Posted on 05/25/2022 7:32:14 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Joe Biden on Wednesday signed an executive order to reform policing just one day after a teenager fatally shot 21 people at a Texas elementary school.
Biden politicized the tragic mass shooting and used it as an excuse to attack the Second Amendment.
"The Second Amendment is not absolute. When it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon…there’s always been limitations,” said Biden.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
In Florida teachers and staff are encouraged to get trained, in some counties at county expense, and fitted out with a carry permit and that is advertised. Since that began under, I think, Governor Scott, the once or thrice a year bomb threats and gun threats that the schools in this county used to get have stopped. No more evacuations and lockdowns due to those phone calls and passed notes.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What more do you need? The words are not obscure. Their meaning is plain.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is absolute. There are no words modifying that language. “
You might say that they are modified by the preceding words:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
What is inside that right and what is not?
Can the law require the return to its true owner of a stolen firearm you are keeping and bearing or can you claim your right to keep and bear arms allows you to keep and bear it and a law requiring its return is an infringement?
What about five year olds? Are they covered by the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Is a law saying a parent can forbid them to do so an infringement of their right?
I believe we must promote a better understanding of the right rather than just shouting “Shall not be infringed”. We don’t need to convince those on The Right, and we can’t convince those who support the Far Left, but there are a lot of people in the middle.
“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What more do you need? “
We need to know what that right covers.
What is inside that right and what is not?
Can the law require the return to its true owner of a stolen firearm you are keeping and bearing or can you claim your right to keep and bear arms allows you to keep and bear it and a law requiring its return is an infringement?
What about five year olds? Are they covered by the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Is a law saying a parent can forbid them to do so an infringement of their right?
I believe we must promote a better understanding of the right rather than just shouting “Shall not be infringed”. We don’t need to convince those on The Right, and we can’t convince those who support the Far Left, but there are a lot of people in the middle.
Nothing is ABSOLUTE with this idiot!
There is nothing more than what the words proclaim. It is your right to own and carry arms. If you want a Javelin missile on your truck, Constitutionally the only limit is on your ability to pay for one. There are no nuances, no alternate “interpretations.” If you need them then you are merely trying to ignore the Amendment. ALL legal restrictions on keeping and bearing arms of any sort are unConstitutional. All gun licenses and permits are unConstitutionl. If you want to take your meanings from post Constitutional legal history then you are chasing after legal elusions. Much hof the government as it exists is of questionable Constitutionality. Gun laws are absolutely unconstiutional.
The first clause sets a reason that the RKBA is needed but does not modify the meaning of the ban on infringement. Read it grammatically. Perhaps you are not old enough to have been taught grammar in school. It has not been taught for at least a generation and progressively truncated for a time before that. Language is the tool kit for reason. When you throw out grammar reasoning becomes sloppy and hard to use.
You are going way out into left field. The right to own is not modified. The rest of what you bring up is inventing phoney issues that have no bearing. A stolen gun is stolen property and is dealt with in law- Thou Shalt Not Steal and all that. It has no bearing whatever on the RIGHT to keep and bear which, to answer a caveat you will likely make, a right is not a requirement nor an exception to economics.
“ALL legal restrictions on keeping and bearing arms of any sort are unConstitutional.”
Seems to me that your opinion is a law requiring one to give up a stolen gun in one’s possession to the true owner would be unconstitutional. After all, that would be a legal restriction “of any sort” and an infringement.
Seems to me that your opinion is a law saying parents can, absent a need for self defense, prohibit their five year old child from keeping and bearing arms would be unconstitutional. After all, that would be a legal restriction “of any sort” and an infringement of the child’s right.
You’re entitled to your opinions. You don’t even have to defend or justify them. But, could you?
Irrelevant. I’m trying to discuss the meaning, scope, extent of the first clause.
“The right to own is not modified”...
...By the right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms does not cover someone keeping and bearing arms that were stolen from me.
Are we in agreement on that?
“It has no bearing whatever on the RIGHT to keep and bear”
The right to own bears on the right to keep and bear arms if the arms are stolen.
I’m not going into left field, I’m digging deeper.
I’m trying to discuss the meaning, scope, extent of the first clause.
The right to keep and bear arms does not deny your right to toothpaste either, or to troll a conservative site with fanciful irrelevant “arguments.”
Irrelevant.
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.