Gun Control in Action: Assaulted by the Feds

[questionmark]

They werent upheld by the constitution. The carry laws in DC infringe on the rights of people to KEEP AND BEAR arms.

Looks like the law of the land seems to disagree with you. If everybody chooses to interpret the laws how he feels like it we end up having an anarchy.

[Leonardo]

They werent upheld by the constitution. The carry laws in DC infringe on the rights of people to KEEP AND BEAR arms.

Apparently not.

You argue on the one hand that one person's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not overiride the interpretation provided by the SCOTUS, but then argue that your interpretation does override the SCOTUS's interpretation?

Who gave you alone the right to decide what the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is?

It seems apparent that your interpetation, being the blanket right to keep and bear arms with no qualifications, is incorrect.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Leonardo

[preacherman76]

Problem you are having is thinking that the amendment can have different meanings to different people. And I know there are many people who would like you to believe just that. But in truth, its a litteral definition. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, means just that. And when you read quotes from the founders, and what they intended for said amendment one could reach no other conclusion that they intended every home, every man has a undeniable right to not only have, but to bear arms.

You will notice I said we found ourselfs in a bit of luck when the SC struck down the ban. Cause the SC rules against the constitution all the time. In fact, its gotten to the point where the clause in the Declaration of Independence, where the government has "become destructive of these ends" where we find ourself having to ponder whether or not to exorcise our right to abolish the whole system. And to form a new government less capable of "interpreting" the constitution into oblivion.

See I dont stand on interpretation for my understanding of the 10 amendments found in the constitution, and solidified in the Bill of Rights. I look at it souly through direct definition. The second amendment tells me its the right of the people, and it can not be infringed.

in·fringe

/ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

verb (used with object)

1.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

verb (used without object)

2.

to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Origin:

1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-² + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

Related forms

in·fring·er, noun

un·in·fringed, adjective

Can be confused: infringe, impinge.

Synonyms

1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.

[questionmark]

Problem you are having is thinking that the amendment can have different meanings to different people. And I know there are many people who would like you to believe just that. But in truth, its a litteral definition. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, means just that. And when you read quotes from the founders, and what they intended for said amendment one could reach no other conclusion that they intended every home, every man has a undeniable right to not only have, but to bear arms.

You will notice I said we found ourselfs in a bit of luck when the SC struck down the ban. Cause the SC rules against the constitution all the time. In fact, its gotten to the point where the clause in the Declaration of Independence, where the government has "become destructive of these ends" where we find ourself having to ponder whether or not to exorcise our right to abolish the whole system. And to form a new government less capable of "interpreting" the constitution into oblivion.

See I dont stand on interpretation for my understanding of the 10 amendments found in the constitution, and solidified in the Bill of Rights. I look at it souly through direct definition. The second amendment tells me its the right of the people, and it can not be infringed.

in·fringe

/ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

verb (used with object)

1.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

verb (used without object)

2.

to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Origin:

1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-² + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

Related forms

in·fring·er, noun

un·in·fringed, adjective

Can be confused: infringe, impinge.

Synonyms

1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.

There is only one institution according to that same constitution that can decide if something infringes it, that institution has said it does not. That is the end of the story.

If you don't like it convince the government of DC to change the law.

[preacherman76]

There is only one institution according to that same constitution that can decide if something infringes it, that institution has said it does not. That is the end of the story.

If you don't like it convince the government of DC to change the law.

Wrong, there is one power higher then said institution. Its we the people. Who reserve the right to abolish the entire system. Cause it recognizes that there might come a day where the government over reaches, and abandons its constitutional restrictions.

[questionmark]

Wrong, there is one power higher then said institution. Its we the people. Who reserve the right to abolish the entire system. Cause it recognizes that there might come a day where the government over reaches, and abandons its constitutional restrictions.

Well, I fail to see that at least 50% + 1 of the people have told the SCOTUS to change the law. What you are really advocating is a pick-and-choose constitution, according to which whatever you feel is right or not applies. Well, if it is only your opinion that is called dictatorship, and if it is anybodies opinion that is called anarchy.

Both were not intended by the constitution. Especially the first was not.

[preacherman76]

Well, I fail to see that at least 50% + 1 of the people have told the SCOTUS to change the law. What you are really advocating is a pick-and-choose constitution, according to which whatever you feel is right or not applies. Well, if it is only your opinion that is called dictatorship, and if it is anybodies opinion that is called anarchy.

Both were not intended by the constitution. Especially the first was not.

No, Im directly against those who want to pick and choose, or "interpret" it to say what they want it to say, instead of what it actualy says. We have a government that is no longer for by and of the people. Hence the unconstitutional laws and rulings that we see all the time now.

Anyhow I gotta go to work. It was good talking to ya this morning Q. I hope you have a great day. You to Leo.

[Leonardo]

Problem you are having is thinking that the amendment can have different meanings to different people. And I know there are many people who would like you to believe just that. But in truth, its a litteral definition. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, means just that. And when you read quotes from the founders, and what they intended for said amendment one could reach no other conclusion that they intended every home, every man has a undeniable right to not only have, but to bear arms.

You will notice I said we found ourselfs in a bit of luck when the SC struck down the ban. Cause the SC rules against the constitution all the time. In fact, its gotten to the point where the clause in the Declaration of Independence, where the government has "become destructive of these ends" where we find ourself having to ponder whether or not to exorcise our right to abolish the whole system. And to form a new government less capable of "interpreting" the constitution into oblivion.

See I dont stand on interpretation for my understanding of the 10 amendments found in the constitution, and solidified in the Bill of Rights. I look at it souly through direct definition. The second amendment tells me its the right of the people, and it can not be infringed.

No, it doesn't.

Those rights which are expounded through the Constitution are still subject to other law - for example, Property Law.

Under Property law, the owner or manager of property has the right to determine what is subject to their ownership. That includes rights such as the right to bear arms. On property which is privately owned by a citizen, another person should not enter while carrying arms unless the right to do so is received from the owner. Likewise, on public land the authority under which that land is managed has that same right of determination. Constitutional authority is granted to the States via that document, so they may determine which rights held under the Constitution are upheld on State (public) land.

Public land is not 'owned' by you, and you do not have the right to determine what rights are yours on it - the management authority of that land does. However, because rights are assumed unless explicitly denied, that authority must deny the right in question - as DC has done.

That is perfectly legal and perfectly Constitutional.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Leonardo

[questionmark]

No, Im directly against those who want to pick and choose, or "interpret" it to say what they want it to say, instead of what it actualy says. We have a government that is no longer for by and of the people. Hence the unconstitutional laws and rulings that we see all the time now.

Anyhow I gotta go to work. It was good talking to ya this morning Q. I hope you have a great day. You to Leo.

That is their job, the founding fathers (to the contrary of some modern day fanatics) had the amazing foresight that parts of the constitution may become obsolete one day and that laws would be according to a latter day needs. That is why they expressively allowed the constitution to be changed (with a qualified majority) and allowed the SC to have the last word about constitutionality of laws.

If you don't like that get a majority to change that. Until then: It is what it is.

[preacherman76]

That is their job, the founding fathers (to the contrary of some modern day fanatics) had the amazing foresight that parts of the constitution may become obsolete one day and that laws would be according to a latter day needs. That is why they expressively allowed the constitution to be changed (with a qualified majority) and allowed the SC to have the last word about constitutionality of laws.

If you don't like that get a majority to change that. Until then: It is what it is.

The first 10 amendments cant be changed. They are solidified in the Bill of Rights. I dont have a problem with the principle roll of the SC. The problem is clearly that the SC no longer unholds the constitution. The founders knew that was possible, and wrote a eject button in case such a thing were to happen. Anyhow Im really going to work now, HAVE A GREAT DAY Q.

[questionmark]

The first 10 amendments cant be changed. They are solidified in the Bill of Rights. I dont have a problem with the principle roll of the SC. The problem is clearly that the SC no longer unholds the constitution. The founders knew that was possible, and wrote a eject button in case such a thing were to happen. Anyhow Im really going to work now, HAVE A GREAT DAY Q.

I don't know where you get your weird ideas from, anything in the constitution can be changed if there is a large enough political will to do it. They are ten amendments, not ten commandments.