Right to bears Arms?

I need to see where it states specifically that gun owners are allowed to have as much guns or have as many type of guns. they can handle?

If it is not in the constitution..then you lose...the law is about specifics..if it is not in there,,,then you lose.

All you little men might actually have to man up..poor families...got you to defend them...not much to depend on..

reply to post by kerazeesicko


That's not the way that the US legal system works. It doesn't start with the assumption that everything is illegal and then passes laws to state what is legal. It works the other way, everything is legal until there is a law passed making it illegal.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


If you're throwing a line out, I'll bite...
This will be in context of my own personal opinion, not necessarily others.

Our 2nd amendment was created to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government.
There's no clarity on what to protect ourselves with, just the general term "arms."
In those days, "arms" were considered anything that could be used for protection.
Guns, pistols, longarms, cannons, etc.

Should there be a limit on how the people can protect itself from tyranny?
(I don't want an answer, more of a thought)

If the government can own a stockade...
Then so must the people.

So we do exactly that.
We own whatever we can to protect ourselves.

Enumerated Powers,

Our constitution basically says, the powers not enumerated are to remain with the states and the people. If its not granted to the federal government specifically and in detail its not any of its business.

Most important part of second amendment is Shall not be Infringed I ask what part of "shall not infringed" do you not understand?

reply to post by kerazeesicko

The more guns the merrier IMO. The more calibers you have the easier it will be to find usable ammo in a SHTF scenario.
As far as the constitution goes, I am sure they were not talking about full autos and grenade launchers. That should be left up to individual states. I personally don't want to see full autos in the hands of people who are not properly trained to use them with precision, and only have them because they are cool(which they are) or plan on doing alot of damage.

Just because you might not be stable enough to manage firearms, doesn't mean the rest of society should be barred from them.
Not everyone is a kerazysicko

reply to post by kerazeesicko


The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the Constitution) does not grant rights, it simply enumerates some of them. The Bill of Rights exists only to tell the federal government what it may NOT do concerning those enumerated rights.

I don't care what your personal thoughts are...show me where it states where you can own any types of guns...show me where it states you got the right to open carry?

i support the right to arm bears

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
I don't care what your personal thoughts are...show me where it states where you can own any types of guns...show me where it states you got the right to open carry?

Did you even read the replies? That is not how the US legal system works.

Originally posted by spaceg0at
i support the right to arm bears

Bears would have invaded the cities in search of panties that smell like lake trout if it wasn't for rednecks

edit; joke= fail

reply to post by Doc Gator


The legal system is about specifics...that is how lawyers win..loopholes about specifics.

the 2nd amendment is not specific...therefore..the government can change it ..anyway they deem fit.

all 2nd amendment fools. got is you can bear arms..not what type nor how much..so the government can change it it anyway they seem fit...

And they can do it with out breaking the constitution.

Shall not be Infringed..is what it says...but does not state the type.

It basically states you can have a gun...not how much...nor what type..so any good lawyer can challenge it and win...your forefathers should have been specific...for all we know,,they meant only hunting rifles..

Hunting rifles can be used to defend yourselves...

Again I ask..where does it state the open carry...aspect? Do gun owners just make up BS as they deem fit?

Originally posted by spaceg0at
i support the right to arm bears

Yeah, and me.......and dolphins, cheetahs, panda's, blackbirds and lots of other creatures.........

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by Doc Gator

 

The legal system is about specifics...that is how lawyers win..loopholes about specifics.

the 2nd amendment is not specific...therefore..the government can change it ..anyway they deem fit.

all 2nd amendment fools. got is you can bear arms..not what type nor how much..so the government can change it it anyway they seem fit...

And they can do it with out breaking the constitution.

edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can

Clearly you have little understanding of the US legal system or the document that founded our government. The government can not change ANY part of the Constitution as they see fit. That requires a Constitutional amendment. Your logic is fatally flawed on this one.

Does the law tell you what kind of car you can drive? Does it spell out what color it must be? Does it limit how many you can own?

Originally posted by Doc Gator
. The government can not change ANY part of the Constitution as they see fit. That requires a Constitutional amendment. Your logic is fatally flawed on this one.

Does the law tell you what kind of car you can drive? Does it spell out what color it must be? Does it limit how many you can own?

Fine..but does the same law you quote..state what type of gun you can own..and how many types of guns you can own?

Does it not give leeway as to what can be defined? Also show me...WHERE IT STATES THE OPEN CARRY LAW..SPECIFICS is what I need

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Shall not be Infringed..is what it says...but does not state the type.

It basically states you can have a gun...not how much...nor what type..so any good lawyer can challenge it and win...your forefathers should have been specific...for all we know,,they meant only hunting rifles..

Hunting rifles can be used to defend yourselves...

Again I ask..where does it state the open carry...aspect? Do gun owners just make up BS as they deem fit?

edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can

Many good lawyers have challenged this and they have lost. Most recently in Heller vs DC.

We know that the founders were NOT referring to hunting rifles. The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.

Open carry is a state issue, not a federal government issue. You might want to give the 10th Amendment a quick read.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Originally posted by Doc Gator
. The government can not change ANY part of the Constitution as they see fit. That requires a Constitutional amendment. Your logic is fatally flawed on this one.

Does the law tell you what kind of car you can drive? Does it spell out what color it must be? Does it limit how many you can own?

Fine..but does the same law you quote..state what type of gun you can own..and how many types of guns you can own?

Does it not give leeway as to what can be defined? Also show me...WHERE IT STATES THE OPEN CARRY LAW..SPECIFICS is what I need

Again, you are missing a very basic legal concept. It is legal until there is a law passed that makes it illegal.

Originally posted by Doc Gator

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Shall not be Infringed..is what it says...but does not state the type.

It basically states you can have a gun...not how much...nor what type..so any good lawyer can challenge it and win...your forefathers should have been specific...for all we know,,they meant only hunting rifles..

Hunting rifles can be used to defend yourselves...

Again I ask..where does it state the open carry...aspect? Do gun owners just make up BS as they deem fit?

edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can

Many good lawyers have challenged this and they have lost. Most recently in Heller vs DC.

We know that the founders were NOT referring to hunting rifles. The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.

Open carry is a state issue, not a federal government issue. You might want to give the 10th Amendment a quick read.

Your founders also made it abundantly clear that the pen is mightier than the sword, and in contrast that the sword has 2 clearly defined edges. 2 destinies

Originally posted by HamrHeed

Originally posted by Doc Gator

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Shall not be Infringed..is what it says...but does not state the type.

It basically states you can have a gun...not how much...nor what type..so any good lawyer can challenge it and win...your forefathers should have been specific...for all we know,,they meant only hunting rifles..

Hunting rifles can be used to defend yourselves...

Again I ask..where does it state the open carry...aspect? Do gun owners just make up BS as they deem fit?

edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can

Many good lawyers have challenged this and they have lost. Most recently in Heller vs DC.

We know that the founders were NOT referring to hunting rifles. The were referring to arms equal to those possessed by the government.

Open carry is a state issue, not a federal government issue. You might want to give the 10th Amendment a quick read.

Your founders also made it abundantly clear that the pen is mightier than the sword, and in contrast that the sword has 2 clearly defined edges. 2 destinies

You are correct. It was hoped that the mere existence of the 2nd amendment would be enough to stop the government from ever becoming tyrannical. But failing that, and after every peaceful option had been exhausted, it insured that the people had the ABILITY (not the right) to overthrow that government.