the Constitution under assault and they will never stop

Which government?

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.

I have read the 2nd Amendment 100s, if not 1000s, of times, and I still don't know what it says or does not say. That is exactly why there is so much controversy over the amendment. However, I know that this is true:

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[

So, to repeat once again because you just don't seem to get it, it does not matter what you think or what I think. It is how the SCOTUS and other courts interpret the 2nd Amendment that matters. I guarantee you that the courts will NEVER give you the right to carry a firearm into my home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Reading the amendment is one thing but you have to read the words of those men who wrote the amendment. And the words of those who had influence on them. Washington himself said that the second amendment protected the rights enshrined in the first amendment. Also understand the concepts. The original rights were used to contain government and not grant was what was already in affect. This is the natural rights argument. We are all born free (yes, we can argue sex and race later) with certain rights granted by God (or nature if you prefer). The right to be free or to starve if we don't feel like working. The right to speak your mind but not a right to be heard. The right to defend yourself but not the right to murder someone. These rights applied to all individuals (once again, we can talk about sex and race later) and not to the groups (factions as they were known then).

The right to keep and bear arms was inserted as protection from an overbearing authority (the words of the founders). Self defense was not mentioned directly because it was a default position. Of course everyone has a right to self defense! The important part was that government was warned that it did not have the right, power, or authority to take that right away.

Unless I am reading this case incorrectly, it is very similar to the case in N.Y. in which a Federal judge ruled that N.Y.'s tough gun control laws were constitutional. If the N.J. law is found to be unconstitutional. all they would have to do is copy the N.Y. law.

Heller was quite different in that the over-turned law basically allowed no one to own a handgun. In N.Y. and N.J. private citizens can own handguns but the laws are very restrictive as to who can do so. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

In the 1910s there many states with what I will call "eugenics" laws. It gave government the power to sterilize individuals against their will for the protection of society in general. A few came before the Supreme Court and got struck down. Then came the Virginia law. The Supreme Court decided that it WAS constitutional the way it was written. Many states passed the same law and it was admitted that 55,000 Americans were sterilized against their wills. Some states didn't count what they did to blacks or Indians like Virginia. What happens in one state does matter in another state.

I hope you understand that there is, in my opinion at least, a HUGE difference between having a gun in your home for self-defense and carrying a gun in public. A person with a gun in their home has close to a zero possibility of directly affecting my life. When a person carries a gun outside the home, the possibility of that affecting my life increases dramatically. That is why I don't think there should be absolute freedom to carry a gun in public. I certainly support the CHL laws in Texas. A person has to be 21 and has to attend a class where hopefully the basics of operating a handgun and the laws surrounding the use of a handgun are explained. I want to be sure that the person legally carrying the handgun has a basic skill in its use and knows when he/she should or should not use it. I am hoping that the SCOTUS, should they hear the case, understands this major difference. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Then, Speedy, you really shouldn't have any issues with someone who has nearly thirty years of military weapons training and experience (including the M1911 and the M9) in addition to post-service CHL training and certification.

BTW, Speedy, the definition of "criminal" describes someone who does not obey laws -- regardless of how "enlightened and progressively beneficial" you imagine those laws to be.

Then, Speedy, you really shouldn't have any issues with someone who has nearly thirty years of military weapons training and experience (including the M1911 and the M9) in addition to post-service CHL training and certification.

BTW, Speedy, the definition of "criminal" describes someone who does not obey laws -- regardless of how "enlightened and progressively beneficial" you imagine those laws to be. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

To answer your first statement, I have absolutely no problem with someone who has a valid CHL, which required its holder to show competence in firing the weapon and show a knowledge of when and where that CHL gives him/her the right to carry the weapon and when it should be used.

Since I don't know what your second statement is referring to, I can't respond to it.

So you understand this part? "they will never stop" RIGHT? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Who is "they" and what will they "never stop"?

The right to bear arms was not recognized so we can protect ourselves from criminals. It was recognized so we can protect ourselves from GOVERNMENT! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The recent decisions (D.C v Heller) by SCOTUS have extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment to include an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes.

I'm sure you knew that.

Reading the amendment is one thing but you have to read the words of those men who wrote the amendment. And the words of those who had influence on them. Washington himself said that the second amendment protected the rights enshrined in the first amendment. Also understand the concepts. The original rights were used to contain government and not grant was what was already in affect. This is the natural rights argument. We are all born free (yes, we can argue sex and race later) with certain rights granted by God (or nature if you prefer). The right to be free or to starve if we don't feel like working. The right to speak your mind but not a right to be heard. The right to defend yourself but not the right to murder someone. These rights applied to all individuals (once again, we can talk about sex and race later) and not to the groups (factions as they were known then).

The right to keep and bear arms was inserted as protection from an overbearing authority (the words of the founders). Self defense was not mentioned directly because it was a default position. Of course everyone has a right to self defense! The important part was that government was warned that it did not have the right, power, or authority to take that right away. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Pretty much irrelevant in today's U.S. Don't fight me on it. Fight the courts that have ruled that certain gun control is constitutional. Fight the states that have instituted gun control laws.

To answer your first statement, I have absolutely no problem with someone who has a valid CHL, which required its holder to show competence in firing the weapon and show a knowledge of when and where that CHL gives him/her the right to carry the weapon and when it should be used.

Since I don't know what your second statement is referring to, I can't respond to it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Regardless of how many "enlightened and progressively beneficial" bills you may wish for and vote into law, the criminals will continue to ignore them just as they have since the beginning of history.

Regardless of how many "enlightened and progressively beneficial" bills you may wish for and vote into law, the criminals will continue to ignore them just as they have since the beginning of history. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If you have read my posts, they have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not criminals follow the law. They have everything to do with the rights of states to pass laws to limit the proliferation of mainly handguns and the rights of non-gun owners.

If you have read my posts, they have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not criminals follow the law. They have everything to do with the rights of states to pass laws to limit the proliferation of mainly handguns and the rights of non-gun owners. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

By definition it's criminals that use guns in a criminal manner, Speedy. Criminals ignore your laws, Speedy.

By definition it's criminals that use guns in a criminal manner, Speedy. Criminals ignore your laws, Speedy.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Again, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of my posts. I am looking at the laws that protect me as a non-gun owner. Allowing people to obtain a CHL to carry a concealed handgun protects the rights of gun owners to protect themselves against criminals while outside their homes. Requiring people who want to carry a concealed handgun to get a CHL which requires a test of shooting proficiency and a basic knowledge of when and where the handgun should be used helps to protect my rights as a non-gun owner when I am outside my home.

Again, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of my posts. I am looking at the laws that protect me as a non-gun owner. Allowing people to obtain a CHL to carry a concealed handgun protects the rights of gun owners to protect themselves against criminals while outside their homes. Requiring people who want to carry a concealed handgun to get a CHL which requires a test of shooting proficiency and a basic knowledge of when and where the handgun should be used helps to protect my rights as a non-gun owner when I am outside my home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Criminals that intend to use guns in an illegal manner do not apply for CHLs, Speedy, but they carry and use guns anyway.

Again, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of my posts. I am looking at the laws that protect me as a non-gun owner. Allowing people to obtain a CHL to carry a concealed handgun protects the rights of gun owners to protect themselves against criminals while outside their homes. Requiring people who want to carry a concealed handgun to get a CHL which requires a test of shooting proficiency and a basic knowledge of when and where the handgun should be used helps to protect my rights as a non-gun owner when I am outside my home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

as long as you keep trading replies with IB nothing he comes up with will have anything to do with anything you post... saying nothing is his forte'

same here ... not worried in the least, and never will be Originally Posted by CJ7

Same. The entire premise is absurd but it gives the whackjobs something else to bleat about in regard to the government. Fear, prejudice, hatred.....it's how propaganda works.