Federal Court Finds No Constitutional Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon

[Rockntractor]

I am not blaming the tool. I want to know if you think that it is ok to sell crazy uncle Joe a gun?

If uncle Joe is not safe with a gun he could murder with something else, if uncle Joe is unsafe he is the problem and should be restrained.

[Odysseus]

The framers of the Constitution could have used many words other than 'shall not infringe', had they intended for every state, county and municipality to add their own regulations too this to the point where in many places it is virtually impossible to own a gun or carry one they would have said so.
I seriously think they meant for no one to fuck with this right in any way.

At the federal level, yes, absolutely, but the states had authorities that the federal government lacked. We forget that at the founding, the Constitution applied only to the federal government. The right of the states to conduct business within their own borders was far greater then, and each state had its own rules regarding the bearing of arms. A federal constitution that infringed on the power of the states to police themselves and execute their duties would not have been acceptable to any of the delegations. Each state had laws which specified who could and could not keep and bear arms, even though most of them had Second Amendment type protections in their constitutions. Just as there are limits to free speech (incitement to riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel and slander), there are limits to keeping and bearing arms. Most states would not permit a person convicted of a felony to own a weapon, even after they'd served their time.

If uncle Joe is not safe with a gun he could murder with something else, if uncle Joe is unsafe he is the problem and should be restrained.

The militia included every "able-bodied" man withing the prescribed ages, but that also assumed that they were of sound mind. A person who was unsafe with a weapon, but not a danger without one, could be excluded from bearing arms, even in colonial times, without being restrained. If Uncle Joe is a danger to himself and others, and has breached the peace when armed, then there was a due process for disarming him, and him alone. If he was not a threat otherwise, then why restrain him?

[FlaGator]

If uncle Joe is not safe with a gun he could murder with something else, if uncle Joe is unsafe he is the problem and should be restrained.

Very Nova like skirting of the question...

[Rockntractor]

Very Nova like skirting of the question...

No uncle Joe is crazy as a loon, their is no doubt, always has been,he was diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic but the thread is about normal law abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms and to protect themselves from uncle Joe, their are other objects that can kill he can get.
No, we shouldn't be allowed to carry personal nukes but the thread is about normal law abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms and to protect themselves.
No you don't need a 100 round magazine to hunt deer, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting deer, the thread is about normal law abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms and to protect themselves.
Now go give uncle Joe his meds, but don't allow him more than 16 oz of soft drink to swallow them.

When it comes to the second amendment and illegal immigration Nova gets it.

[Novaheart]

Very Nova like skirting of the question...

So even when I am not here and have not done anything, it's still my fault?