Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

Most of today's so-called scholars are nothing more than Ivory Tower liberals parading themselves around as intellectuals, which really doesn't mean much in the overall scope of things.

I for one absolutely believe the 2nd should be taken as its written, the wording is specific, the 2nd itself is the shortest and most concise of all our amendments, there really isn't a doubt that wasn't created by hack activist judges as to what was intended...

 

So you believe in no restrictions on any arms at any time?

 

Absolutely, as its written. I also believe that with the advent of many new technologies that the Founders' could not have predicted, that a new amendment that set forth proper restrictions might be required. As such I'm pretty sure most law abiding gun owners could agree that certain military items, like bombs, nukes, certain vehicles, and such should be restricted from private ownership or at the very least highly regulated. On the other hand, small arms should be virtually unrestricted, for say .50 cal and below, after that some restrictions to avoid private citizens from having access to grenade launchers and such...

 

So until that other amendment is passed....which could take years or never.....then no restrictions on any arms at any time?

 

Yep...

 

Obviously it is literal since the Constitution does not grant the federal govt any power to regulate firearm ownership. States can regulate firearms, the feds cannot.

You claimed "virtually no legal scholar" believes it - that's incorrect. The writers of the Constitution believed it and they trump all other legal scholars. Any "legal scholar" since 1800 who believes the feds can regulate firearm ownership are wrong.

 

Virtually no one agrees with you. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

That is your opinion. Of course I will take the opinions of decades of supreme courts over yours. Lol

 

After 9/11 the pilots can now carry firearms in the cockpit under the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.

Clearly, there are already guns on planes.

 

Not my opinion.

Its the written statement of the writers of the US Constitution. Obviously you are too afraid to actually look into the subject - you know you are wrong.

But your false opinion does not really matter. The supreme court has declared firearm ownership an individual right, public opinion is on the side of gun rights, the states with 3-4 exceptions (such California, Illinois, you know - the states with extreme gun control and extreme violence) are all deeply supportive of gun rights. You are irrelevant.

 

If I am I am in great company. Even Scalia did not agree with you. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

Roger that mustang. Lol

 

The supreme authority on the subject - the writers of the Constitution - disagree with you.

Scalia was swayed by precedent, and the precedent is wrong.

So you are in the great company of people who are wrong. And nothing you can post will change that obvious fact.

 

So you believe in no restrictions of any arms at any time. Just say it

 

Except for where the government is authorized to function according to the Constitution, there should be no infringement.

 

Except for infringements there should be no infringements. Lol

 

It's the only amendment containing the phrase shall not be infringed. It's there for a reason. Take it literally.

 

Its not my fault many, many people are wrong, doesn't mean I'll join them. These are our rights we are talking about, not a popularity contest, and many of those who disagree are gun grabbing jackasses who don't matter anyway...

 

I'm talking about the rights of the American public. If the airlines want THEIR pilots armed in THEIR planes, that's up to them. A pilot can already kill everybody on board if he were so inclined. If people are that afraid of guns, they have the option of not flying.

 

So any arms anywhere anytime?

 

This is factually incorrect, as well as physically impossible. Airliners are not actually airtight. Discharging a firearm within an airliner will not in any way serve to bring it down.

http://www.brainstuffshow.com/blogs...mfortable-in-the-death-zone-at-33000-feet.htm

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...t-air-pressure-maintained-inside-the-fuselage

n the case of pressurized aircraft, it's actually necessary that the cabin is not airtight. They are, instead, nearly airtight and can withstand significant pressure differentials.

Cabin pressurization works by bleeding high-pressure air from the engines, which is then run through packs (heat exchangers and air cycle machines) to cool it. After conditioning, the air is fed into the cabin. This is what creates the lower cabin altitude relative to the outside atmosphere.

Because more air is constantly being added to the fuselage, a pressure outflow valve is required and it is constantly dumping air from inside the aircraft. In normal operations, it's automatically controlled, but can be manually overridden in emergency situations.

Under such a standard, the federal government would be authorized to declare a national security matter for the purpose of prohibiting firearms nationwide.

 

So no infringements of any kind? Any arms anywhere anytime?

 

he's not actually attempting to argue anything. Its rope a dope contarianism. His attitude is that there no bright line protection of firearms. He doesn't think there are any constitutional protections and anything congress can get away with is "constitutional"

its nothing more than baiting

 

Well it can't get thru unless the supreme court approves but even you admit to this

 

the constitution doesn't grant rights-founders saw us has having complete freedom pursuant to the federal government except where the states and the people delegated that authority to the federal government. That might sound redundant but its very important and the gun banners dishonestly ignore it or more likely don't understand it. We don't need a right to keep and bear arms-its just reiterating the fact that the federal government never has had the proper power to infringe on rights the founders believed we had since the dawn of man

- - - Updated - - -

true but that in NO WAY diminishes the rights of the citizens. it prevents the states from interfering with rights. it is not a diminution of the natural rights of citizens

- - - Updated - - -

you have not demonstrated any understanding of any relevant supreme court case. why don't you start to salvage your reputation on constitutional issues by telling us what causes government action to "infringe" on a fundamental constitutional right?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't support any federal infringements. they are dishonestly imposed. why don't you tell us what you see as the limit of federal interference over our rights? I suspect you will say none

 

The government mat restrict any right if it has a compelling interest to do so. Any right. I can not keep educating you on this simple idea. Lol

 

it requires more than a compelling interest. it must meet a strict scrutiny test and it must have the constitutional power to do so. You are not in a position to educate anyone on this issue. You have admitted you don't have a law degree and you are lecturing someone who does-from the top schools in the country and who has actually lectured to law professors on this subject. You refuse to answer easy questions and that is consistent with those whose main goal is to harass gun owners for political reasons.

you won't even say what you think would be an infringement. The good news is that people like you are losing and my side is winning. the scholarship is on our side and we are in a far better position to defend our rights than people you are in to try to strip us of our rights