Colorado has fallen

[AndeyHall]

The theory here is "a foot in the door" any new legislation is bad legislation whether it makes sense or not. As far as following the law even if you don't believe it's constitutional. Good luck keeping them from taking your guns and locking you up or fining you. You will only avoid prosecution for as long as it takes the Swat team to take you out of your compound or burn it down. It's the extremists like you that make us all look like tards. Follow the law !!! If you thinks it's unconstitutional challenge it in court with the money you were going to spend on fines. Oh and get a grip.

So what if your state passed a law tomorrow saying that everyone over the age of 50 should commit suicide? It's unconstitutional because it goes against our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you're still going to follow it because its law? I know that's a little more extreme than what's happening with the 2nd Amendment, but the principles are the same.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

The theory here is "a foot in the door" any new legislation is bad legislation whether it makes sense or not. As far as following the law even if you don't believe it's constitutional. Good luck keeping them from taking your guns and locking you up or fining you. You will only avoid prosecution for as long as it takes the Swat team to take you out of your compound or burn it down. It's the extremists like you that make us all look like tards. Follow the law !!! If you thinks it's unconstitutional challenge it in court with the money you were going to spend on fines. Oh and get a grip.

I see we have another nonbeliever in the crowd...
You just keep chuggin away, working within the very same system that will see you disarmed!

You know what? I would rather die fighting for my rights and the rights of others than live on my knees as a slave.
You just go on and keep tellin yourself you free.

 

[Bikenut]

Yes...but only if you first define the right to bear arms as meaning any person, any place, any time and any weapon.

But that is not the law of our land.

Many wish it was, but it isn't.

So those who aren't dealing with reality are floundering under a delusion, and perhaps it is the delusional that are the very people who should not own firearms.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights IS the law OF the land...

Any and all laws IN our land that go against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are infringements upon the rights of "we the people". And yes, "we the people" have the right to limit and restrict the government.... not the other way around. (Yes, I know that isn't the system that we have now but it is the system that we started with.)

And yes, we do have to deal with reality... and the true reality is that the government has managed to become something that the limits and controls put upon it by "we the people" no longer apply to... in fact.. things have gone 180 degrees and it is now the government that limits and controls "we the people" with laws IN the land that go against the law OF the land called the Constitution and Bill of Rights and infringe upon "we the people".

The thing is.... is that what people want? Do people really want the government to tell them what they can and can't do? To the extent that the government even micro manages their daily lives with stupid crap like limits on the size of soft drinks?

So really the reality is..................... do we delude ourselves that we have any measure of actual freedom in exchange for just accepting the degree of control the government now has? Or do we recognize the actual reality that something has gone terribly wrong.

 

[gunnerbob]

Civil dissent is one of marks of a Patriot, disobey any and all unConstitutional laws. Easier said than done unfortunately, but it must... it must.

If they passed a law in your state to ban magizines over 10rds, would you turn yours in? I wouldn't... and won't. I'm not what you would call a model citizen... there are laws I break everyday, and not just the speed limit.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

It is a MUST! A civic duty!!
Link Removed

 

[AndeyHall]

The way I read this then is that any law or statute that has been enacted that controls guns in any part of the USA is therefore unconstitutional (by virtue of it infringing on your right to bear arms), and doesn't have to be obeyed. So you shouldn't have to get concealed carry permits for one thing? You can ignore any statutes that forbid you to carry firearms in schools or courts etc. for another? Am I on the right track here?

Yes...but only if you first define the right to bear arms as meaning any person, any place, any time and any weapon.

But that is not the law of our land.

Many wish it was, but it isn't.

So those who aren't dealing with reality are floundering under a delusion, and perhaps it is the delusional that are the very people who should not own firearms.

You're the reason congress and the states have passed all the BS laws that they've managed to get away with so far! It isn't meant to be "defined"! Take it as it is. It doesn't mention any specific person, therefore any legal citizen of this country is eligible. It doesn't mention any particular day of the week, therefore any time. It doesn't mention any specific place, therefore everywhere! That is the law! Period!

 

[CharlesMorrison]

And just so you know, the bill of rights (re; not bill of NEEDS) refers to "We the People".

We the people hold these truths to be self evident....

If you can't figure out how to read the second amendment as it is written and as it stands, maybe YOU should be the one to turn in your guns and take up needle point.

Referring to nogods here...

 

[nogods]

And just so you know, the bill of rights (re; not bill of NEEDS) refers to "We the People".

We the people hold these truths to be self evident....

If you can't figure out how to read the second amendment as it is written and as it stands, maybe YOU should be the one to turn in your guns and take up needle point.

Referring to nogods here...

In other words, if a person doesn't interpret the 2A they way you want it to be interpreted, then they can't read.

How convenient.

Except you forgot that our Founding Fathers established the Supreme Court to make that determination, not you. Apparently they were psychics and knew you would someday be here.

 

[AndeyHall]

In other words, if a person doesn't interpret the 2A they way you want it to be interpreted, then they can't read.

How convenient.

Except you forgot that our Founding Fathers established the Supreme Court to make that determination, not you. Apparently they were psychics and knew you would someday be here.

That's not what we're saying at all. What we're saying is that the 2nd amendment is as specific as it was intended to be. There is nothing to interpret. "The right of the people to keep AND bear arms"...why do you think anyone needs a college degree or specially appointed office or title to understand what that means?

And as far as your claim about the Supreme Court...it's not a coincidence that the Bill of Rights are in a section of their own. They're untouchable and unquestionable. The Supreme Court was set up to interpret and amend #11 and up. There's not a law or restriction that you can pass that will stop violence. Some people are by nature evil. Here's how the situation of gun violence SHOULD be handled...honor the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment, and when someone exploits that right punish THEM accordingly. Don't punish EVERYONE accordingly.

 

[Greggatshack]

If there are amendments to the constitution then that suggests the original document is flawed and they needed to clarify something. What is to stop the people in charge from making more amendments to the amendments?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

In other words, if a person doesn't interpret the 2A they way you want it to be interpreted, then they can't read.

How convenient.

Except you forgot that our Founding Fathers established the Supreme Court to make that determination, not you. Apparently they were psychics and knew you would someday be here.

We, the people, are the true masters of the courts AND congress.
Just because we have SCOTUS, doesn't mean that they set the law of the land. That is what the Constitution is for. Guidelines that TELL the government what they CANNOT change on a whim. The Constitution does not limit OUR powers, it limits the Governments power to intrude on our rights.
We the people are the final arbitrators of our destiny.
SCOTUS is not comprised of Gods. If and when it's needed, We the People are tasked with the responsibility of correcting that mistake.
We didn't just hand over our rights and freedoms. The courts, congress and President can all be removed from office by us. The problem is that people think we live in a Democracy, we don't.
We live in a Constitutional Republic where the rights of all of us are protected.
The only Democracy we have is in elections, period.
Though people think that they can legislate away my rights through a Democratic process. Wrong!

"The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few or the one".

It's a shame that today's generation has given up so much of their rights for a small bit of perceived security.
Worse yet, it appears that much of the populace has lost the will to fight for what is theirs.

 

[AndeyHall]

If there are amendments to the constitution then that suggests the original document is flawed and they needed to clarify something. What is to stop the people in charge from making more amendments to the amendments?

I believe they should be able to amend #11 and up. I have no problem with that. Amendments 11-27 are basically the top 17 laws of the land. They usually concern issues that will change or vary over time. However there was an especially great deal of thought put into Amendments 1-10. They are the the rights that the founding fathers basically said, "Look, in order for the people to TRULY remain free from an oppressive and tyrannical government, these conditions MUST exist!" They are basically our "10 Commandments" for our government if you will.

I think our process to amend the constitution is as it should be. I mean I don't think anyone could argue that, after thousands of attempts to amend the constitution and only 17 having gone through, that the criteria isn't strict enough. However I do think that Congress does have way to much power in their ability to "interpret" the amendments that already exist. Through Supreme Court rulings, and without having to go through the strenuous process of passing an amendment, our government can quite easily say, "Well, we're not exactly going to "change" the ___th amendment, we're just going to interpret it to mean _______". I think this is a majorly flawed loophole in an otherwise nearly perfect system. There have been no amendments passed to alter the meaning of the 2nd amendment, yet somehow our government has been able to take this bill...which read as is gives us the right to possess and carry any firearm, any place, any time, by anyone...and alter its meaning to greatly restrict the type of firearms we can own, the places we can own them, the places we can carry them, and the type people who can carry them. Somehow the phrase "...shall not be infringed." hasn't slowed them down in the least.

 

[kelcarry]

You're missing the point! "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the wording of the second amendment. How is this not an infringement of our rights? It's not about how many rounds it takes or how good of a shot you should be, it's about them wiping their asses with the Constitution every time they take a crap! People obviously aren't seeing it with the 2nd Amendment, but what happens when it's the 1st, or the 4th, 5th, or maybe the 6th? Where does it stop? What you don't understand is that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing standing in their way of passing or getting rid of any law/right they wish. You may think "No way...couldn't happen here!" I'm sure the Jews in Europe during the 1930s felt the same way...

Thank you AndeyHall. I recommend that you study history cluznar and take a look around you and appreciate what kind of people are running this government--all thugs; he has 4 years to be ready for his "excuses" on a revamped country.

 

[Danieljoe1]

I have to agree with Andy here. Our 2nd Amendment has been, for lack of a better phrase, under fire for a long time. While I agree that violent felons should face restrictions on owning\operating firearms, the constitution as written gives them the RIGHT to own\operate firearms. Until 2\3 of both houses (HoR and Senate) as well as 37 state legislatures ratify an amendment changing the 2nd, they still retain that RIGHT. What I dont get, is how Lawyers (you know, those who are supposedly "trained" to read the law) have such a hard time with following this specific set of directions. These same people walk into a court room and follow the specific directions of the Judge, so how is it so hard for them to be able to follow the directions of how to change what our Constitution reads? Oops, I forgot, when your dealing with Cranial rectal disease, its easy to ignore the obvious. We know our SCOTUS has forgotten why they are there, to many less than stellar rulings have come out of them. I know it takes intestinal fortitude to stand up and say "Listen, this is how it reads, and if you want that changed do it correctly" Chief Justice Scalia did us no favors when he said that there should be reasonable restrictions on firearms, without adding the fact they should be in an amendment as to not violate the Constitution as written.

Now to bring this topic back on point, the good citizens of the state of Colorado should sue each and every one of the state legislature who enacted so called gun laws in violation of their second amendment rights as well as violating the oaths of office. Reason being is we do have a way to amend the Constitution, and the constitution does read shall not be infringed. To me this one is simple, but I know once lawyers get involved what started out simple has a way of becoming unbearable. That and the financial burden on any individual would also be unbearable. Im no Bill Gates, but I have a couple hundred $$ I could pitch in....

 

[Bikenut]

I believe they should be able to amend #11 and up. I have no problem with that. Amendments 11-27 are basically the top 17 laws of the land. They usually concern issues that will change or vary over time. However there was an especially great deal of thought put into Amendments 1-10. They are the the rights that the founding fathers basically said, "Look, in order for the people to TRULY remain free from an oppressive and tyrannical government, these conditions MUST exist!" They are basically our "10 Commandments" for our government if you will.

I think our process to amend the constitution is as it should be. I mean I don't think anyone could argue that, after thousands of attempts to amend the constitution and only 17 having gone through, that the criteria isn't strict enough. However I do think that Congress does have way to much power in their ability to "interpret" the amendments that already exist. Through Supreme Court rulings, and without having to go through the strenuous process of passing an amendment, our government can quite easily say, "Well, we're not exactly going to "change" the ___th amendment, we're just going to interpret it to mean _______". I think this is a majorly flawed loophole in an otherwise nearly perfect system. There have been no amendments passed to alter the meaning of the 2nd amendment, yet somehow our government has been able to take this bill...which read as is gives us the right to possess and carry any firearm, any place, any time, by anyone...and alter its meaning to greatly restrict the type of firearms we can own, the places we can own them, the places we can carry them, and the type people who can carry them. Somehow the phrase "...shall not be infringed." hasn't slowed them down in the least.

Well said! However the one part of your post I underlined is misleading....

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not "give" or "grant" any rights to people... people are born owning those rights and continue to own those rights as long as they live simply because they are people. We already have all of those rights... what the Bill of Rights does is to list what they are and to restrict the government from changing, controlling, or infringing upon, those rights that belong to the people.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights isn't a list of things the government allows the people to do... it is a list of things the people have said the government is NOT allowed to do.

However... what has happened is that the government has found ways to increase it's power to control by making laws that assess penalties for exercising the rights we have. A very good example is the 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"... and does not say anything about limiting how a person can bear an arm. But the government came up with concealed carry laws that assess penalties to anyone who exercises the right to bear arms by bearing an arm in a concealed manner without first getting permission to do so from the government.

And by passing those laws the government not only infringed upon the right to bear arms by restricting the right to carry concealed to only those who have a permit... but also put itself in control of who is NOT allowed to have that permit by setting the criteria that must be met in order for the government to deign to give permission (allow) to exercise the right to bear concealed arms.

But regardless of how much control is exerted through penalties by the government people still have the right to bear arms... they just can be punished for doing it without the government's permission. And it is the "punished for doing it without the government's permission" that is the government infringing (controlling) upon a right.

 

[AndeyHall]

I believe they should be able to amend #11 and up. I have no problem with that. Amendments 11-27 are basically the top 17 laws of the land. They usually concern issues that will change or vary over time. However there was an especially great deal of thought put into Amendments 1-10. They are the the rights that the founding fathers basically said, "Look, in order for the people to TRULY remain free from an oppressive and tyrannical government, these conditions MUST exist!" They are basically our "10 Commandments" for our government if you will.

I think our process to amend the constitution is as it should be. I mean I don't think anyone could argue that, after thousands of attempts to amend the constitution and only 17 having gone through, that the criteria isn't strict enough. However I do think that Congress does have way to much power in their ability to "interpret" the amendments that already exist. Through Supreme Court rulings, and without having to go through the strenuous process of passing an amendment, our government can quite easily say, "Well, we're not exactly going to "change" the ___th amendment, we're just going to interpret it to mean _______". I think this is a majorly flawed loophole in an otherwise nearly perfect system. There have been no amendments passed to alter the meaning of the 2nd amendment, yet somehow our government has been able to take this bill...which read as is gives us the right to possess and carry any firearm, any place, any time, by anyone...and alter its meaning to greatly restrict the type of firearms we can own, the places we can own them, the places we can carry them, and the type people who can carry them. Somehow the phrase "...shall not be infringed." hasn't slowed them down in the least.

Well said! However the one part of your post I underlined is misleading....

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not "give" or "grant" any rights to people... people are born owning those rights and continue to own those rights as long as they live simply because they are people. We already have all of those rights... what the Bill of Rights does is to list what they are and to restrict the government from changing, controlling, or infringing upon, those rights that belong to the people.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights isn't a list of things the government allows the people to do... it is a list of things the people have said the government is NOT allowed to do.

However... what has happened is that the government has found ways to increase it's power to control by making laws that assess penalties for exercising the rights we have. A very good example is the 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"... and does not say anything about limiting how a person can bear an arm. But the government came up with concealed carry laws that assess penalties to anyone who exercises the right to bear arms by bearing an arm in a concealed manner without first getting permission to do so from the government.

And by passing those laws the government not only infringed upon the right to bear arms by restricting the right to carry concealed to only those who have a permit... but also put itself in control of who is NOT allowed to have that permit by setting the criteria that must be met in order for the government to deign to give permission (allow) to exercise the right to bear concealed arms.

But regardless of how much control is exerted through penalties by the government people still have the right to bear arms... they just can be punished for doing it without the government's permission. And it is the "punished for doing it without the government's permission" that is the government infringing (controlling) upon a right.

Pardon my wording lol. I believe the same thing in that the Constitution does give us any rights, it simply tells the government what rights are basic human rights that they are prohibited from restricting.

The part that I bolded is an idea I have always referred to as "panic laws". Murder is against the law, obviously, but we've become so distrustful of everyone in our society that we feel we have to enact these prevention laws to try and keep murder from happening. So we basically just made it illegal to commit an illegal act...a bit redundant. They enact laws (and in this case, unconstitutional ones) that carry petty penalties to prevent, which they don't, bigger crimes with harsher penalties. You and I are who suffer the consequences.