Yes, I'm very upset.
OP boiled down:
Brown people good.
White people bad.
Orange man bad.
Yes, I'm very upset.
Also, why does the pro-gun crowd always leave out that pesky "well regulated militia" part?
Now granted, we can interpret that phrase in a limitless amount of ways and gun-grabbers have went so far as to claim well regulated militia means military, but if we simply interpret the words by their definitions (regulated: controlled or supervised; militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency), I read the phrase to mean "a well trained and trusted (through supervision) civilian population." So requesting prospective gun owners to take a thorough gun safety class and to be of a certain age (21-25) and have a certain background (i.e. not be convicted of violent crime) doesn't in any way trample on your 2nd amendment right.
It's organizations like the NRA that actually trample on the 2nd amendment in their undermining of the well regulated militia concept in order to make guns as easily obtainable as cheeseburgers.
Except the ones committed by the government.
"Shall not be infringed"
So you think you are protected by the First Amendment to use any frequency you wish to transmit and receive?
I didn’t think a convicted felon could own a gun right out of prison.
You're not much of a conversationalist here. I don't spend too much energy on you. You take a shot and disappear.
The Supreme Court left out the well regulated militia part.
lol Stephen King is that you?
Nah, I'm good.
HAM radio frequencies are for public use.
Because they are assigned as such by the Federal Communications Commission but they are not for public use because of the Cons ution.
Are you referring to Scalia playing loose with the definition? Before the NRA started lobbying in the late-70s, the definition of the amendment was quite to clear to previous supreme courts. But yeah, let's just arbitrarily not consider a part of the amendment because it's politically convenient. The founders inserted the "well regulated militia" phrase for a reason.
Well we can't turn to the Supreme Court as interpreters of the Bill of Rights only when it suits us. There is precedence and that's what counts.
Caetano v. Massachusetts(2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that cons ute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."
The founders also inserted shall not be infringed upon but the courts have interpreted that as meaning not Unlimited. I've seen that use here time and again as a defense for over the top gun control suggestions.
The founders did not say only to support a well regulated militia.
Transportation to and from your job being vital to the livelihood of your family, your right to drive a vehicle shall not be infringed upon.
So if you lose your job do you lose your right to drive?
Point is they are for public use ultimately, but to be a HAM radio operator, you need to display competence with the equipment through a licensing procedure. I can say this "draconian" licensing procedure prevents/inconveniences me from broadcasting my opinions (or using them to inform people in my area when an emergency happens) to a wider audience on these so-called public frequencies set aside by the government, thus placing a restriction on my 1st amendment rights.
Would you like for the HAM radio community to be like reddit or 4Chan?
I can buy a radio without getting any kind of license. I just won't get a number or call sign. Same with handguns. I can't conceal a handgun legally without going through lengthy class and vetting procedure from the federal government and local authorities. That's probably ten times more than what a ham radio operator has to go through.
Conservatives tend to be cons utional literalists, and I agree. The 2nd amendment uses pretty clear language in my opinion. I suppose it's up to us to decide who and what is "well regulated." Is an 18 year old "well regulated?" Does "well regulated" mean trained? But ultimately, the word regulated exists in the phrase, and regulated means "supervised." A kid walking into a gun shop on his 18th birthday to buy a shotgun without question doesn't meet the criteria of "supervised."
Exactly! That's why the restrictions make sense. On the same token, I don't want my city's community to look like the Wild West nor do I want my educational community (i.e. schools) to like a prison, with armed guards around, metal detectors, and active shooter drills.
It doesn't list regulated militia as being a requirement to own a firearm though. It just says that the right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon and gave one reason why, but that doesn't make it the only reason. An 18 year old can certainly join the Army and get shot in the face.
Also the Second Amendment doesn't grant that right, the right already existed which is why it says it shall not be infringed upon.
its pretty weird that in a 27 word amendment, 13 of the words are just throwaways and merely a suggestion...
Also the Second Amendment doesn't grant that right, the right already existed which is why it says it shall not be infringed upon.i mean yeah everything is legal until there is a law that makes it illegal
Their grammatical rules were a bit different then. In modern parlance, it would read: "The rights of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This was clear to previous Supreme Courts before the NRA turned into a lobbying firm.
Furthermore, the government infringes on your 2nd amendment rights anyway by not allowing you to own anything beyond small arms. The 2nd amendment never future proofed itself nor did it specify small arms only. But we don't allow civilians to own SAMs because it makes sense. I think desiring that responsible, trained, and vetted citizens are the only citizens allowed to own firearms makes sense.
I also don't want to be forced into buying a gun because I have to worry about the other guy with a gun. But if I know the other guy with the gun went through a comprehensive training course, has a spotless criminal history, and was psychologically evaluated, then I don't have to worry nearly as much. The corollary is driving. When you take the road, you have at least some comfort knowing you're on the road with fellow licensed drivers. If you had to take the road knowing that everyone can be allowed to drive once they turn 16, the situation becomes a lot more stressful.
Psychological evaluation to purchase a gun sounds very Orwellian to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)