2nd Amendment right to carry openly in public affirmed

domer76 said:
Here’s the way it is, dumbfuck. You asked “where in the Constitution...” and I countered with my own “where in the Constitution...” That was an attempt to show you the childishness and absurdity of that moronic RW mantra. The Constitution mentions neither, does it, dimwit?

Isn’t “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” also two of those self-evident things? Those were lies when TJ was still writing. So, don’t give me your “self-evident” bullshit.

Hey, speaking of the right to life, you’re one of those death penalty advocates, aren’t you? A liitle problem with consistency?
Click to expand...

Your hatred of the Founding Documents is noted. Your confusion with "innocent life" and "murderer" is also noted.
 
Dark Soul said:
Your hatred of the Founding Documents is noted. Your confusion with "innocent life" and "murderer" is also noted.
Click to expand...

lol

Can't respond to your little dilemma, can you?

Fuck you and your lame attempt at guessing what I hate. I merely pointed out your always sophomoric "where in the Constitution...." absurdity. And you don't like being hoisted on your own petard.

The Declaration isn't law, fucktard. Never was and never will be. You can point to your "God-given" or "natural" or whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-them rights, but while the Constitution is silent about the "right to kill your bee bee", it is equally as silent about the right to let it live. I'm just pointing out the foolishness of your "argument, but you're too stupid to understand that.

The right to life is the right to life, shitstain. It looks like you want it both ways. And we haven't even touched upon rape or incest. I can't wait to hear your bullshit on those scenarios!
 
domer76 said:
lol

Can't respond to your little dilemma, can you?

Fuck you and your lame attempt at guessing what I hate. I merely pointed out your always sophomoric "where in the Constitution...." absurdity. And you don't like being hoisted on your own petard.

The Declaration isn't law, fucktard. Never was and never will be. You can point to your "God-given" or "natural" or whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-them rights, but while the Constitution is silent about the "right to kill your bee bee", it is equally as silent about the right to let it live. I'm just pointing out the foolishness of your "argument, but you're too stupid to understand that.

The right to life is the right to life, shitstain. It looks like you want it both ways. And we haven't even touched upon rape or incest. I can't wait to hear your bullshit on those scenarios!
Click to expand...

You appear to be upset that the right to life is self evident.
 
Dark Soul said:
You appear to be upset that the right to life is self evident.
Click to expand...

lol

Sad little fuck can't answer questions exceeding a 5th grade level. Typical of the 43%ers

Wasn't "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" also supposedly "self-evident, moron?

No answer on the death penalty, rape or incest, I see.

Pussy
 
Micawber said:
I wonder why people don't exercise that right? I never see people walking around with guns.
There must be strong social pressure not to do it. It makes snowflakes out of the supposedly macho gun nuts.
Click to expand...
It used to be quite common, except in the Eastern states, SCOTUS, as late as 1857, in the otherwise horrible Dred Scott case, stated that all citizens had the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went". It was with the passage of the 14th Amendment, and the freeing of the slaves, that the 2nd Amendment began to be diluted, to allow for laws to restrict the newly-freed slaves' ability to be armed and defend themselves against groups such as the KKK. Nowadays, because of that dilution, Most states have laws against open carry.
 
tinfoil said:
Carrying a gun is not gun violence. Why do the two different things even get equated?
Click to expand...

Some are obsessed with "gun violence", to the point that they seem to believe that without guns there could be no violence and that guns cause violence. The insanity of such a belief is invisible to them. As I've often said, if you could get rid of all guns, the behavior would still be a problem, while if you could do something about the behavior, the guns wouldn't be a problem. It's clear where we should focus our efforts.
 
rjhenn said:
It used to be quite common, except in the Eastern states, SCOTUS, as late as 1857, in the otherwise horrible Dred Scott case, stated that all citizens had the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went". It was with the passage of the 14th Amendment, and the freeing of the slaves, that the 2nd Amendment began to be diluted, to allow for laws to restrict the newly-freed slaves' ability to be armed and defend themselves against groups such as the KKK. Nowadays, because of that dilution, Most states have laws against open carry.
Click to expand...

PA. is an open carry state, always has been. You need a permit to carry concealed (handgun), otherwise it must be openly displayed and unloaded..
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Oh we all know carrying was all, always about keeping blacks in line in america and we know who the fools are. Ronnie Reagan showed the world what a scam that was as Gov of CA once the Panthers basically said, "cool, then we can carry too since the police are murdering us in the streets". Nothing new, america being america.
Click to expand...

Difference is the Panthers were using a false premise and had bad intentions by carrying.
 
archives said:
Exactly, they throw it around as if it applies to every situation relevant to guns, and attempting to explain to them that no right is absolute is a losing battle, that is beyond "massively ignorant"
Click to expand...
So I wonder what "shall not be infringed" means. Sure sounds absolute.
 
archives said:
I live in a Blue State, in a large urban area for that matter, and with the State's stricter gun laws we experience less gun violence than the vast majority of loose gun States, do you think there might be a correlation there somewhere?
Click to expand...
You mean like with Chicago and Illinois' strict gun laws? And states like New Hampshire and Utah with looser gun laws and very low rates of gun violence? How about the fact that states that border Canada, with a few exceptions like Illinois (Chicago) and Michigan (Detroit) have similarly low rates on violent crime without the strict gun laws? Perhaps factors like culture are more important than gun laws.
 
Jade Dragon said:
The NRA nuts teach that liberals want the abolishment of gun rights. So they get them to believe all we liberal hunters, want this despite where we stand on guns. Just keep the friggen one man arsenal stuff out of the hands of the mentally ill. Is that so hard to compromise towards. They just give more slippery slope BS, like they give for all issues they demand a certain way on.
Click to expand...

There are enough leftists that DO want total elimination of the 2nd Amendment. There will be no compromise.
 
Lesh said:
Actually anyone that bothers to read it knows that it ONLY has to do with the Militia.

Not "self defense" not hunting...not target shooting

And at BEST...the Dick Act means that the only militia that exists (and it really doesn't) concerns only males under 45
Click to expand...
Actually, that's the usual ignorance coming from those who want to do away with the Constitution. The 2nd is a protection of the basic human right to self-defense. The militia clause is just a statement that a citizenry that is familiar with firearms is the basis of an effective militia. We've grown away from "familiar with firearms". As we've done so, our problems with them have increased.
 
Flash said:
The Supreme Court has read it plus past decisions and history and they disagree with you.

However, regardless of whether the federal and state governments can make 1) no regulations on guns; or 2) strict regulations, it is still a political decision what regulations they choose to make.

And, in practice, they have chosen to allow guns for hunting, self-defense, target shooting, and any other reason people choose to own weapons. Even if the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to apply only to militias, that does not make owning weapons illegal absent laws prohibiting them. So, the interpretation becomes irrelevant in practice unless some jurisdiction prohibits ownership of weapons. The regulations we live with are based on political, not constitutional, decisions (with a few exceptions).
Click to expand...
As was true of many of the past decisions that SCOTUS relied upon to allow restrictions on the right to bear arms. Despite the crystal clear "shall not be infringed" wording of the amendment.
 
Lesh said:
Actually that's not true.

In both Miller and Cruikshank they DO agree that it pertains strictly to the militia (which it actually says). Scalia in recent rulings decided to throw stare decisis out the window and became an activist political jurist in Heller and McDonald
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not true. The amendment says nothing about pertaining strictly to the militia. It is "the right of the people", not the right of the militia. And Miller, at least, only said that its protections only extended to weapons that were useful to a militia. While Cruikshank only stated that the 2nd only limited the federal government, not state governments.
 
Lesh said:
Wrong the threw settled law out the window and an activist court made a narrow ruling that makes no real legal sense. The 2A absolutely relates to the militia. The words are there and settled law acknowledged that
Click to expand...
The words do not mean what you want them to mean. There's nothing in the 2nd that restricts it to the militia. And you have mentioned no "settled law" that says that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top