- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,005
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
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.
If you want to go by a strict reading, it reads "arms" not guns. Technically if a you have a big stick, you are armed.
This is why strict readings can be somewhat useless in constitutional interpretation.
Except for taxing sales, no restrictions should stop a legal US citizen of sound mind from buying one of these weapons.
Determining if somebody is a legal US citizen and determining if somebody is of sound mind are two huge restrictions. What else do you want, Nancy Pelosi, a five day waiting period?
Small arms are man portable firearms, revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, machine guns etc.
Except for taxing sales, no restrictions should stop a legal US citizen of sound mind from buying one of these weapons.
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
ID and a criminal background search etc are not restrictions and are not restricting your rights to own a weapon. They are just checks to make certain you are a responsible individual.
Get a clue, we live in a society with many individuals so some safety checks (not restrictions) are valid and completely constitutional.
As I specifically pointed out in the OP, that's not the question I'm asking.
Is it or is it not constitutional to restrict the sale/purchase of firearms?
It is not constitutional to restrict the weapons I mentiond from purchase etc to a US citizen of sound mind.
It is not constitutional to restrict the weapons I mentiond from purchase etc to a US citizen of sound mind.
You're entitled to your opinion, you don't have to get all defensive about it. I'm just surprised about what a far-leftie you are, that's all.
But to return to the original topic, the second amendment doesn't protect the rights of "legal US citizens of sound mind to keep and bear arms" from being infringed. I believe the exact word is the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We apply to first amendment to foreigners, why not the second? We apply the first amendment to the mentally unsound, why not the second?
Liberals like you might want to re-write the constitution, and that's your prerogative as a socialist to do so. But those of us who care about what the original intent of the Framers was have very different views...
Because they are not the militia. :roll:
Unless you feel Iranian citizens are part of the US militia. :lol:
No. Conservatives like me want to follow the constitution and have it interpreted correctly.
How do you support that, since the constitution only mentions that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says absolutely nothing about the right to purchase or sell arms.
How do you support that, since the constitution only mentions that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says absolutely nothing about the right to purchase or sell arms.
Iranian citizens who are in US jurisdiction have the same right to free speech, right to practice religion and right to keep and bear arms that US citizens do. Rights do not apply only to US citizens. Please let me know if I can clear up any more misconceptions you have.
LOL So then stop reading words in the Constitution that aren't there. Or else point to me where in the text of the second amendment does it say "sound mind" or "US citizen?" If you can't, you are wrong, leftie.
Iranian citizens who are in US jurisdiction have the same right to free speech, right to practice religion and right to keep and bear arms that US citizens do. Rights do not apply only to US citizens, when the founders said "people" they meant people. Please let me know if I can clear up any more misconceptions you have.
LOL So then stop reading words in the Constitution that aren't there. Or else point to me where in the text of the second amendment does it say "sound mind" or "US citizen?" If you can't, you are wrong, leftie.
You're smarter than that. How are you going to possess arms if you can't buy them.
The Feds have the right to regulate sales between the states. Why would not local governments have the same rights under the constitution? Making certain someone is a citizen and or a background check is not restricting a right, as a convicted felons loses those rights upon conviction. Anyone else would have no problem with either. Taxes are a given.
As soon as an Iranian national is considered part of the militia, you let me know.
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?