Then amend the Constitution. Currently it is a right that shall not be infringed. You are asking for infringements.
How to communicate with gun nuts?
- Thread starter Timsup2nothin
- Start date
Then amend the Constitution. Currently it is a right that shall not be infringed. You are asking for infringements.
You also have a population 1/6th the size, and guns have been banned in your country for what a century or two. Whereas we have 300 million guns with weak laws currently around who can own them. If each town built there police stations and sub-stations into schools our schools would be alot safer and it would be cheaper then building two separate buildings at the city level
The way cops like to shoot kids, I am not sure combining schools and police stations makes kids safer.
Two points. Ignoring what my second point will be it says you have a right to own not carry.
Second point. It doesn't actually say that you as a regular civilian has a right to any sort of weapon. It says that the people in the context of a well-regulated militia have a right to be armed. Please explain how billy bob down the street with his 15 shotguns is a well regulated militia.
To both of you that is simply disturbing. You take isolated incidents and condemn all of law-enforcement. Shame on you for that disgusting display of hatred toward your own civil servants.
Just as you want to strip the mentally ill of their Constitutional rights just because of isolated incidents.
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.
The underlined portion is a contingent clause relying on both of the bolded portions. If you remove either bolded portion then the underlined portion is no longer valid. However, if you remove the underlined portion both bolded portions hold together.
The bolded clauses do not stand alone. The underlined one does. The 2nd and 3rd clauses work without the first clause. 1 & 2 combined and 1 & 3 combined do not work. Clause 1 seems the weakest of the 3.
The first clause does not seem to be a legally operative phrase. The second clause identifies the right. The third clause says what the government cannot do in regards to that right.
The first clause does not seem to be a legally operative phrase. The second clause identifies the right. The third clause says what the government cannot do in regards to that right.
Simply put in the context of the constitution I would say it is not. However the Supreme Court over the years disagrees and has said it is a citizen's right to own a gun. Carrying one on your person however is not a right thus CCW permits are required in most states.
You are ignoring how english works. How it should read given the intent.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
The only reason the other part is in there is because at the time they were thinking of minute-men with their hunting rifles being the ready-reserve. Thus the people in the context of that militia with contemporary weapons were to keep their own weapons for war if the need arose
I'm not denying it. I was saying it shouldn't be but we are too invested in a gun-culture to change that now. Billy Bob doesn't need the permit to own the gun, but to carry it legally he needs a permit.
Shall not be infringed refers to the right to keep and bear arms. The first clause is justification for the next two clauses, but not a narrower of those clauses.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Cops shooting people is indeed disturbing. The most disturbing thing about it being the frequency with which it happens.
Similar threads
