good luck getting a straight answer-I have seen him asked this same question on several boards-no rational response
In other words yes. You do believe individuals has the right to keep and bear arms on there own and public property.
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Do you believe that guns are completely self explanatory and they can be used safely without any training of any kind?
No. But I'm not mandating it. Gun safety, target shooting, tactical training, force on force is all good. But I don't mandate it for the same reason I don't mandate that people get speach and debate classes before typing on forums. Do I think it'll help? Yes, especially for some people I seen and know, but I don't mandate it.
Well I disagree. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents requiring a license before exercising a right. Almost everyone agrees that gun training is necessary. Making it mandatory is a obvious solution and will not impede your right to keep and bear arms unreasonably
wrong perspective. there is nothing in the constitution that empowers the federal government to make such things mandatory. and you are in no position to tell others what will impede their rights. I think everyone who votes ought to be able to do the following 1) identify their own congressman and both federal senators 2) the governor of their state 3) the CJ of the United States supreme court 4) the current president, vice president, SOTH and Senate leaders before voting if we imposed those requirements less than 20% of the population could vote BTW
*shrug* Seems like a reasonable place for guns. I'd rather have folks explore their interest in firearms in a clearly defined and safe space, than elsewhere. It may be a trend, if so it seems like a good one.
There is nothing in the constitution that prevents requiring a license before exercising a right. If those other issues are important for you I suggest you lobby for them.
Who issues licenses? Government is the correct reply. Why is there a constitution with the bill of rights included. To make sure the Government does not take those rights is the correct reply. Fortunately for citizens, the founders were smart enough to install judges who will protect the public from Government. To license is to grant permission. My right to my weapons is found in the constitution. We need a case taken to the courts to get rid of licenses. Many things that have licenses really are not your protection. Some say licenses protect the public. Do you know of bad doctors or bad lawyers? They have licenses.
Never mind that a license to exercise the right to arms at the mist basic level -- that is, to own a firearm and keep it in your home - violates the constitution every bit much as a requirement to get a license before attending church or having an abortion. But, specifically: For restrictions upon fundamental rights protected specifically by the constitution, where the constitutionality of restrictions to said right are evaluated under the standard of strict scrutiny -- that is, the right to keep and bear arms -- the bar is not set at "reasonable" but "necessary". None of the restrictions sought by the anti-gun crowd are "necessary"; the people seeking these restrictions fully understand they cannot provide a sound argument to that effect.
That's nice. But again nothing in the constitution prevents requiring a license before exercising a right.
In this country, giving up one right leads to giving up more rights. Why call them rights if you refuse to stand up for, not merely you, but all of us? What is said in the second amendment about the Government infringing on rights to own weapons? Our rights are not to be infringed upon is what it tells us. But you see, in general, left wing politicians fighting you to snatch your rights. I don't understand why any person who believes in the constitution would vote for Democrats.
You seem to think that the government has any power not specifically denied it when the real answer is the government only properly has the powers specifically delegated to it using your erroneous views, you'd have to get a license before writing a letter to a newspaper or speaking up in church
Actually the wording is in the second amendment. A license is conditional. It stands in the way of rights.
More specifically... A license is a precondition to the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- and thus, necessarily, an infringement on the exercise of that right. The 2nd notes that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Well then you only need to supply the supreme court decision that backs up that stance. In truth the point has never been taken up by the supreme court to my knowledge. We are all just guessing on what they would decide. TOG can't deny this so he will just call me a troll and run away. LOL
Nothing in the constitution says that I cannot exercise a right until IF and WHEN the government decides to give me permission.
Agreed. So it is an open question. You have your opinion on what SCOTUS would decide and I have mine.
Almost always, and perhaps it is always, when the SC hands down a decision, the Justices speak of the rights being addressed. The case may for instance be about abortion. Somehow one or more justices pipe up and talk about some item they call privacy and try to tag this to the taking of a life. As if privacy allows for killing kids. But the rule is encompassing. They may cite the commerce clause. But the deal is to put a stop to something a person sees as his or her right. I would say the second amendment means that not just the right to own weapons is sacred, but so is the rest of the bill of rights sacred. A license is a permission. What is in the constitution stating the government has the right to give you permission? Government has done a lot wrong. It has had to be restrained by the SC. We need to take more cases to the USSC. - - - Updated - - - If all 9 justices were like Scalia, do you think a license to own a weapon would be upheld?
Well abortion does not involve kids but that is another matter entirely. We are agreed it is an open question. I believe the government already issues a license to carry a gun in public. Isn't that BEARING arms? I think this is clear legal precedent. But again that is an opinion. Who knows how scotus would rule? I believe the court will become more liberal shortly but again that is another opinion.
Here is the thing. Much that comes in the second part of the constitution is not part of the bill of rights. To clarify, 10 things are in the bill of rights. We have many amendments but the Bill of Rights remains the most important to all citizens. To limit the term of president really is of no concern to most Americans. We see a lot of disagreement when it comes to term limits on many politicians. So to a lot of us, term limits make no sense. To others, it makes a lot of sense. But we need a rock, a foundation. We were handed it with the 10 rights in the first ten amendments. I suggest all of us fight for those rights or we won't have them.
I agree. Those rights are very important. But I am glad ALL of them come with some restrictions. A free country could not operate if they didn't.
