Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

I will repeat the obvious once again......
Problems begin when all these "interpretations are allowed. How difficult is it for even a child to comprehend the words "shall not be infringed" ?
Does anyone really need the feds,the states, cities or a bench to decipher that phrase ?
No, it is self evident in its own proclaim. There is no need for any one or thing to twist or re-interpret it to their own liking. Each time you allow a new re-interpretation more corruption of original intent takes place. It is not the IRS tax code, it is not complex at all.
It does NOT state shall not be infringed upon except by :
the will of 85% of the people,the state of XYZ, any city, court, or political group that decides it necessary. Originally Posted by rioseco

To repeat -- that is your OPINION as to what the 2nd Amendment states. As shown in the links below, the word "infringed" is simply not what you would like it to be.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnot...s-constitution

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/i...is-a-misnomer/

In the second article, please read the paragraph starting "Getting back to the 2nd Amendment". Then read the statement by Justice Scalia, who is considered a conservative justice, appointed by Ronald Reagan.

"Getting back to the 2nd Amendment, if it isn’t already clear–despite the fact it says “shall not be infringed,” just like the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law,” and the 4th Amendment says “shall not be violated,” it can in reality be infringed. What is or is not considered an unconstitutional infringement is determined by the Supreme Court, not by the people. “Shall not be infringed,” does not mean that any law respecting firearms is an infringement. Rather, it means that the law(s) must do more than merely contravene the right. - See more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/i....mXMJ1wSJ.dpuf"

Then read the statement by Justice Scalia, who is considered a conservative justice, appointed by Ronald Reagan.

"Getting back to the 2nd Amendment, if it isn’t already clear–despite the fact it says “shall not be infringed,” just like the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law,” and the 4th Amendment says “shall not be violated,” it can in reality be infringed. What is or is not considered an unconstitutional infringement is determined by the Supreme Court, not by the people. “Shall not be infringed,” does not mean that any law respecting firearms is an infringement. Rather, it means that the law(s) must do more than merely contravene the right. - Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Do you have a cite on a SCOTUS majority decision that says what you have quoted Scalia as saying"... as opposed to a "progressive article"?

Do you have a cite on a SCOTUS majority decision that says what you have quoted Scalia as saying"... as opposed to a "progressive article"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I apologize for being misleading, unintentionally. The quote in my previous post was NOT by Justice Scalia but rather from the author of the cited article.

Here is the quote from Justice Scalia:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…
…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Also in Scalia's majority decision is the following:

"Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

I apologize for being misleading, unintentionally. The quote in my previous post was NOT by Justice Scalia but rather from the author of the cited article.

Here is the quote from Justice Scalia:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…
…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Also in Scalia's majority decision is the following:

"Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned." Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Well, Saclia is "full of shit" ...... "why" you ask ...... because of these words:

".... the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification,..."

Here is an example of what he WAS describing ...



And here is a "long gun" ....



The wonderful thing about our Constitution is that it is a "living" document, and like the 4th Amendment the scope of the protection of the Constitution EXPANDS with the increasing technology and modernization that flows from a productive industrialized nation, as the United States of America.

For instance, also, "Free Speech" applies to television and radio, too.

I realize that "anti-firearm" advocates would like to send us all back to the dark ages, and there are other groups around the world trying to do the same thing, but it ain't going to happen ...... OR WE WILL ALL BE IN THE "DARK AGES" together!!!!!

And what case was that in which SCALIA was bloviating?

You didn't answer the first question at all. The question is should that teen be able to legally own and carry a handgun in public? Or someone younger than a teen? Should there be an age limit on when someone can legally carry a gun? That is gun control.

Second, if I do not allow someone into my home with a gun, or an establishment does not allow people into their establishment with a gun (Such as movie theaters in Aurora, Colorado), that is gun control. Many people on this forum interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right to carry any weapon in any place by any one. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I guess I wasn't clear enough for you.
No, I don't think a child should be able to carry a handgun in public. Not because the Government says he can't but because his parent says he can't. That has nothing to do with the Constitution and has everything to do with the decision making and personal responsibility of the parent.

Not allowing someone into your home with a gun is a property owner's right. Again, the second amendment doesn't apply. Property rights should not trumped by any amendment.

"Gun control" as is commonly used seems, to me at least, to refer to the government exercising control, not private individuals. The second amendment in no way implies that I must keep and bear arms, rather it says I have the right to. It doesn't say I have the right to terrorize others by exercising that right. Just like a person doesn't have the right to yell fire in a theater.

You seem to be changing the meaning of "gun control" to mean any control even by private citizens. While it's fine for you to do that, you have to understand that some of us may not use the term that way. Just remember that some people's definition of gun control is consistent 5 shot groups.

Well, Saclia is "full of shit" ...... "why" you ask ...... because of these words:

".... the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification,..."

Here is an example of what he WAS describing ...



And here is a "long gun" ....



The wonderful thing about our Constitution is that it is a "living" document, and like the 4th Amendment the scope of the protection of the Constitution EXPANDS with the increasing technology and modernization that flows from a productive industrialized nation, as the United States of America.

For instance, also, "Free Speech" applies to television and radio, too.

I realize that "anti-firearm" advocates would like to send us all back to the dark ages, and there are other groups around the world trying to do the same thing, but it ain't going to happen ...... OR WE WILL ALL BE IN THE "DARK AGES" together!!!!!

And what case was that in which SCALIA was bloviating? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Interesting comments seeing that Justice Scalia is considered a very conservative justice appointed by a very conservative president, Ronald Reagan.

And his majority opinion was on the District of Columbia v Heller case, a landmark decision supporting gun owner rights.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...nion/ed-whelan

I guess I wasn't clear enough for you.
No, I don't think a child should be able to carry a handgun in public. Not because the Government says he can't but because his parent says he can't. That has nothing to do with the Constitution and has everything to do with the decision making and personal responsibility of the parent.

Not allowing someone into your home with a gun is a property owner's right. Again, the second amendment doesn't apply. Property rights should not trumped by any amendment.

"Gun control" as is commonly used seems, to me at least, to refer to the government exercising control, not private individuals. The second amendment in no way implies that I must keep and bear arms, rather it says I have the right to. It doesn't say I have the right to terrorize others by exercising that right. Just like a person doesn't have the right to yell fire in a theater.

You seem to be changing the meaning of "gun control" to mean any control even by private citizens. While it's fine for you to do that, you have to understand that some of us may not use the term that way. Just remember that some people's definition of gun control is consistent 5 shot groups. Originally Posted by boardman

You are right at times and wrong at times. As I keep saying, many gun advocates interpret the 2nd Amendment as stating that ANYONE has the RIGHT to own and carry a gun. No age limitation is stated in the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple interpretation by some gun rights advocates.

Not allowing guns in my home is a right I believe I have. Yet gun rights advocates continue to point out their belief that gun free zones increase the risk of someone committing mass murder because it is a gun free zone. Again, where in the 2nd Amendment does it state that a person does not have the right to carry a gun ANYWHERE. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You have one interpretation of what you believe the 2nd Amendment states. It is not always consistent with what others on the left OR right believe.

Late last year JD had a poll asking people their views on gun control. 1 person said guns should be totally banned (not me). 6 said there should be no gun control at all. Now as you said the term "gun control" can mean various things, although to me it is government control, not individuals. The government controls who can purchase guns and who can carry guns in public. The government can control where those guns can be carried. In Texas, I technically have to have a sign stating that guns are not allowed in my home, or verbally tell individuals entering my home that guns are not allowed. Otherwise they are legally allowed to enter my home with a gun. This is justified in their opinion by a 2nd Amendment right.

The wonderful thing about our Constitution is that it is a "living" document...


Tell that to your little buddy Rioseco, you recently argued that the constitution "is what it is."


For instance, also, "Free Speech" applies to television and radio, too. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Free speech includes calling someone a "motherfucker" on the radio? Do tell. Then there's that little thing called libel.

You're making shit up again LLIdiot.

Interesting comments seeing that Justice Scalia is considered a very conservative justice appointed by a very conservative president, Ronald Reagan.

And his majority opinion was on the District of Columbia v Heller case, a landmark decision supporting gun owner rights.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...nion/ed-whelan Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

#1: who "appoints" a judge doesn't necessarily mean they are a "conservative"

"Judicial conservatism" means different things to you and me, apparently.

Roberts is considered a "strict constructionist" .. some of his opinions may be considered "liberal" politically, because his "interpretation" of the Constitution is strictly construes the words. Example: At one point in time the Court said that the "amendments" only applied to the Federal government and not the States.

I'll read the Heller case.

I guess I wasn't clear enough for you.
No, I don't think a child should be able to carry a handgun in public. Not because the Government says he can't but because his parent says he can't. That has nothing to do with the Constitution and has everything to do with the decision making and personal responsibility of the parent.

. Originally Posted by boardman

So if his parents think it ok for a kid to carry a handgun in public , you'd think it ok?

Free speech includes calling someone a "motherfucker" on the radio? Do tell. Then there's that little thing called libel.

You're making shit up again LLIdiot. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No. You are.

Do you think "Free Speech" doesn't apply to radio and television?

I believe the discussion was relative to the AMENDMENTS?

I can call Obaminable a "motherfucker" on the television, and there ain't shit he can do about it .... legally. Two things:

He's a "public figure" and won't get even close to a trial on the issue, but

if he does, TRUTH is a defense in libel actions.

YouRong again, duffus.

You need to stay in the "conference room" at the Nau's hideout.

So if his parents think it ok for a kid to carry a handgun in public , you'd think it ok? Originally Posted by WTF

You are absolutely remarkable in your effort to twist what people say.

But an utter failure at doing so.

Here's what he posted:

"I don't think a child should be able to carry a handgun in public."

I read the basis for that belief on the "reasonable parent" theory ....

... NOT your ridiculous argumentative posturing.

You are right at times and wrong at times. As I keep saying, many gun advocates interpret the 2nd Amendment as stating that ANYONE has the RIGHT to own and carry a gun. No age limitation is stated in the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple interpretation by some gun rights advocates.

Not allowing guns in my home is a right I believe I have. Yet gun rights advocates continue to point out their belief that gun free zones increase the risk of someone committing mass murder because it is a gun free zone. Again, where in the 2nd Amendment does it state that a person does not have the right to carry a gun ANYWHERE. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You have one interpretation of what you believe the 2nd Amendment states. It is not always consistent with what others on the left OR right believe.

Late last year JD had a poll asking people their views on gun control. 1 person said guns should be totally banned (not me). 6 said there should be no gun control at all. Now as you said the term "gun control" can mean various things, although to me it is government control, not individuals. The government controls who can purchase guns and who can carry guns in public. The government can control where those guns can be carried. In Texas, I technically have to have a sign stating that guns are not allowed in my home, or verbally tell individuals entering my home that guns are not allowed. Otherwise they are legally allowed to enter my home with a gun. This is justified in their opinion by a 2nd Amendment right. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I think I see your point.
You don't think you should have to ask someone coming onto your property whether they are carrying or not or post a sign saying you don't want guns on your property. Correct?

So if his parents think it ok for a kid to carry a handgun in public , you'd think it ok? Originally Posted by WTF

I'd think it stupid on the parent's part.

Do laws that legislate against stupidity work any better than laws that legislate morality?

I thought you were an anarchist Libertarian...

You are absolutely remarkable in your effort to twist what people say.

But an utter failure at doing so.

Here's what he posted:

"I don't think a child should be able to carry a handgun in public."

I read the basis for that belief on the "reasonable parent" theory ....

... NOT your ridiculous argumentative posturing. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's what he does...