Posted on 02/04/2014 6:02:49 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Why don't you spell out the extent of the "right" of which you speak?
None of the Bill of Rights has ever been repealed, except by unlawful court decisions.
Assuming that the Second Amendment is not repealed, is there a right to bear arms or is there not? Is there a right to carry concealed or is there not? Is there a right to carry openly or is there not? Is the state of Kalifornia infringing said right or are they not?
We'll have to follow Arizona very carefully then. They have repealed virtually all of their gun laws and don't require a permit to carry openly or concealed. It should be there that we see the effective repeal of the Second Amendment and not in some state like California.
Unfortunately, the race is over. The Second Amendment has been effectively repealed in California and not in Arizona.
You're asking me to fear that I will lose my right to keep and bear arms because of what is happening in Arizona? It's gone already and I'm waiting for the courts to recognize the infringements and restore my rights.
Is it your opinion that the Ninth Circuit will or will not restore my rights? Should they restore my rights or follow your thinking that permitting the exercise of the right will destroy the right?
No Constitutional “Right” is absolute. The framers were not that stupid. To quote the cliche “No man has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater.”
No Constitutional “Right” is absolute. The framers were not that stupid. To quote the cliche “No man has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater.”
I am ambivalent about private citizens owning automatic weapons such as AK-47's; and am dead against carrying pistols at will. I can learn from the actions of citizens from the 19th century who stopped unlimited carry based upon the fact it did not work. We live in times where the fanatics can rise to leadership positions due to their lack of self restraint.
You most certainly DO have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
You may do so without negative consequences if, in fact, there is a fire. You may do so if you are an actor on the stage and the script calls for it.
You don't need a license. You don't have to be registered. No training is required. You may say it as many times as you wish or think prudent.
The government has no say in the matter and cannot exercise prior restraint to prevent you from shouting fire in a theater.
And, very similar to the keeping and bearing of arms, you have a responsibility not to unreasonably engender panic in the crowd.
You, evidently being one who would panic in a crowded theater if someone shouts "fire", would also panic if a person were to bear arms in your presence; except, of course, if that person were wearing a police uniform, regardless of whether the person was actually a policeman.
Either or thinking is not too bright. The choice is not either an unlimited right to carry at will or no right to carry at all. That is a false dichotomy. The true rule being ownership and possession is guaranteed carrying is not at will and one must demonstrate reasonable grounds for doing so.
“Either or thinking is not too bright.”
The above is an either or statement.
At best it’s incoherent, at worst it refutes itself. A concise illustration of the state of all leftist ideology.
Very similar to the statement of postmodernism: “There is no such thing as truth.” If this statement is true, it’s false.
I can’t believe you are serious in your statements. They are among the silliest I have seen in years. On the otherhand perhaps you truly require each and every contingency of the use of the term “fire” to be spelled out in detail. Lord!
Oh Lord! Good Bye and Good Luck.
I couldn’t help myself.
if it was rap, he should be not guilty. lol
So, what is your legal theory to support this?
That the word "bear" in the Second Amendment was put there by accident and doesn't count?
That the practices of Midwestern towns in the nineteenth century constitute an amendment to the Constitution?
Would not your approach render the entire Constitution null and void? What would prevent that?
What definition of "right" is consistent with allowing the government to dictate whether one may exercise such right? Wasn't the purpose of the Bill of Rights to prevent the government from involving itself in these matters?
If you claim that the Founders intended to permit the government to dictate the circumstances of keeping and bearing, what is it that prevented the Founders from saying so? Under your interpretation, how is the "right" to keep and bear any different from the situation in Russia or Zimbabwe? Your "may issue" approach in Kalifornia has, until recently, been proven identical to "no carry" and still is for most of the population.
The law in Kalifornia is virtually identical to what you propose; that is, the local law enforcement chief gets to decide who has "good cause". Do you really believe that virtually every one of the ten million or so people in Los Angeles County have no "good cause"?
Exactly. If somebody is playing their music or doing an activity that annoys you, without violating your rights, then just leave the area.
To whom? The Republican House? The Democrat Senate? The Present in the White House? The mayor of one's town? The police chief in one's town?
And who pays when the judgement is wrong and a person suffers great bodily harm or death because of such decision? The taxpayers? The cops? You?
How much expensive jewelry is enough to satisfy the need? If dead pizza delivery people could talk, would they agree with you?
That would be equivalent to around 250,000 homicides in the U.S. today (actual number is around 16,000). Dodge City population in 1876 was about 1,200.
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.