GOP governor vetoes gun bill

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:As made very clear by the SCOTUS most recently in the landmark decision of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, regulation is something that should be expected by all gun owners.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

As you can see the widely overused phrase "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean what you think/want it to mean, according to the highest court in the land.

Sorry for the inconvenience...

   

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

I'm not sure how many times I need to school you but here is # 12:

"Rights" are not granted by governments, faggots, or queers...rights are God given, aka "Natural".  You fail to even understand the most basics of human principles.  Self defense, freedom, ability to shoot your brain dead mouth off are all "rights" and none are "given" but all are natural.  You can pull all of the stupid liberal crap you want but it still doesn't promote your point. Why are liberals so frickin dumb? Oh, I forgot...liberalism is a terrible mental disease which there is no known cure.  Ruling by some activist judges doesn't change natural "rights" or their meaning. Now go educate yourself for God sakes...you are an embarrassment.

Dr. Jones wrote:I chose not to answer because it was a meaningless fukcing question.  Who do you think gives you the right to kill?  Certainly not God.  He teaches quite the opposite.  Even if he did, it wouldn't be relevant to our rights as U.S. citizens.

Does the Constitution give you that right?  Yes.  To what extent is the question.  To protect our country?  Certainly.  To protect yourself?  As long as it is done in a manner that doesn't encroach on my constitutional right to my safety and my life.  Unfortunately my right to those things is constantly in jeopardy because we have entirely to many retards toting guns.

nightlight88 wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I chose not to answer because it was a meaningless fukcing question.  Who do you think gives you the right to kill?  Certainly not God.  He teaches quite the opposite.  Even if he did, it wouldn't be relevant to our rights as U.S. citizens.

Does the Constitution give you that right?  Yes.  To what extent is the question.  To protect our country?  Certainly.  To protect yourself?  As long as it is done in a manner that doesn't encroach on my constitutional right to my safety and my life.  Unfortunately my right to those things is constantly in jeopardy because we have entirely to many retards toting guns.

To paraphrase:

Liberals know so little about so many things.  You lead the pack dimwit.

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

Where did I ever say that I had the right to kill someone?  

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

Where did I ever say that I had the right to kill someone?  

WTF do you think we are talking about?

Dr. Jones wrote: Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

The "right to kill" someone would be found in the right of self-defense, the defense of others and in the defense of the Nation. The 2nd Amendment nicely covers all those positions. However even if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, the Right to bear arms and self defense still does. They're considered negative rights and all persons are born with them. Some say it comes from God; others can claim Nature or the People themselves.

Remember during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia the absence of a Bill of Rights almost doomed the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 84 that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary in a government of enumerated and limited powers.

"...the people surrender nothing [rights], and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. "

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

The "right to kill" someone would be found in the right of self-defense, the defense of others and in the defense of the Nation. The 2nd Amendment nicely covers all those positions. However even if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, the Right to bear arms and self defense still does. They're considered negative rights and all persons are born with them. Some say it comes from God; others can claim Nature or the People themselves.

Our rights to self defense and the defense of others, while held very near to our hearts, are in the hands of the states, and not of our own accord. Why would you say that even without the Second Amendment our right to bear arms could still be assumed? Self defense comes in many forms. The deadly force of a firearm is far reaching, often much further than your immediate threat. To risk the life of someone else to save your own is simply unacceptable.

Remember during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia the absence of a Bill of Rights almost doomed the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 84 that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary in a government of enumerated and limited powers.

"...the people surrender nothing [rights], and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. "

I am thankful that our forefathers had the sense to leave us with some direction in managing their legacy. I couldn't imagine our country without their guidance. Hamilton makes some valid points, but we have enough people trying to rewrite the Constitution to fit their own needs as it is.

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

The "right to kill" someone would be found in the right of self-defense, the defense of others and in the defense of the Nation. The 2nd Amendment nicely covers all those positions. However even if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, the Right to bear arms and self defense still does. They're considered negative rights and all persons are born with them. Some say it comes from God; others can claim Nature or the People themselves.

Remember during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia the absence of a Bill of Rights almost doomed the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 84 that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary in a government of enumerated and limited powers.

"...the people surrender nothing [rights], and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. "

Articles 1, 2 & 3 clearly identifies the powers/rights of the federal government.  They are extremely specific.  From there the 10th Amendment makes it quite clear:

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who doesn't know where there rights come from, doesn't deserve them in the first place.  

Anyone who will not answer the question of where their rights come from is obviously a far left leaning progressive who believes that “Rights are special privileges the government gives you and because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”  These dimwits are the enemy of every freedom loving American.

Not sure what you are getting at?  Where do you think you get the right to kill someone?

The "right to kill" someone would be found in the right of self-defense, the defense of others and in the defense of the Nation. The 2nd Amendment nicely covers all those positions. However even if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, the Right to bear arms and self defense still does. They're considered negative rights and all persons are born with them. Some say it comes from God; others can claim Nature or the People themselves.

Remember during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia the absence of a Bill of Rights almost doomed the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 84 that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary in a government of enumerated and limited powers.

"...the people surrender nothing [rights], and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. "

Articles 1, 2 & 3 clearly identifies the powers/rights of the federal government.  They are extremely specific.  From there the 10th Amendment makes it quite clear:

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You make an excellent point.  Amendment X really drives home the fact that the federal government is in the driver seat on interpreting and implementing gun laws.