Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

Are you saying scotus should not interpret the constitution?

- - - Updated - - -

That would mean you could take your gun anywhere....like a plane

 

A plane is a business, if the business does not want any guns in the hands of it's customers---that's up to them.

A private person on his own plane should be able to load himself down with 100 pounds of his own guns if he so wished.

 

Can a airline deny black people on their planes? Why can they deny guns?

 

So TSA agents (who work for the federal government) shouldn't be able to stop armed passengers from boarding a plane?

 

https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2...e-trying-bring-gun-airplane-lynchburg-airport

Not many people seem to complain about the right protected by the Second Amendment being infringed in such cases.

 

because they do. Certain rights granted in the constitution are not limited to citizen, but "people"

 

correct they shouldn't because there is no provision in the constitution that gives the supreme court that as a duty

- - - Updated - - -

We the People of the United States
first words of the constitution implicating that all that is written afterwards is referring to People of the United States (citizens)

 

the 14th supersedes the 10th as it incorporated the bill of rights.

- - - Updated - - -

people, not citizens. Certain rights apply to anyone on US soil, regardless of citizenship.

 

The supreme court has disagreed with your opinions....both of them....for decades

 

So it appears that pro-gun activists have no problem with infringements which they happen to personally like.

 

Yes, because it is based in sound fact. We will only strengthen our pro gun laws through congress and SCOTUS because the train is rolling on in states and towns and cities all over.

 

Interpret does not mean to rewrite the Constitution.

I would allow 4" knives on a plane. After 9/11, a knife won't cut it as a means to take over a plane. The passengers would know to fight back. I wouldn't allow guns because a gun can take down a plane and thereby be a WMD on an airplane.

Other than for national security reasons, the Feds shouldn't be able to ban guns anywhere. The only exceptions I can see are military installations, courthouses, or legislative or executive chambers. I should be able to open or concealed carry at any post office or national park. If states want to regulate the wearing of arms, then that's up to them. My state Constitution even affirms this view in our Bill of Rights.

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

 

Where in the second amendment the exception for military installations, courthouses or executive or legislative sessions? Those are infringements. Are you rewriting the constitution?

 

Because guns are not people. People kill people, not guns by themselves.

 

You are making the argument for even more restrictions on guns

 

You can also tear up the Constitution itself if you want to. Do you have a copy? Tear it up and pretend to yourself that it does not establish what is legally authorized or forbidden.

 

Of course you can. The first amendment guarantees that right. I assume you mean literally

 

Step back for a minute and look at the sprawling mess you liberals have made here in the US with gangs and terrorists doing so much mayhem.

Now guns were only really banned for carry on board commercial airline flights starting back around 1968 after Cuban hijackers and the gun control nuts began being active.

With our liberalized criminal justice system, we now allow dangerous terrorists and hardened violent felons to run free. Of course they should be jailed or executed, but without secure borders, and our lax justice system, we now have to have checkpoints for airlines. They may have to begin doing this for subways and public buses.

 

That would follow under the regulation of the military in Article 1 Section 8. Article 3 gives the court the power to enforce laws. It cannot enforce laws if they don't have physical control of their courthouses.

 

How can liberals be blamed for the justice system when the GOP controls most state legislatures and governors. You made this mess.....clean it up

- - - Updated - - -

So then you agree that infringe can not be taken literally and we must interpret when we can have infringements. I agree

 

Look back at the authors of all the bad laws. Look for the (D).

 

They pass thru a gop legislature....you do know this...right?

 

The bad laws pass under a Dem controlled Congress---almost always.

 

The writers of the Constitution believed it, google it to find their writings on the subject. See my signature.

And once again you completely misunderstand the Constitution. The federal government has only the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, all other powers are reserved to the states and people. The Bill of Rights does not list the rights people have, it is simply a set of examples.

But in typical "progressive" misunderstanding you have it backwards thinking the Bill of Rights lists the powers people have and all others are granted to the feds.

 

In state legislatures? You do know the states control the vast majority of the criminal justice system.....don't you?

- - - Updated - - -

I never said anything of the kind that you have posted. Infringe....literal or not?