I was just saying that the same constitution that gives you the right to bare arms also gives each state the right to vote on issues concerning guns. If the constitution is the law of the land, how can you justify saying 1 part (2nd amendment) is more right then (article iii) and the supreme courts rulings. To say article iii is wrong is to open up a can of worms for the 2nd amendment "being wrong". If you guys want the constitution and 2nd amendment to represent the people's freedom, how can you say the constitution, article iii and the supreme courts rulings should not be protected by the same document that protects your freedoms.
open carry
- Thread starter seeley booth
- Start date
That would be incorrect. The Constitution makes no provision for the voters to pass laws. America is a Constitutional Republic not a rule by majority vote democracy. Part of the elected legislators' responsibility is to protect the rights of the minority.
As far as God goes, the story of a women being impregnated by a ghost and giving birth to "super child" capable of performing miracles is no more believable then the "myth" of Hercules. God sees women, God bangs women, women has super baby. Both stories are exactly the same yet one is believed as impossible and a myth by billions of people and the other is considered fact by billions of people.
Article 3 section 1 of the constitution gives the power of the Supreme Court to make such rulings. The Supreme Court ruled each state can impose laws and regulations regarding firearms because the 2nd amendment is not protected by the 14th amendment. Each state goes through a voting process to pass laws and regulation. Our government is base on a majority rule. That's why we vote.
Might want to study history and civics a bit more there, MHas:
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote
The 2000 election was the most recent when the candidate who received the greatest number of electoral votes, and thus won the presidency, didn’t win the popular vote. But this scenario has played out in our nation’s history before.
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.
This is just how it was explained to me when I went and asked my lawyer, who carries concealed everyday, why I could be arrested for carrying my loaded shotgun over my shoulder walking through town. I said it was my constitutional right. He told me I was wrong and explained in detail how the constitution gives individual states the right to make its own laws on firearms.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
CharlesMorrison
Banned
The depth of your stupidity is truly astounding!!
I love how the only responses to my factual and constitutionally back post are childish,immature and ignorant. Navy please respond. You seem to be the only intelligent person here. Your post at least make me think, research and question my previous thoughts and opinions. Turns out you're right about the majority rule.
maybejim
Maybejim
Why would the 1st, 4th, and 5th be protected by the 14th and not the 2nd?
Our government is a representative Republic, not based on majority rule, with many of our rights (but not all) specifically protected in the Bill of Rights.
The part about a constitutional republic was good. By allowing the state government to pass laws and restrictions on firearms infringes on U.S. citizens right to bare arms in some cases deeming those laws and restrictions unconstitutional and in violation of our rights yet article 3 and the Supreme Court throws a curveball and seems to justify (at least in legal terms) the state infringing on its citizens right to bare arms. The document that is the base of our constitutional republic seems to contradict itself. If the 2nd amendment was incorporated into the 14th amendment then this wouldn't even be an issue.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Link Removed
B
Bikenut
Guest
In regards to the portion of your post I put in bold...
First of all it is the right to BEAR arms... as in carry them.... not the right to wear short sleeved shirts in order to walk around with BARE arms. Nit picky I know but that misuse of "bear" and "bare" is one of my pet peeves.
Secondly... the 2nd Amendment does not ... give... the people the right to bear arms... it recognizes that the people are born with the right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment is an order, given by the people to the government, to not infringe (pass restrictive laws) upon that right.
Actually, every human being ever born on this planet is born owning the right to bear arms (along with all the other rights recognized in the Bill of Rights) simply because they are born a human being. It is oppressive governments intent upon controlling, misusing, and pillaging the commoners wealth that passes laws restricting the exercising of those rights.
Consider this. You, and I, and every breathing human on this planet is born owning the right to bear arms simply because of having been born and no government can take away that right. What a government can do is to pass laws that criminalize (assess penalties) actually exercising those rights. We are all born with the right to bear an arm in a concealed manner but it is governments that restrict (infringe upon) carrying concealed unless the government allows it by giving a permit. Remember... if the government is in control of who is "allowed" the government is also in control of who is........ NOT ALLOWED.
In other words... governments pass gun control laws so they can control who is allowed to have guns with the ultimate end goal of not allowing anyone to have any guns at all. Ancient and relatively recent History shows every government intent on tyranny/establishing a dictatorship first disarmed it's people so the people wouldn't have any weapons to resist ... it's own government.
Axeanda45
Banned
Mhas.... You are absolutely INCORRECT in saying that the supreme court is the final authority on what is or isnt "Constitutional"....... We, the PEOPLE are the final/true authority, and I for one am one that knows how to read and understand the very plain language the BOR and Constitution is written in.... YOU, on the other hand have plainly PROVEN that YOU dont have a frigging clue...
1)I noticed the bare/bear, I'm just an idiot. It seems every other post I spell it the right way. I'd be curious to seem the stats on misspelled word vs post written while smoking a bone.
2)I disagree. I feel the 2nd amendment gives us the right on the base that we are American citizens. To say anyone is "born" with a right would imply that imaginary geographic (Mexico, Canada) borders shouldn't play a role in those "rights".
3)I think the "right to bear arms" is a choice that the people of that nation should decide for themselves. Who am I to sit here and say the people in Europe are "born" with the right to bear arms. I feel that it is just a perk of being and American citizen. Firearms are not natural items. If "God" wanted every human to have a gun they would grow off trees and not have taken humans thousand and thousands of years to invent. People are born with the right to eat, sleep, breath and piss/crap other then that any other right is a product of the government of which you're a citizen. That's just my opinion, I've been trying to leave my opinion out of things because every time I use my freedom of speech and voice my opinion I am personally attacked for my views.
As far as permits I'm 50/50. How can you be "free" or have to "right" to bear arms if you have to pay in order to do so. It's all about money. The state wants their cut on everything. State government is like the mob. If its on their turf they want a cut. Some believe believe permits will also reduce the access of firearms to criminals but this can be argued by both sides till the sun dies out.
That's not true about the government. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Pp.54-56. I feel this was a correct ruling and 1 step closer to "gun-freedoms"
2)I disagree. I feel the 2nd amendment gives us the right on the base that we are American citizens. To say anyone is "born" with a right would imply that imaginary geographic (Mexico, Canada) borders shouldn't play a role in those "rights".
3)I think the "right to bear arms" is a choice that the people of that nation should decide for themselves. Who am I to sit here and say the people in Europe are "born" with the right to bear arms. I feel that it is just a perk of being and American citizen. Firearms are not natural items. If "God" wanted every human to have a gun they would grow off trees and not have taken humans thousand and thousands of years to invent. People are born with the right to eat, sleep, breath and piss/crap other then that any other right is a product of the government of which you're a citizen. That's just my opinion, I've been trying to leave my opinion out of things because every time I use my freedom of speech and voice my opinion I am personally attacked for my views.
As far as permits I'm 50/50. How can you be "free" or have to "right" to bear arms if you have to pay in order to do so. It's all about money. The state wants their cut on everything. State government is like the mob. If its on their turf they want a cut. Some believe believe permits will also reduce the access of firearms to criminals but this can be argued by both sides till the sun dies out.
That's not true about the government. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Pp.54-56. I feel this was a correct ruling and 1 step closer to "gun-freedoms"
All I've done is copy/paste sections from the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings on issues concerning the 2nd amendment. If you have problems anything I posted maybe its with the way our government worded these documents. Or maybe it's with our legal system and how states have used these "wordings" to legally infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. Don't sit here and say I don't have a clue when everything I posted is fact and constitutionally back. The only details I left out how Congress and the Supreme Court check and balance each other after a ruling has been made. Maybe it was the lawyers explanation on how state laws and regulations don't infringe on our right to bear arms unless it is a firearm ban. None of this was my opinion it was all fact. Maybe you should pull your head out of your a$$ so you can see it is you who doesn't have a clue. I spent days researching, reading and interviewing before I said anything about this. You apparently spew out anything that pops into your pea brain.
Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.
Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.
Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.
Here's a couple quotes for you MHas:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
