Should states decide on gun ownership?

You run the risk of changing a simple traffic stop into a criminal act if you carry a gun in your car in New York State/

 

Haha…bloody hell. A routine traffic stop can only turn into a criminal act if you have your gun out in plain sight. No responsible law abiding gun owner would ever drive with a gun in hand or sitting on the passenger seat. So please stop with this silly nonsense that people will be arrested for being found with a gun at a routine traffic stop. Said gun will either be concealed on one’s body or concealed in a compartment. And if someone is stupid enough to have their gun out for the cop to see then you deserve what you get.

 

Depends on whether law enforcement sees something he considers suspicious or if you get in an accident. It is considered by many to not be worth the risk.

 

IF we honor the constitution, which stands as the prime directive of law in the nation, we respect it's limits.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It does not limit the nature of arms, yet we do that, a tolerance due to the changes in arms over time.
We also tolerate infringement, which is the process of type limitations, taxes on some, registration and qualifications of owners.
Sometimes tolerance is wise- but it opens the door to unwise options too, and usually sets dangerous precedents.

The US Constitution is the prime directive of American law; the foundation of the nation. That law is clear and continues in force. These concessions have not revoked those laws, because their fundamental purpose and truth is to insure the freedom of the people over time- and nothing outweighs that.

The first amendment provides the freedom to speak against tyranny and corruption- the second provides the insurance that freedom can defended.
These things are vital to the interests of every citizen, having the potential of direct and personal effect on us all- thus we all have a vested interest in protecting those rights.
Most people understand that their freedom is protected by law- but not as many understand that it does not grant them the power to deny freedom to others without compelling cause and the existence of detrimental risk to society.

Abortion on the other hand is a situation that affects primarily one person- the mother. It not only affects her physically, but will impact the rest of her life in every way, including if she chooses to abort. Much of this centers around the quality of life, both for the mother and the possible child she might have at a time or in a condition that could make a quality life impossible. If you "value" life in an unqualified way- then you don't care about the quality of that life, or that it might be one of poverty, agony, failure. If you value the quality of life, then you also must recognize that the quality depends on the capacity of the parent to create and support the right environment, and that the timing is crucial to achieving that. Only the person directly involved here can make that call, because they bear all the consequences. In my view- that means that the choice of abortion has to remain in that persons hands, not in the hands of someone totally detached from the situation. Thus I believe that governments only duty here is to say this question is one only the involved person can answer- and those not involved have no right to interfere or impose their own view.

The right to abortion or the denial of the right is not stated by the constitution, and should not be. Nor should it be dictated by state law, because it is personal decision by the person most affected by the choice. The fundamental concepts of freedom of choice for all citizens is clearly endorsed by the constitution as well as the declaration of independence. We may not like what others do- but we need to be very cautious about denying anyone the rights to their personal freedom of choice, because doing so jeopardizes everyone's rights to make their own decisions, regardless of what authority wishes to do so. I think the law covers that right, and tolerance for denying that right is a most dangerous precedent.

 

Due process, yes. Or I might call it limiting the power of the federal government. The last phrase of the second amendment: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' In other words, IMO, the federal 2ND amendment will not infringe on gun rights set up by states. If a state has universal gun rights, for example, the 2nd will not infringe on that right. Consequently, if a state has no universal gun rights, the 2ND won't infringe on that 'non-right' either.

I've noticed just as many authoritarians are screaming about taking away federal universal gun rights as there are authoritarians screaming about taking away universal abortion rights.

Folks, our democracy is really in trouble.

 

Well that's a novel attempt but it's still wrong. Constitutional amendments effect states as well at least since the thirteenth fourteenth and 15th amendments. And the amendments especially the bill of rights are to limit all of government not just the feds.

 

I'd guess you haven't read about the history of the passage of the second amendment in 1791 because you wish to cling to this false narrative that the second amendment was a universal gun rights amendment for Americans when the second amendment was a regulation of state militias amendment.

 

Why do you suppose the eloquent and learned writers of the second amendment used such sloppy, IMO, wording like'...the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' Wouldn't a statement like 'every American can keep and bear Arms' be more precise? Think Occam's Razor.
I think the answer is obvious. That awkward phrase was used at the end of the 2ND because the phrase wasn't meant to declare that all Americans could keep and bear Arms. The 2ND starts out by talking about states and, IMO, ends by talking about states, er, states' rights on Arms ownership.

 

Does the DoI count when following the constitution?
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

Yes, born persons.
But even if all are created equally, we aren't all treated equally. Those that wrote those words, some of them owned other people proving all are not created equally.

 

Probably because you would be a criminal if you violate a law. Yes?
One would be committing a criminal act even if not caught, would they not?

 

Arms are not restricted to just guns.
Arms are all weapons that are available. Yet we restrict all kinds of arms.

The D of I says we have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So, a pregnant woman may just want her right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to continue.

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in The Declaration of Independence written by T. Jeff.

Sorry, I realize DOI means Declaration of Independence.

 

Does a criminal on death row have the right to life?

 

IMO, guns have been expressively prohibited because radicals on the left consider guns 'evil'.

 

I don't know. The fed gov't has no death row anymore, correct?
It's left up to the States?


Why did you change the topic?
Does that mean you actually are for arms restrictions?

 

Well, your opinion is wrong.
I bet you consider me left and I don't consider guns evil.
In fact, I have never worried in my entire life about losing my right to own a gun.

So, are you for or against any arms restrictions? You won't give an answer.

 

Doesn't The Constitution, er, the DOI supersede state constitutions?

 

I want what the second amendment wants. I want Arms rights for citizens of states that have gun rights and I don't want Arms rights for citizens of states that don't have Arm rights.

 

I would say so. But I am not the expert.
If the DOI supersedes the States, then the woman has a right to abortion. IE pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

 

So, you want States rights to take precedent over the constitution.
I don't think that's how the founders set it up.

 

You aren't on the radical left since you don't think guns are evil. I might consider you authoritarian, though, if you think the 2ND amendment gives universal gun rights to all Americans.

Ya know, I consider being authoritarian and being on the radical left equally bad for America.

 

I think you have to consider this right of life, for example, to be more of a philosophical right. In other words, what are the circumstances of the proposed death of the fetus? For further sexual gratification w/o any consequences or is the fetus gonna kill the mother, for example?

 

No. It announced the split from Britain. It did not provide a guideline for the establishment of the government.

 

Now your back to your usual screwed up argument. First the phrase well regulated doesn't imply any thing about government control. In the parlance of the day it simply means to function as it should. And since a militia also parlance if the day was everyone 14 and up, and the militia member was supposed to furnish his own weapons and ammunition. The second amendment precludes
the government, all branches and members there from denying the free citizens of the country access to what ever weapons they might deem necessary