I addressed this exact issue a while back. The most recent post was about a year ago to FReeper "oldleft."
Let's go again...
The fact is, the 2nd Amendment isn't very clearly written.
One could say that however, I believe it is not clearly understood by our current crop of communist agenda wanna-be's that have been "educated" in the liberal public schools and colleges.
In that environment we see a great deal of relativism where the phrase "shall not be infringed" is relatively interpreted as "mostly, unless I want to." They want to believe they can remove that nail from the plank and hammer it back in at a location that allows them to go ahead and severely infringe a Citizen's Second Amendment Rights as they see fit. THEN they point to their law as say "see, that is reasonable and common sense."
There is FAR too much focus on The Second Amendment in regards to it being cherry-picked for "abuse by excuse." The anti-American control addicts, otherwise known as communist agenda liberals, will abuse Second Amendment rights on ANY excuse.
Here is an example that makes it clear.
Example... You are a hot headed little you-know-what in your early 20's and caused a commotion and bit of a panic at the movies. Lots of folks leave "immediately" and as a result a kid gets a twisted ankle. Theater management calls for medical assistance to cover their liability, paramedics see what happened, call the local cops, cops arrest hot head for incitement to riot, public endangerment, injury to a minor, etc, etc.
End result, felony.
Does the hot head get a lifetime infringement of their FIRST Amendment rights or their SECOND Amendment rights?
The crime committed was one of vocalizing a false statement as factual.
But does that prevent said hothead from making a political speech? Ten, twenty, thirty years after the fact?
It is the very same tool used to commit the original crime, right?
Or for that matter does the hot head get a lifetime infringement (banishment) for ANY of their enumerated constitutional rights OTHER than the Second?
Nooooo, not that! The ranks of slimy politicians would be decimated by such equal justice.
No no no, only the Second Amendment Right to be A-R-M-E-D is the recipient of such blatant un-American and un-Constitutional attack.
The attack (infringements under color of law) on American Citizens Second Amendment Rights in which it is clearly and specifically stated "do not infringe here" is about as an un-American act as any I can think of, be it perpetrated by a thief stealing a citizens firearms or a thief depriving an American Citizen of their Unalienable Rights "under color of law."
Both should be the ones in prison, not the poor schmuck that flipped a coin in order to determine who will pay the bill at a restaurant. Or to hold a yard sale without first obtaining a business license. Or put an incorrect date or salary of a home loan application.
Or on a subject a bit closer to us all, not forking over piles of cash for ObamaCare.
There is no reason or indication that any regulation restricting OR allowing under certain conditions the possession of arms. There NEVER should have been any "concealed carry" permits as that only legitimizes the previous law or regulation restricting or infringing on a Citizen's Second Amendment rights.
If the Founding Fathers meant for there to be laws restricting an American Citizen of their right to freely and without restraint posses arms they would have clearly written it into the text of the Amendment just like they did in these...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law
Amendment III
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment XII
no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
And these...
AMENDMENT XIII
AMENDMENT XIV
AMENDMENT XV
AMENDMENT XVI
AMENDMENT XVIII
AMENDMENT XIX
AMENDMENT XXIII
AMENDMENT XXVI
The Second Amendment is absolutely clear here.
It is:
"shall not be infringed"
Not according to the rules of the common law
Not but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Not but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation
Not without due process of law
Not Congress shall have power to enforce this
Not The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation
Not unless they shall by law
Not Congress may by law
Not and shall not prevent
Not No law
Yeah, the Founding Fathers had every single opportunity for YEARS to put such a stipulation in the Second Amendment.
What do we see there?
There never was any original intent for laws restricting (infringing) OR allowing (concealed carry "permits") regarding arms.
It is a quite futile effort to convince me that what I see in front of me is not what was meant.
However, I am confident that some mealy-mouthed, smiley-faced BS artist of various occupation will be firmly convinced that I am wrong or that they can change my mind.
.
Your-name-in-a-post-rule ping.
TLI
.