Texas elementary school shooting…

Jaw said:
The right to keep and bear arms without infringement is acknowledged in the BoR. The right to motorized transportation is not.

So until an acknowledgement of the right to operate automobiles is added to the BoR, infringing on automobile ownership and operation is irrelevant to the Constitution.

Infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Like I've said, I think it should be updated, but we shouldn't want the government to enforce laws that directly violate the BoR just because amendments are hard. They're hard for a reason.
Click to expand...

It isn't the guns that are being regulated according to this plan. It's the people who choose to carry/use them. And those rights to bear arms can be lost for certain reasons, such as being a convicted felon, and certain other issues, such as (and I know this isn't as clear as it should be) mental illness, spousal abuse, etc.
 
goldfly said:
I find this a beyond silly response and a core of how stupid the 2nd amendment is etc imo

The car wasn’t invented yet.

Hell, it would be 100+ years before the first slow ass moving car would be made

Shockingly, nothing anywhere in 1776 was talking about cars
Click to expand...

The Constitution didn't get locked in a vault so it couldn't be updated. If the un-infringed right to own and operate a car is important to you then you should write your congressional representatives about it.
 
Last edited:
Oklahomahawk said:
It isn't the guns that are being regulated according to this plan. It's the people who choose to carry/use them. And those rights to bear arms can be lost for certain reasons, such as being a convicted felon, and certain other issues, such as (and I know this isn't as clear as it should be) mental illness, spousal abuse, etc.
Click to expand...

That's certainly the way it works now. Show me in the Constitution where the asterisk is next to "shall not be infringed" to specify that. Again, not unreasonable limits, but still unconstitutional.
 
Jaw said:
That's certainly the way it works now. Show me in the Constitution where the asterisk is next to "shall not be infringed" to specify that. Again, not unreasonable limits, but still unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

As I have stated many times here I am NOT anti-gun, I just believe something has to be done about all these shootings. Normally I might say just hire more cops/security, etc., but that obviously ain't getting the job done. I will always be pro-gun rights, but like I said before, something has to be done. I am certainly open to ideas from the right, but so far I don't recall seeing any.

Enlighten me please.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
As I have stated many times here I am NOT anti-gun, I just believe something has to be done about all these shootings. Normally I might say just hire more cops/security, etc., but that obviously ain't getting the job done. I will always be pro-gun rights, but like I said before, something has to be done. I am certainly open to ideas from the right, but so far I don't recall seeing any.

Enlighten me please.
Click to expand...

I think we mostly agree, I'm both pro-gun rights and in the camp that something should be done. I just think that something needs to be an amendment to either replace or update the Second.

But I'm an outcast. I read the Constitution and think of the context and time period and come away with the conclusion that citizens should be able to own machine guns or missiles or tanks or F-16s if they can afford them, and I don't think we should let our government circumvent those rights acknowledged and guaranteed by the Constitution on the grounds that I want more limited rights to arms, or that amendments are hard to pass. They're supposed to be hard, that guarantees near universal agreement that those right should or should not be assured.

I also think that admitting the current Constitutional right to those types of weapons is a good way to get it done. Something everyone can agree on is that none of us need tanks or fighter jets. Just work from that. No weaponized vehicles. No explosive ordinance. Automatic weapons shouldn't be hard to tack on. That leads to shots per minute. There should be a limit, we don't SWAT teams running into Gatling gun fire. What about magazine capacity, there's no Constitutional limit to it now. Do we want guys to have 1000 round belts feeding their rifles? How about 50? How about 20? It's much easier to find agreement on divisive issues when you start with things that both sides agree on by default.
 
Jaw said:
That's certainly the way it works now. Show me in the Constitution where the asterisk is next to "shall not be infringed" to specify that. Again, not unreasonable limits, but still unconstitutional.
Click to expand...



I can show you that this hasn't stopped the government or courts on other issues. Pretty much everything is legal for the government if they claim national security as well.
 
Jaw said:
That's certainly the way it works now. Show me in the Constitution where the asterisk is next to "shall not be infringed" to specify that. Again, not unreasonable limits, but still unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as an absolute right. Speech is a good example. The government can freely put reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. If a lunatic wants to use a bullhorn to espouse conspiracy theories in the street in front of your house at 2 AM, the government can stop him. At 2 PM, probably not.

I'll also say the well regulated militia language is not a limitation on the second amendment. One of the big rules of construction of anything in the law is looking at the plain language. The plain language of the amendment shows the well regulated militia portion is reasoning for taking the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms from the government, it's not a limitation on the removal of the power.

If you want to read it that the second amendment only applies to well regulated militias you have to change the structure of the sentence or read in words that aren't there.
 
striker42 said:
There's no such thing as an absolute right. Speech is a good example. The government can freely put reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. If a lunatic wants to use a bullhorn to espouse conspiracy theories in the street in front of your house at 2 AM, the government can stop him. At 2 PM, probably not.
Click to expand...

So a couple of things. I realize the interpretation I'm using isn't the one used by the same federal government that the Constitution is designed to limit, it's what I'm saying citizens should expect of their government. If the purpose of the BoR and the Constitution as a whole was to let the government interpret it and ignore it as they want, TJ wouldn't have wasted the ink used to write it.

The other thing is the language. The First Amendment only says Congress will not pass any laws abridging the freedom of speech. They knew about state and local government and left those out on purpose. Using language as strong and definitive as "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" wasn't accidental. It didn't exempt state and local governments like the First did, and it didn't include an out for anyone to use their best judgement. There isn't even a debate whether it's supposed to translate to "should" or "shall" ala different translations of John 3:16. They flat out said "shall not be infringed." That language was as strong as saying "don't anyone dare do this."
 
2 children were decapitated.

For those standing against regulating these war weapons.

And don't forget there is a trail of profiteers
 
We really just let this keep happening I guess cause of a stupid amendment

[tw]1534907255040008192[/tw]
 
Pusification of men is what caused this.

Uvalde cops should hold their heads in shame for the rest of their lives.

Losers

Law abiding citizens will never give up their guns. I hope the left pushes this because Blacks and Hispanics especially will not give up their guns.
 
No reasonable person thinks Uvalde is about guns.

Its a sad indictment on where our society is now and how far the traditional male has fallen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top