Posted on 04/26/2017 10:10:15 AM PDT by SerpentDove
I do not want to grab any ones gun.
If you read what I said carefully you’d notice I said that I believe the constitution assumes that almost everyone will or should have a weapon and be part of a state militia.
That is as far as you get from gun control in the leftist sense.
They did if they rode into a town controlled by the notorious gun grabber Wyatt Earp.
Of course you do if you want to put some kind of test in place that you approve of. Someone else sooner or later adds more restrictions to your reasonable test.
Once you accept the premise that reasonable restrictions are fine they start to decide what reasonable is. The second amendment is restricted all over the US by States and Cities because they decided for you what reasonable was.
The right to vehicular transportation is not a God-given Right.
We need to be careful with our language. Our rights do not come from The Constitution, they come from God.
The Constitution is just a written acknowledgement of such so we don't forget.
-- Somebody. I forget who.
While the name “Constitutional Carry” is probably the best term because it’s better understood, I think the more accurate name would be “Natural Law Carry”, as this right was not created by, but rather acknowledged by the Constitution.
Note when referring to this right the 2nd Amendment does not say citizens “shall have” the right, but rather simply refers to it as “the right”, without there being any other part of the Constitution that had already established that right, which therefore means, to me, that they are referring to a right that was established by Natural Law, as opposed to, say, the right to a trial by jury, which is established by the Constitution.
Headline says House, article says House Committee, two different animals. Still a long row to hoe.
You use a leftist argument. Driving is a privilege, the 2A is a right.
It was put in place in Texas after the War Between the States or The Civil War, if you prefer.
The Reconstruction government had to change the Texas Constitution to do it, and they did.
Then the Democrats chased out the Carpetbagger governor (literally). He was calling for federal troops when he fled the Governor’s mansion.
The Democrats decided they like the power, so they only halfway restored the state Constitutional protection, allowing the *wearing* of arms to be controlled by the legislature.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/08/txcome-and-take-it-means-to-restore.html
Constitutionally you can’t say “shall not be infringed” without saying “A well regulated militia” first
Sure you can. One of the top people in English construction studied the Amendment as an English sentence. Here is part of his analysis:
[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
It is just one use of the right, it does not control who has the right or what uses the right may be appllied to.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Anyway Go Texas!! Good job.
You can count on the RINO Speaker to side with the Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.