• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Pro or Con? May be inappropriate for underage / snowflakes.

Joined
Oct 17, 2019
Messages
33
Naturally discussions involving guns, as with all politics these days, often deteriorate into s--t-slinging matches.

We can't discuss abortion, religion, economics, or GUNS in this country any more without the conversation turning into a commie snowflake vs fascist drone contest.

Surely we could devise a manner to reduce the frequency and severity of mass shootings without turning the 2nd Amendment to ashes. I'm quite sure this is possible.

There was a time the 2 parties could compromise and cooperate, and we sorely need to return to that mode of politics now.

I'm a Democrat and own guns, do not object to open carry, and have a concealed carry permit. Does that make y'all's heads spin? It shouldn't.

Did you know that open carry was ended in California by Gov Ronald Reagan as a response to the Black Panther Party carrying arms in the streets? How does that fit into our current polarized political narrative?

We might attempt to initiate sane conversation on this topic by attempting to ascertain just what DOES the 2nd Amendment say? A lot of assumptions about this fly about on both sides, but I seldom hear reasoned discussions of it.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,198
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
My black book deals with evilness and evilness has not been destroyed and it never will. No matter how many laws are passed.

Sane conversation is honor the second amendment at written, shall not be infringed, period. If you don't like it the constitution provides a method in repealing it. The first and second amendments are absolute contrary to what the Supremes say.

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.

Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.

Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum

Translation: A thing adjudged [the solemn judgment of a court] makes white, black; black, white; the crooked, straight; the straight, crooked.

The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.

The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
Naturally discussions involving guns, as with all politics these days, often deteriorate into s--t-slinging matches.

Did you know that open carry was ended in California by Gov Ronald Reagan as a response to the Black Panther Party carrying arms in the streets? How does that fit into our current polarized political narrative?

We might attempt to initiate sane conversation on this topic by attempting to ascertain just what DOES the 2nd Amendment say? A lot of assumptions about this fly about on both sides, but I seldom hear reasoned discussions of it.
Shame Barros you haven’t pursued the threads of this forum...

the Mulford Act introduced & passed by the CA legislative body as well numerous postings on the meaning of the verbiage of the 2nd amendment as well as different segments of the Constitution and Bill of Rights have graced Forum discussions for years !

Reasoned discussions...I suppose that depends on participants’ mindset, reading abilities, as well as understanding what is being articulated in those discussion...wouldn’t you say?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,248
Location
Kentucky
The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the RTKABA. only seeks to protect it as the preexisting human right it is.

The 2A leaves no room for compromise. It is clear what says and means. Either one supports it or one does not.
 
Top