It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity bill

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Not sneaky, I moved the edit to the post after yours. It changed nothing.

You avoided the "given" part of my question. It's important because any decision the Court makes will consider previous decisions. Those decisions (various) are that "infringe" does not mean what you may think it means. Your opinion is moot. No offense.

edit on 12/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Hence why I said this

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99


Well to be devil's advocate, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't fall in line with the constitution.
Tell that that to the Justices. I'm sure they would be glad to hear why your interpretation of the Constitution is more valid than theirs. It is their job, don't you know.


I'd be more curious in their interpretation of the word infringed.

Yes, given the fact that the scotus has ruled as such regarding states rights to regulate guns, it would be a violation of the 10th. However I disagree with their ruling because of the word infringe. The legal definition of infringement is as followed

The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract.

The 2nd amendment is all of the above. A right, a law, a regulation, and a contract. It shall not be infringed. Unless that is, 9 people have a hard time understanding 27 words and a simple legal definition.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yeah. Well. I don't agree with all SCOTUS decisions either. On this part I do though.

I don't think everyone who wants to own and carry any gun should be allowed to do so, anywhere, anytime, any how they want to.

You do seem to understand the 10th better than some members of Congress though.

edit on 12/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

No doubt, on a muddy field in the future...it'll all have to be "explained"...re-educated again.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nobody really cares what you "think". That's the cool thing about our Republic. Your opinions options are not "legal" or "law".



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: murphy22



Nobody really cares what you "think".

That's harsh.

I care about what you think. I even asked you to clarify it earlier because I couldn't make any sense out of what you first said.

How are you doing on the Constitutional definition of treason, btw?

edit on 12/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm fine with it. There's only two things that are considered "treason". ..I took the oath, And read it before I "took" it... Unlike most of our "leaders". You're wrong. Plan and simple. Now if you want to change the "law"? There's a "legal" proceedings to do so. ... But you can not "lawfully"



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: murphy22

So, making a law that violates the Constitution isn't treason. We agree. See! Glad we cleared that up.


edit on 12/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Obviously ats doesn't like what I'm saying.. Won't let me finish a sentence without cutting me off. But a "right" is a right! No "law" can change that.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It's simply not a "law". Holds as much weight as your personal opinion. And shouldn't be obeyed. ...



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Any "lawmakers" should know that. It basic American Civics.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well that is the big problem on the 2nd though, you agree with the scotus, and I do too in principle, but in legality I don't. The 2nd amendment has indeed been infringed in legal speak.

Is that a good thing? Yes it is, but again only in principle.

We are contradicting our own law of the land with current scotus rulings on gun restrictions. I'm for gun restrictions, but lets do it the right way, per our constitution. That itself is also a scary thought though, which is why it hasn't been attempted and likely won't ever.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

The 2nd. Amendment is the only amendment, designed to protect itself. ..That was some awesome lawyer stuff right there!



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: murphy22

That's what is the problem in this whole matter, and I think as a civilized society we can agree there should be restrictions on gun ownership, however the ultimate law of the land says that federally there shall be no infringement, and there is per legal definition.

A constitutional amendment to the 2nd opens a whole can of worms too though. It also opens all amendments to open debate and amendment, which is why it never happens.

The current gun issue is one of the biggest legal clusterfudges that will be recorded when it comes to the history of the US.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=22926363]Vector99[
I don't see it as an issue. I don't fear guns, anymore than I do a "smart car" with a Hillary bumper sticker. None of mine have ever did anything, I didn't tell them to do. As for criminal types with guns? I blame the government for creating a bunch of useless victims of violence. Government can not have peace. With peace their usefulness is diminished. They'd be regulated to doing what their chartered



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Thorneblood

Thorneblood, Consider moving to Texas. Gov Greg Abbott recently signed legislation allowing big knives

and swords to be carried in Texas.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



I think as a civilized society we can agree there should be restrictions on gun ownership,


No.

Shall not be infringed.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Guy/Gal walks into a gun store, says "I want to shoot a bunch of people today, give me an automatic"

hence the reasonable need for discussion of the 2nd.

As it stands now, legally that guy/gal should be sold a gun.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: the owlbear

Damn thats specific.....


It happened. Years ago.
www.cnn.com...
The guy then just sat down and watched the guy he shot bleed out.
Didn't bother to help. Just sat down with his gun.
Second degree murder charges.



Whats your point? Violent people exist everywhere. By the way most movies restict handguns most of the time they use knives


hudsonvalleynewsnetwork.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.wxow.com...

articles.latimes.com...
edit on 12/5/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

That still doesn't answer my question, as I haven't said a thing about "no-issue states".

Thanks for trying, anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join