Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Supreme Court Ruling Might be a gun lover's dream

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219

    Supreme Court Ruling Might be a gun lover's dream

    I believe the author of this article might be onto something....Thoughts??



    http://constitutionalrightspac.com/a...ry-reciprocity

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Why would the author stop at concealed carry? Open carry is recognized in 45 out of 50 states and a 36 to 14 ratio was just deemed good enough by the Supreme Court?

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Concealed carry?

    Several circuit courts have ruled that CC is not covered by the 2A, and that OC is. I doubt this ruling for gays will change a thing, the courts look at sex issues, and gun issues separately.

    Otherwise CC would be covered under privacy in Roe V Wade, and that has not happened.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Supreme Court Ruling Might be a gun grabbing anti's worst nightmare.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by logunowner View Post
    I believe the author of this article might be onto something....Thoughts??



    http://constitutionalrightspac.com/a...ry-reciprocity
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Concealed carry?

    Several circuit courts have ruled that CC is not covered by the 2A, and that OC is. I doubt this ruling for gays will change a thing, the courts look at sex issues, and gun issues separately.

    Otherwise CC would be covered under privacy in Roe V Wade, and that has not happened.
    several circuit courts are delusional. the 2A does not specify what mode of carry, merely that it shall not be infringed. I really don't think this ruling has any bearing on the 2A any more that the 2A itself has. We know the law. we just don't have the guts to exercise it en masse. Which is why we have to play games with a corrupt legal system that cares nothing for our rights
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  6. #6
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    several circuit courts are delusional. the 2A does not specify what mode of carry, merely that it shall not be infringed. I really don't think this ruling has any bearing on the 2A any more that the 2A itself has. We know the law. we just don't have the guts to exercise it en masse. Which is why we have to play games with a corrupt legal system that cares nothing for our rights
    yeah but 'infringe' is so....ambiguous
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    several circuit courts are delusional. the 2A does not specify what mode of carry, merely that it shall not be infringed. I really don't think this ruling has any bearing on the 2A any more that the 2A itself has. We know the law. we just don't have the guts to exercise it en masse. Which is why we have to play games with a corrupt legal system that cares nothing for our rights
    IMO bear means not hiding, hold up. It seems counter to the intent of the 2A to hide that we have guns. The other excuse is the lame claim that 2A is for self defense, it is not, never was, until it got perverted.

    It is not about hunting, it is not about sport shooting, it is not about self defense. It is for the security of a free state. And that means not being shy about arms as a check against tyranny.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    several circuit courts are delusional. the 2A does not specify what mode of carry, merely that it shall not be infringed. I really don't think this ruling has any bearing on the 2A any more that the 2A itself has. We know the law. we just don't have the guts to exercise it en masse. Which is why we have to play games with a corrupt legal system that cares nothing for our rights
    I have bolded the part of your post that I agree with the most.....

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Are we going to conceal carry in masses to protest? How will they know?
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    IMO bear means not hiding, hold up. It seems counter to the intent of the 2A to hide that we have guns. The other excuse is the lame claim that 2A is for self defense, it is not, never was, until it got perverted.

    It is not about hunting, it is not about sport shooting, it is not about self defense. It is for the security of a free state. And that means not being shy about arms as a check against tyranny.
    IMO that is not even correct.. entirely.

    the wording actually states that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that is, in it's entirety, separate.

    in fact the RKBA of the people is in reality a complete individual statement, followed by the fact that both the well regulated ( this actually meant well supplied and trained) militia, and it's necessary existence for the security of a free state, and the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall BOTH not be infringed.

    but you know.. that is just my take on it. considering the placement of comma's and such.

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    IMO that is not even correct.. entirely.

    the wording actually states that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that is, in it's entirety, separate.

    in fact the RKBA of the people is in reality a complete individual statement, followed by the fact that both the well regulated ( this actually meant well supplied and trained) militia, and it's necessary existence for the security of a free state, and the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall BOTH not be infringed.

    but you know.. that is just my take on it. considering the placement of comma's and such.
    It is alll ONE amendment NOT two! The purpose for the second is spelled out in the first phrase, then made abundantly clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed to hinder a free state.

    It was NEVER about hunting, sport shooting, collecting, or self defense. Those are covered in those rights not enumerated.

    Plus so far the circuit courts have a agreed, AND judge Scalia made it abundantly clear in Heller, that OC is the right and CC is open to government regulation, OR denial.

    NRA has brainwashed the public into twisting the constitution, and it is disgusting that people fall for it. They are no better than the government.

    It is a liberal progressive dream that the 2A is about anything but a free state. And NRA is a progressive lobby, that promotes MORE gun control.

    Everybody who considers a 18th century flintlock pistol a concealed carry weapon raise your hands?



    The Philadelphia derringer designed by Henry Derringer was not even produced until 1852, which was followed by copies. So when the framers wrote the second amendment conceal carry virtually DID NOT exist. Add to that conceal carry does absolutely nothing to ensure a free state, and it becomes understandable the circuit court rulings, and Scalias own use of those in Heller.

    How anyone can believe that asking permission from the state to prevent tryanny from that same state is about 2A, IMO, has lost all sense of history.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 06-27-2015 at 11:28 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    It is alll ONE amendment NOT two!
    It is one amendment. But the First amendment shows that doesn't mean it's all tied as a single right or solitary purpose, as it lists several rights together.

    There are multiple writings from the time that show the right of the people to bear arms (a natural right identified, but not granted by the 2A) was held for a variety of purposes. The reason for expressly pointing it out in the federal constitution was that of the well trained armed citizens (aka militia) because that was in direct contrast to the English rule that we rebelled against, but in no way limits it to protecting only that purpose. It still enumerates it as a right that shall not be infringed.

    In fact, the SCOTUS decision you referenced, Heller vs DC, the decision makes clear that the right is not limited to the militia reason identified in the amendment.

    Could you provide more detail on how the decision defined it solely as an OC right? The ninth circuit interpreted it differently in Peruta v. San Diego. Based on Heller, they ruled that the State could not ban both OC and CC, but must allow some form of carry, not that they must allow OC if CC was legal.
    Last edited by STLDaniel; 06-27-2015 at 12:47 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    It is one amendment. But the First amendment shows that doesn't mean it's all tied as a single right or solitary purpose, as it lists several rights together.

    There are multiple writings from the time that show the right of the people to bear arms (a natural right identified, but not granted by the 2A) was held for a variety of purposes. The reason for expressly pointing it out in the federal constitution was that of the well trained armed citizens (aka militia) because that was in direct contrast to the English rule that we rebelled against, but in no way limits it to protecting only that purpose. It still enumerates it as a right that shall not be infringed.

    In fact, the SCOTUS decision you referenced, Heller vs DC, the decision makes clear that the right is not limited to the militia reason identified in the amendment.

    Could you provide more detail on how the decision defined it solely as an OC right? The ninth circuit interpreted it differently in Peruta v. San Diego. Based on Heller, they ruled that the State could not ban both OC and CC, but must allow some form of carry, not that they must allow OC if CC was legal.
    Please cite where it lists several rights together?


    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


    This amendment covers basic human rights that do not need to be enumeration. Like self preservation, self defense, and even conceal carry(privacy). The 2A only enumerates ONE purpose for the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. It states absolutely nothing about all other claims. AND in Peruta the courts acknowledged that CA denied OC making the only form of carry in most incorporated CA conceal carry. Same reason for the ruling in Illinois that did not have any form of OC, or carry.

    Plus even if firearms were outlawed the right to self defense, and self preservation would still exist. Firearms are not the only means of self defense, it could be a brick, a sharp stick, a vehicle, or any other common inanimate object.

    This is one of the citations used by Scalia in Heller.

    “Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.””

    It is clear how when it reaches the SCOTUS how Scalia will rule, and without him there will be no gun rights victories. When Hillary gets elected, and replaces just one justice, gun rights will be gone. Because the liberals will use what has always been known, a gun is not the only self defense tool. And the NRA and others who believe the SD fallacy will be left with their jaws hanging.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 06-27-2015 at 01:21 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  14. #14
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    yeah but 'infringe' is so....ambiguous
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    IMO bear means not hiding, hold up. It seems counter to the intent of the 2A to hide that we have guns. The other excuse is the lame claim that 2A is for self defense, it is not, never was, until it got perverted.

    It is not about hunting, it is not about sport shooting, it is not about self defense. It is for the security of a free state. And that means not being shy about arms as a check against tyranny.
    exactly why I believe the best way to carry is openly but that's another debate and there is a whole thread for that purpose. The point is bearing arms is a nessesity for the protection of a free state. All you need to do is look at California and New York to see that

    Quote Originally Posted by logunowner View Post
    I have bolded the part of your post that I agree with the most.....

    I think I remember you. You're one of the few people that seems to actually accept the 2A as it's supposed to be. We just need 10,000 more in 2-3 major cities now
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    exactly why I believe the best way to carry is openly but that's another debate and there is a whole thread for that purpose. The point is bearing arms is a nessesity for the protection of a free state. All you need to do is look at California and New York to see that




    I think I remember you. You're one of the few people that seems to actually accept the 2A as it's supposed to be. We just need 10,000 more in 2-3 major cities now
    Exactly....

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    But the First amendment shows that doesn't mean it's all tied as a single right or solitary purpose, as it lists several rights together.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Please cite where it lists several rights together?
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    1. Religion
    2. Free Speech and Press
    3. Assembly
    4. Petitioning for redress

    4 rights, 1 amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Plus even if firearms were outlawed the right to self defense, and self preservation would still exist. Firearms are not the only means of self defense, it could be a brick, a sharp stick, a vehicle, or any other common inanimate object.
    ...
    When Hillary gets elected, and replaces just one justice, gun rights will be gone. Because the liberals will use what has always been known, a gun is not the only self defense tool. And the NRA and others who believe the SD fallacy will be left with their jaws hanging.
    Just because there are other ways to defend oneself does not mean you can restrict self defense to just those forms and infringe the right to carry firearms. The opinion was very clear that the reference to the militia was stated only as to why the 2A was codified, not to limit the 2A to that sole purpose, and that self defense is in fact central to the 2A.

    "It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."

    "It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense."

    "As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."

    The final quote below illustrates nicely that another object possible of self defense (in this case a long gun, but insert stick or brick or whatever) is not sufficient to enable a ban on handguns:

    "It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    anyone ever wonder if the words, "necessary to the security of a free state" mean state of being, a state of mind, or the state one resides in as continuing to be free?

  18. #18
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    1. Religion
    2. Free Speech and Press
    3. Assembly
    4. Petitioning for redress

    4 rights, 1 amendment.



    Just because there are other ways to defend oneself does not mean you can restrict self defense to just those forms and infringe the right to carry firearms. The opinion was very clear that the reference to the militia was stated only as to why the 2A was codified, not to limit the 2A to that sole purpose, and that self defense is in fact central to the 2A.

    "It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."

    "It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense."

    "As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."

    The final quote below illustrates nicely that another object possible of self defense (in this case a long gun, but insert stick or brick or whatever) is not sufficient to enable a ban on handguns:

    "It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."
    We are talking about 2A, NOT 1A. And the government already DOES limit arms based on the self defense theory. Based on the free state theory everything that the military has in small arms would be available to the people. Regardless if needed for self defense. In ten years when Hillary has appointed a anti gun justice to replace a pro gun justice firearm ownership by LAC will be GONE! It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. And all because people do not know how to read.

    Other countries that allow firearms for SD, ALREADY limit gun ownership and carry much more than here. We have skated because of the 2A, because many understand it as it is written, and don't add into it. Once you go down that road, government, and the bench can read into it whatever they wish. As has already happened.

    In State V Kerner the judge made it very clear what the right to bear arms meant in NC constitution. The NC amendment patterned after the COTUS on the right to bear arms. But this was before the rewriting of the COTUS by lobbyists with a pocket that needs to be filled.

    From State V Kerner May 11, 1921 Because of this CLEAR ruling on the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, our right to carry openly is well protected, unless the feds use SD to remove those rights or severely restrict them. STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID. Or you will see the banning of firearms from your children's children forever.



    "Among the other safeguards to liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A standing army is peculiarly obnoxious in any free government, and the jealousy of such an army has at times been so strongly manifested in England as to lead to the belief that even though recruited from among themselves, it was more dreaded by the people as an instrument of oppression than a tyrannical monarch or any foreign power. So impatient did the English people become of the very army that liberated them from the tyranny of James II that they demanded its reduction even before the liberation became complete; and to this day the British Parliament render a standing army practically impossible by only passing a mutiny act from session to session. The alternative to a standing army is 'a well-regulated militia'; but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. The federal and state Constitutions therefore provide that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

    We know that in the past this privilege was guaranteed for the sacred purpose of enabling the people to protect themselves against invasions of their liberties. Had not the people of the Colonies been accustomed to bear arms, and acquire effective skill in their use, the scene at Lexington in 1775 would have had a different result, and when "the embattled farmers fired the shot that was heard around the world," it would have been fired in vain. Had not the common people, the rank and file, those who "bore the burden of the battle" during our great Revolution, been accustomed to the use of arms, the victories for liberty would not have been won and American Independence would have been an impossibility.

    If our pioneers had not been accustomed to the use of arms, the Indians could not have been driven back, and the French, and later the British, would have obtained possession of the valley of the Ohio and the Mississippi. If the frontiersmen had not been good riflemen, particularly the riflemen from Tennessee and Kentucky, the battle of New Orleans would have been lost and the frontiers of this country would have stood still at the Mississippi.

    In our own state, in 1870, when Kirk's militia was turned loose and the writ of habeas corpus was suspended, it would have been fatal if our people had been deprived of the right to bear arms and had been unable to oppose an effective front to the usurpation.

    The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. It should be construed to include all "arms" as were in common use, and borne by the people as such when this provision was adopted. It does not guarantee on the one hand that the people have the futile right to use submarines and cannon of 100 miles range nor airplanes dropping deadly bombs, nor the use of poisonous gases, nor on the other hand does it embrace dirks, daggers, slung-shots and brass knuckles, which may be weapons but are not strictly speaking "arms" borne by the people at large, and which are generally carried concealed. The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds (p.225)of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the "arms," an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power--such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords, and pistols. These are now but little used in war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as "arms," which they have a right to "bear."
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 06-27-2015 at 06:25 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  19. #19
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I'm not sure you guys really disagree. The way it reads to me, dumbed-down to my literacy level would be:

    Because an efficient militia is necessary to maintain freedom, the people's right to be armed is forever untouchable.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I'm not sure you guys really disagree. The way it reads to me, dumbed-down to my literacy level would be:

    Because an efficient militia is necessary to maintain freedom, the people's right to be armed is forever untouchable.
    This is the only thing the 2a is written for. Rewriting it to include SD will, and has perverted it. That is why we are stuck with so many laws limiting how, and when we can carry. NRA brought us these controls, and any new laws they bring, also bring controls. They have made it easier to take our guns away.

    If SD had been argued using the 9th, our 2a would still be read as it was written, and all laws infringing on that right would be void.

    That means any free person would have the right to have any arm that protected a free state. Including tanks, fighter jets, fully automatic firearms, and having a full armory at the disposal to the people to protect the free state.

    The conceal carry(Sonny Crocket) fantasy used by P4P proponents have suckered American gun owners into believing a fallacy. Judges are correct in that OC is the right intended, they are wrong that it is for self defense. The constitution was written to protect the people from government, not protect the government from people, or protect the people from people.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This is the only thing the 2a is written for. Rewriting it to include SD will, and has perverted it. That is why we are stuck with so many laws limiting how, and when we can carry. NRA brought us these controls, and any new laws they bring, also bring controls. They have made it easier to take our guns away.

    If SD had been argued using the 9th, our 2a would still be read as it was written, and all laws infringing on that right would be void.

    That means any free person would have the right to have any arm that protected a free state. Including tanks, fighter jets, fully automatic firearms, and having a full armory at the disposal to the people to protect the free state.

    The conceal carry(Sonny Crocket) fantasy used by P4P proponents have suckered American gun owners into believing a fallacy. Judges are correct in that OC is the right intended, they are wrong that it is for self defense. The constitution was written to protect the people from government, not protect the government from people, or protect the people from people.
    Yep they would never feel the need to enumerate a right bearing arms for personal SD. That right already had long standing common law protection, to the founders that would be like enumerating the right to use eating utensils.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    Congress shall make no law snip...
    "It is therefore entirely... snip..."
    "It was plainly... snip..."
    "As the quotations... snip...."
    "It is no answer to say, snip....."
    nice of you to provide quotes...do you have a viable cite for these quotes to give rightful attribution to?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    [QUOTE=WalkingWolf;2149397]snip...

    Everybody who considers a 18th century flintlock pistol a concealed carry weapon raise your hands?



    uh, er, WW...here I was think'g after looking at the foto it was actually part of her brazzier...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    [QUOTE=solus;2149499]
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    snip...

    Everybody who considers a 18th century flintlock pistol a concealed carry weapon raise your hands?

    --snipped--
    Raising my hands might denote surrender.....................or send a private signal (there are those who will understand, no further explanation will be offered.)
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This is the only thing the 2a is written for. Rewriting it to include SD will, and has perverted it. That is why we are stuck with so many laws limiting how, and when we can carry. NRA brought us these controls, and any new laws they bring, also bring controls. They have made it easier to take our guns away.

    If SD had been argued using the 9th, our 2a would still be read as it was written, and all laws infringing on that right would be void.

    That means any free person would have the right to have any arm that protected a free state. Including tanks, fighter jets, fully automatic firearms, and having a full armory at the disposal to the people to protect the free state.

    The conceal carry(Sonny Crocket) fantasy used by P4P proponents have suckered American gun owners into believing a fallacy. Judges are correct in that OC is the right intended, they are wrong that it is for self defense. The constitution was written to protect the people from government, not protect the government from people, or protect the people from people.
    I think you're right but the why doesn't really matter IMHO.
    It could have stated "Because George Washington says he feels 'Gansta' holding a flintlock gat, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    It's a right, that shall not be infringed upon. Even though it is anyway.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •