of North Car- olina, for instance, held that the right to bear arms is “subject to rea- sonable regulation,” including concealed carry prohibitions, in order to preserve public peace and safety.

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3471&context=mlr

 

[Colonel Hogan]

In fact, it isn't. Not for private individuals, hence the 'well regulated militia' portion rather than any goon that want to go plinkin' at road signs.

Nope.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for the purpose of self-defense.64 The Court applied this right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago.65 In both cases, the Court hedged its holding by laying out a laundry list of presumptively lawful gun regulations.66 Neither case, however, provided a standard of review to guide lower courts in analyzing existing gun regulations under the new individual Second Amendment right.67

Heller invalidated a District of Columbia law that effectively banned the possession of handguns in the home.68 The ban was one of the most restrictive in the country.69 Conducting a historical in- quiry into the original understanding of the Second Amendment, the Court found that the Amendment “conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms”70 and that this right “belongs to all Americans,” not just members of a militia.

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3471&context=mlr

 

[jaF0]

^^ But The SCROTEs are wrong, as they so very often are. They have kowtowed to the NRA version of the wording, not the original intent which is clearly and simply stated.

Just look at the NC case I linked for another example of their ineptitude

 

[coachdb18]

Perhaps we should consider making the abortion 'right' established in Roe v Wade one which is carried out by use of a handgun, per the second amendment, and not one of dismemberment by suction device? Still not sure any of this squares with the framers intentions of protections of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

 

[Hypoxia]

Those depending on SCOTUS rulings to protect their individual gun-toting privilege should be aware that courts and their decisions change. But if you have a 3D printer to make your next pistol, fuck SCOTUS, right? Fuck everybody. They're all The Enemy.

Tangent: the 2nd says the well-regulated militia (remember them?) are to bear arms, supposedly to defend the nation, but actually to kill game, noisy neighbors, federal tax agents, uppity subhumans, and your spouse. But it doesn't specify WHICH arms. Many jurisdictions ban morningstars, Claymore mines, full-auto firearms, brass knuckles, nuclear devices, stilettos, and other primitive-to-advanced weapons. What happened to my inviolable right to carry a fission bomb into the White House?

Legislators and SCOTUS thus seem to have the power to define which arms a legal USAnian may bear. Doesn't matter; after Tromp and Kim start WW4, the main weapons will be rocks and sticks.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Perhaps we should consider making the abortion 'right' established in Roe v Wade one which is carried out by use of a handgun, per the second amendment, and not one of dismemberment by suction device? Still not sure any of this squares with the framers intentions of protections of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Don't you think it's about time you change your signature, asshole?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

^^ But The SCROTEs are wrong, as they so very often are. They have kowtowed to the NRA version of the wording, not the original intent which is clearly and simply stated.

Just look at the NC case I linked for another example of their ineptitude

They are not wrong. And to a major extent, neither are you.

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.

This is the common misinterpretation that has been applied to the Second Amendment throughout its existence by BOTH gun rights advocates AND opponents.

The PURPOSE of the Second Amendment is to provide for the existence of an armed militia.

The MANNER IN AFFECTING the purpose is to PROTECT A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT from infringement.

Where you and others consistently go wrong is assuming that where the Second Amendment's purpose is arguably no longer compelling in a modern day environment, the government can simply suspend the pre-existing right as a result.

Heller and McDonald were only a few hundred years late in repudiating that fallacy.

And I distinguished that North Carolina case in the other thread where you raised it.