Opinion about gun control?

[TheKhoz]

What are you getting at?

Those with a right to legally own a concealed weapon (a license) has the right to keep one in the house.
I don't see how this is hard. You get a permit for a weapon so you keep it.

I'm saying that the constitution does not guarantee any rights to anyone. For instance, the Patriot act through the 4th amendment out the window.

So why do we still have a bill of rights, if we are not guaranteed the rights?

[Ad Bot]

[Tango²]

texas has some of the lowest gun crimes because everyone carries. even my uncle carries and shoots snakes lol

[Kalphiter]

texas has some of the lowest gun crimes because everyone carries. even my uncle carries and shoots snakes lol

No, it's actually pretty average.

[Aces]

I'm saying that the constitution does not guarantee any rights to anyone. For instance, the Patriot act through the 4th amendment out the window.

So why do we still have a bill of rights, if we are not guaranteed the rights?

Yes we are.

You have the right to own a gun with a permit.
The constitution doesn't write it down word for word because of the implied powers that are held within the law-making force. People who wrote the constitution assumed it to be able to be changed over time, which explains the generality of the amendments. Does that mean they're not rights anymore? No.

I would assume you would realize that the right to bear arms doesn't imply that you can own nuclear warheads, because I'm sure there's a law that states that nuclear property is for government ownership only.

[Doomonkey]

I'm saying that the constitution does not guarantee any rights to anyone. For instance, the Patriot act through the 4th amendment out the window.

Except the Constitution already has provisions for crCIA situations. And sometimes rights can be suspended.

So the Constitution is more of guidelines than rules when it comes to rights. So you are guaranteed rights for the most part. If Congress steps too much over the lines though, the Supreme Court checks them.

[Kalphiter]

Yes we are.

You have the right to own a gun with a permit.
The constitution doesn't write it down word for word because of the implied powers that are held within the law-making force. People who wrote the constitution assumed it to be able to be changed over time, which explains the generality of the amendments. Does that mean they're not rights anymore? No.

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to own a gun. Corresponding jurisdictions do, and it's not a right, it's a privilege.

[TheKhoz]

I'm saying that the constitution does not guarantee any rights to anyone.
So why do we still have a bill of rights, if we are not guaranteed the rights?

Like I said

[Kalphiter]

Like I said

Yes, you're right about that, there's no magical force keeping us from nullifying and neglecting the entire Constitution. However, the Constitution, an accepted declaration of rights, cannot be used as a defense for the right to own a gun as it doesn't really address it.

[Nonnel]

It was Bill of Rights Day three days ago.

[Aces]

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to own a gun. Corresponding jurisdictions do, and it's not a right, it's a privilege.

It's guaranteed that a law-abiding citizen can receive a permit for a gun.

What jurisdictions cover gun permits?

[Kalphiter]

It's guaranteed that a law-abiding citizen can receive a permit for a gun.

What jurisdictions cover gun permits?

Adhering to the false interpretation of the Constitution, everyone should be able to obtain a gun free of any local regulations such as mandatory background checks and legal permit holding. As I stated, that's a false interpretation; the true interpretation has nearly nothing to do with individual gun ownership.

[rockslide26]

     Our country was born of the fires of rebellion, and if the spirit of rebellion is not kept alive then our government shall have nothing to fear. Governments are made up of people and should not be an omnipotent power. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

     What he means in saying those words is that Government is an unnatural but necessary concept, and when left unchecked will turn and commit crimes against man and his liberty without anybody in a position to stop it. The Constitution was meant to chain up the government, to imprison it to prevent this. But when we give the government the means to take away rights of the people, it is like giving a prisoner a file with which to remove his chains. Now left free to itself, the government could commit crimes against liberty and nobody could be in a position to stop them.

I say keep all the rights of the people in place, and never take them away. Government is unnatural, and should be minimal at best, and to keep it that way the people should have means to rebel if necessary.

[Aces]

Adhering to the false interpretation of the Constitution, everyone should be able to obtain a gun free of any local regulations such as mandatory background checks and legal permit holding. As I stated, that's a false interpretation; the true interpretation has nearly nothing to do with individual gun ownership.

What is the true interpretation, then?

[Kalphiter]

What is the true interpretation, then?

I broke it down and reworded it:

A well regulated militia, [...], [which is the right of the people to ....], [this right] shall not be infringed.

A well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms; that right shall not be infringed.

Specifically, the militia is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[Nonnel]

    Our country was born of the fires of rebellion, and if the spirit of rebellion is not kept alive then our government shall have nothing to fear. Governments are made up of people and should not be an omnipotent power. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

     What he means in saying those words is that Government is an unnatural but necessary concept, and when left unchecked will turn and commit crimes against man and his liberty without anybody in a position to stop it. The Constitution was meant to chain up the government, to imprison it to prevent this. But when we give the government the means to take away rights of the people, it is like giving a prisoner a file with which to remove his chains. Now left free to itself, the government could commit crimes against liberty and nobody could be in a position to stop them.

I say keep all the rights of the people in place, and never take them away. Government is unnatural, and should be minimal at best, and to keep it that way the people should have means to rebel if necessary.

Rockslide cracks the riddle.