BoatShoes;1393136 wrote:You consistently act like the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed up upon in any way whatsoever because it is a fundamental right/liberty and "cannot be infringed upon" as you've consistently written. That is not the case. Fundamental rights/liberties can be infringed upon and when they are, under due process clause jurisprudence the standard of review is strict scrutiny but the courts will uphold the infringement if there was a compelling interest in doing so and it's narrowly tailored. Point being, fundamental rights can be infringed upon and it's a tradeoff against the compelling interests of Congress to determine when they can be. Which you suggested it is not.

Con_Alma;1393244 wrote:I disagree. Not only can they be regulated but they are.

Cleveland Buck;1393248 wrote:Sure they can be regulated. In exactly the same way that women can be raped. Not legally, but by overwhelming force.

Con_Alma;1393249 wrote:Arms are legally regulated today. I don't think you will find current legislation that's in place that has been ruled unconstitutional by the ultimate court.

Cleveland Buck;1393252 wrote:The Constitution is the ultimate court. Nowhere did it give the federal government/Supreme Court the authority to ignore what it says or interpret what it says.

Con_Alma;1393255 wrote:The Constitution isn't a court. It doesn't rule. It's simply a definition. Without interpreting it, there's no way to know what it says. Are you suggesting all interpretations by the Supreme Court are unconstitutional?

Con_Alma;1393286 wrote:"(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission."

This is one manner that arms are constitutionally regulated...legally
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

Con_Alma;1393286 wrote:"(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission."

This is one manner that arms are constitutionally regulated...legally
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

Cleveland Buck;1393297 wrote:All rights are limited by the equal rights of others. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about limiting our right to own guns, not keeping them off of someone else's property.

Con_Alma;1393313 wrote:That may be what you are talking about. I am speaking of the ability to regulate arms. We can and we do.

Cleveland Buck;1393319 wrote:I never said you can't or don't.

Con_Alma wrote:
They can be regulated, they can be restricted, the can be managed in the legislated process of society's desires,. They cannot not be eliminated from use by the people.

Nothing I wrote in my post was wrong that you quoted. It's not a liberty issue. It's a rights issue.

Cleveland Buck wrote:They can't. Not legally under the Constitution anyway. Not that it matters. When is the last time the likes of you gave a **** about what the Constitution says? The Constitution is the law the government must obey, but if we can't enforce the law then I guess it isn't.

O-Trap;1393296 wrote:Fair enough. This does indeed provide that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Under the same, free speech can be restricted (this site is an example).

This one was interesting:

(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.

Con_Alma;1393326 wrote:[/I][/COLOR]

Then I don't understand what you meant by your response..."They can't. Not legally under the Constitution anyway".

Cleveland Buck;1393328 wrote:I should rephrase it then. They can't legally regulate our right to keep and bear arms, but they can and do physically do it anyway.

Con_Alma;1393255 wrote:Are you suggesting all interpretations by the Supreme Court are unconstitutional?

Cleveland Buck;1393323 wrote:"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."
~ Adolf Hitler 1935

That registration list came in handy.

BoatShoes;1393810 wrote:Not surprisingly this little nugget of "history" that you plucked off of Ronpaulforums never happened.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

majorspark;1393387 wrote:He is alluding to judicial review. Where the SCOTUS found the power in the constitution to annul acts of the other two co-equal branches of the federal government by a simple 5-4 majority and hold sole and final authority over the interpretation of the constitution.

Con_Alma;1393858 wrote:You got that out of me saying they can be regulated and him saying they can't????? Hmmmm.

I think we worked through alright.