Posted on 12/04/2008 5:34:20 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
You completely avoided my question.
It’s easy to say you’re having heated conversation with various people on here, me included. Your previous statements make it seem as if you’re in favor of some form of gun control.
Without going on a multi-paragraph tangent, I’d like to know to what extent, in your view, the Second Amendment applies to.
What about the almost empty at night?
I'm typing as slowly as I can. My opinion doesn't matter. We have laws and processes for making and changing laws. The courts decide the things that "Congress may not forbid because of the Second Amendment", not me or you or Plaxico.
I believe the original intent of the second amendment was to prevent governments from from violating the unalienable rights of individuals.
But my opinion doesn’t matter beyond my vote and my ability to affect others’ votes.
I don’t know — never been on a train in the middle of the night. The latest I’ve been on one was around midnight a few years ago, and it was pretty packed.
I suppose it shouldn’t be a problem between midnight and 5 a.m., but I wonder if the ricochets will do even more damage than the scratchitti. I also don’t know if there’s a feasible way to keep the drunks unarmed.
And this meets the criteria of "shall not be infringed" how? Which part of the Second Amendment suggests that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be licensed by Congress? And why did these licensing requirements not exist for the first century and a half of our republic?
So you think that our Founders adopted a document that is just too complicated for us regular people to understand? But somehow the Courts will be able to figure it out? Do you have opinions about anything at all in the Constitution, or do you defer to the Supreme Court for everything? Do you think the Roe v. Wade decision was correct?
I don't agree with it, but it's the law. It is based on an understanding of what "a well regulated" means
No, I think that that is the process that the constitution sets up for making laws.
So did some of mine. But some were here when their government attempted to disarm them and required them to house soldiers in their homes. They took up arms and killed the tyrant's forces until the tyranny stopped.
Let's look at the Third Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Gee, look at that. Our Founders knew how to include exceptions to permit action by Congress. But you think that Congress automatically gets to "prescribe by law" when the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed"?
so?
I don't think you answered regarding Roe v. Wade. Was that decision correct or not? Or is it simply none of your business?
This is like talking to my wife, she asks the same question and is shocked when I give the same answer. I personally am against abortion on grounds of justice. I do not see anything in the constitution either way, however. It is a matter of interpretation and the constitution sets up the Judiciary for interpreting the law, not me. I care, but the constitution doesn't care if I care or not, beyond my right to vote.
You must not be giving her the answer she wants!
So,... one minute you assure me of the importance of an explicit explanation in the example about buying a car.
But you fail to see the relevance of the missing explicit permission for Congress to legislate in the Second Amendment, when there exists such explicit permission in the Third Amendment.
Sounds to me like you want to have it both ways. Congress gets to "prescribe by law" when there is permission and Congress gets to prescribe by law when there is no permission.
That is exactly what you are saying when you use Brady arguments to support NY gun control laws. What else do you think gun licensing is? It's letting government decide who gets to do what.
"Unsteady"? I'm not the one even tacitly supporting gun control.
You astute are, Skywalker!
For understanding the language of the Second, yes. For understanding the proper application of the BoR, apparently not. Again, apples and oranges.
Sorry. My Ancestors came here seeking freedom. If you want gun control laws, move back to Britain.
The legislature can pass any law about anything but it is subject to judicial review. A passage in the constitution isn't required.
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.