News that leftists won't like
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
ExpressLane
Verified User
Cars are not in the constitution guns are.
His argument was one of logic, not about The Constitution (capitalized) though he's also wrong about The Constitution. See below.
Last edited:
A real dimwit would likely fail to distinguish between The Constitution and the meaning of ordinary language, as you, true to form, just did. His argument also fails in reference to The Constitution since the SC has held that the Second Amendment still provides for reasonable restrictions, something else a dimwit like yourself would miss.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Three More States Will Let You Carry a Concealed Weapon Without a Permit
Two Midwestern states—Ohio and Indiana—have just stopped requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. These changes come on the heels of Alabama doing the same.
This brings the number of states that allow permit-free concealed carry up to 24.
Makes sense, right?
If you can legally own a firearm, you should be able legally to take it outside your home.
Conversely, "may issue" rules—which give law enforcement agencies veto power over whether you can carry a gun—don't really jibe with the right to bear arms (and also seem likely to result in discriminatory enforcement). If you have to ask permission, it's a privilege, not a right.
https://reason.com/2022/03/28/three-more-states-will-let-you-carry-a-concealed-weapon-without-a-permit/
It's implicit in the wording of the 2nd Amendment that you have the right to carry a firearm with you (on your body) OUTSIDE. The 2nd says that you have the right to
"keep" (i.e, possess) AND to BEAR arms. To 'bear', in this context, means to "carry/have" upon yourself; that is, to "carry" on your person/body. It would be ridiculous to suggest the framers were saying that you only had the right to bear (carry with you on your person) arms within the confines of your own home.
Dachshund
DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !
Last edited:
Indeed.
It's not a question of whether the right is implicit but whether it's Constitutional. The Second Amendment, for example, does not implicitly mean it's Constitutional for citizens not in a militia to possess a gun. It took a Supreme Court decision to establish that meaning. I've tried three times to point out this error to dummies like Earl and Gorkmaster. The individual right to bear arms wasn't clarified until the fairly recent Heller case. But that decision also said, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and is subject to reasonable “prohibitions". It's not clear the Court would say the finding in Heller means the individual right automatically includes a right to take a gun out of the home. Several states have laws requiring guns to be licensed and those laws are still on the books. Anyway, the argument advanced was one based on the meaning of language, and logic, not based on the Second Amendment. That distinction seems to be over some of the heads at this forum.
The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and will be again, I suspect. The language of the Second Amendment is plain and unequivocal.
One Alabama Sheriff Is Not Happy the State Passed Permitless Conceal Carry
DEMOCRAT, OF COURSE
Tyrone Smith, the sheriff of Barbour County, Alabama, wrote a letter to his constituents explaining the state legislature passed constitutional concealed carry and that while it will be in the law next year, he opposes the measure because he does not believe obtaining a permit goes against the Second Amendment.
The letter was originally posted on the Barbour County Sheriff's Office Facebook page but it has since been deleted.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2022/03/29/one-alabama-sheriff-is-not-happy-the-state-pass-permitless-conceal-carry-n2605200
DEMOCRAT, OF COURSE
Tyrone Smith, the sheriff of Barbour County, Alabama, wrote a letter to his constituents explaining the state legislature passed constitutional concealed carry and that while it will be in the law next year, he opposes the measure because he does not believe obtaining a permit goes against the Second Amendment.
The letter was originally posted on the Barbour County Sheriff's Office Facebook page but it has since been deleted.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2022/03/29/one-alabama-sheriff-is-not-happy-the-state-pass-permitless-conceal-carry-n2605200
Wipe your chin, cum gargler.
One example, NERDBERG....Suppose you are an attractive, White, 23 year-old woman - let's call you, "Alice" - who lives in an inner city district of Detroit. Alice cannot afford a car and there are times when she is compelled has to leave her apartment and walk outside at night. For example, she is a type 1 diabetic and recently, one Friday night, she discovered she had left her carton of prescription insulin injections at work. This meant that she would have to walk 2 miles to the nearest "All Hours" drug store to obtain an emergency supply of insulin syringes from the pharmacist to see her through that night and the rest of the weekend, until she could retrieve her medication from work on Monday.
She knew two - mile trek she would have to make passed through a number of poorly lit areas and stretches of urban blight, mostly abandoned and decaying houses and business blocks, but having no option, she braced herself set off.
When she was about half way through her walk to the drug store, she heard the sounds of a group of rowdy, young men behind her. Then, to her horror, Alice felt a hand roughly grasp her shoulder. Turning she saw four, Black youth in their late teens or a little older. From their appearance and banter, she could tell they were clearly intoxicated on some kind of street drug/s. Alarms bells rang in Alice's head as the youths began direct coarse remarks of a sexual nature at her like:"Yo! Well what we got here niggaz"! Loaahahghts lahke one mahghty straahght pahece of whahte ass ! Why doesn't ya gahve us a loaahahght at those tahttahes garl ?!" Alice tried to keep calm and extricate herself from the predicament by explaining very politely that she couldn't stay as chat as she had a medical condition and needed to get to her drug store as soon as possible to get medication, or she would become very ill later that night.
The next thing she knew, one of the youths drew a knife and held the blade against her side. "Follow me and keep your mouth shut" The youth with the knife made her walk quickly toward an abandoned high-rise building. There were no people on the streets where she was. Alice was utterly terrified. When they arrived at the derelict tower block, one of the gang kicked in the decrepit front doors to the lobby and Alice was herded inside. She soon learned what her fat would be.
The knife man shouted to Alice..."Yo (!) gak ya clodas off bahtch - all of dem, NOW !! Next he started chuckling then turned to the other three youths with him in the lobby and said: "Yo ! rahght den which o you niggaz wats ta go fahrst - ha !, ha !, har !".
That's right, Alice was gang-raped and lucky not to have been murdered.
It didn't have to end up like this, but a soft-on-crime, corrupt, Democrat Mayor had prohibited bearing firearms in public the previous year. Before then Alice, knowing that where she lived was a dangerous place, had always carried a Glock 9mm pistol in a largish hand-bag whenever she was walking outside. If she had had her Glock with her on the night above, she would not have been gang-raped, because she would have had no hesitation in using it.
GEDDIT NORDBERG ??!!
Dachshund
DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that isn't what constitutions do........constitutions create and prescribe powers to government. they do not detail what our rights are and are not.
people have the right to travel using the modern conveyances of the day
SmarterthanYou
rebel
only morons can read 'shall not be infringed' and believe that the courts can redefine that as 'reasonable restrictions'
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]