Permits to Purchase or Carry Arms are Infringements of Second Amendment Rights

I bet crime goes down. Certainly, the left and some "conservatives" will disagree but criminals are cowards that prey on people they perceive to be weak or a disadvantage to their attempt to assault them. If ever more average people began shooting back, it would have a positive effect on crime.

quote:

---

Permits to Purchase or Carry Arms are Infringements of Second Amendment Rights

---

The Second Amendment exists merely as a reminder that the government cannot and shall not infringe on the inherent right of the citizens to own and use arms.

Yet, the government has already chewed up the Second Amendment, spit it out, and used it as toilet paper, while they continue to ignore it.

The fact is that there is no 2A as it was intended, since it's intention has already been squashed.

quote:

---

Interesting great: Gun toting criminal don't let infringement get in the way.

---

Criminals must understand Murdock and Shuttlesworth better than we do.

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

quote:

---

I am usually against entitlements but would support the government giving a firearm to every citizen.

---

Can you even imagine the peace that would ensue? No doubt there would be a maturation period, which would cause the demise of a lot of knuckleheads. But thereafter, with the knuckleheads out of the gene pool, everlasting harmony.

quote:

---

The fact is that there is no 2A as it was intended,

---

That's right, but not for the reason you think. The 2A (and all of the Bill) were intended as limits on the FEDGOV's power. That is to say - explicitly - the states were free to regulate/ban firearms all they wanted.

Then the "activist" courts - which you no doubt hate - came along and started "incorporating" amendments one by one.

Every single gun law or restriction of any sort including a background check and including waiting a year and paying $200 for a tax stamp are all unconstitutional infringements.

To all the infringers:

Unless you are deemed a terrorist then as per the patriot act , you have no rights.
frick you George Bush.

quote:

---

That's right, but not for the reason you think. The 2A (and all of the Bill) were intended as limits on the FEDGOV's power. That is to say - explicitly - the states were free to regulate/ban firearms all they wanted.

Then the "activist" courts - which you no doubt hate - came along and started "incorporating" amendments one by one.

---

No. Those amendments reach down to the states as well. You seem to be suggesting that things like the 8th amendment doesn't attach to the states and they can just torture people if they want to, and so forth. I don't think that's a correct reading of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth. If you look at the things said by the Founders, the way the Constitution was written, the dialog about the Bill of Rights, and the language in those amendments, it seems obvious that the States were not put in a completely separate sphere with regard to the rights presented in the founding documents.

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against any government on earth, general or particular, and what no government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787