Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[Cyber Liberty]

@Elderberry  Is that different from 'shall issue" permitting?

Much, much so.

[LauraTXNM]

North Dakota has, for residents not prohibited from owning a firearm. The permit is advantageous in that it shows you have been background checked and cleared, it is an official document, and is accepted in some other states (reciprocity) as a CCW permit. No permit, the reciprocity part goes away in states which do not have Constitutional carry. Being able to produce a CCW permit also streamlines the purchase of a firearm, rendering the background check unnecessary (although many dealers will do the NICS check anyway.

@Smokin Joe  That sounds great! 

[Elderberry]

@Elderberry  Is that different from 'shall issue" permitting?

It means you don't have to request a permit from the state because you have the Natural Right to Bear Arms. The right, the Second Amendment states: Shall Not be Infringed.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe  That sounds great!

Essentially, it is Constitutional carry, (no permit required), but the advantages of a permit are still there if you want one. I have had one for decades, now, and mine includes 'other dangerous weapons', so knucks, a baton, sap gloves, a gravity knife, etc. fall under that If I want to carry them instead/in addition to a firearm, in ND--rules vary elsewhere. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Essentially, it is Constitutional carry, (no permit required), but the advantages of a permit are still there if you want one. I have had one for decades, now, and mine includes 'other dangerous weapons', so knucks, a baton, sap gloves, a gravity knife, etc. fall under that If I want to carry them instead/in addition to a firearm, in ND--rules vary elsewhere.

In AZ, no permit required to carry, either concealed or open, in the state.  CCW permits are available for those who want to carry in states that have reciprocity.  Notably, CA does not allow reciprocity.  A CCW permit also gets you the ability to purchase without the NICS check.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I understand your point. And I agree knives kill more people worldwide. But, the nut in Las Vegas could not have killed so many from his perch atop the building had he only a knife.  Besides, knives are ubiquitous and necessary in everyone’s daily life, so it’s too simplistic to compare the two in terms of intended use and lethality. Liberals will never buy that argument.

Apparently, liberals bought that argument in London, in spite of the 'ubiquitous and necessary in everyone’s daily life' of knives.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This article reinforces what several people on this thread said regarding the 2nd Amendment.  It is all about inalienable rights

How to Defend the Second Amendment

according to the Founders, repealing the Second Amendment would not get rid of our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. No action by government can overturn an unalienable right.  An unalienable right remains no matter how a government moves against it.  That's what "unalienable" means.  Repealing the Second Amendment would not in put an end to the right it was designed to protect; it would only put an end to the government's claim to legitimacy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_to_defend_the_second_amendment.html

[Sanguine]

This article reinforces what several people on this thread said regarding the 2nd Amendment.  It is all about inalienable rights

How to Defend the Second Amendment
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_to_defend_the_second_amendment.html

That's well put.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's well put.

No such things as inalienable rights.  All right are up for grabs in the courts.  If they are not, then they are designated "not enumerated," thus subject to the next contrary decision to come down the pike.  This is what I learned from this and similar threads.  However, the right to force an unwilling baker to bake a cake is iron-clad law.

[INVAR]

No such things as inalienable rights.  All right are up for grabs in the courts.  If they are not, then they are designated "not enumerated," thus subject to the next contrary decision to come down the pike.  This is what I learned from this and similar threads.  However, the right to force an unwilling baker to bake a cake is iron-clad law.

And our Founders ignited the fuse of war over a 3% tax on tea.

We are disposed to suffer the evil and tyranny that we have become accustomed and lie to ourselves that we are a free people in a Republic.

No we're not. 

It's a facade and a lie we tell ourselves so we do not have to deal with the truth of the tyranny we are grown comfortable living under.

[Cyber Liberty]

And our Founders ignited the fuse of war over a 3% tax on tea.

We are disposed to suffer the evil and tyranny that we have become accustomed and lie to ourselves that we are a free people in a Republic.

No we're not. 

It's a facade and a lie we tell ourselves so we do not have to deal with the truth of the tyranny we are grown comfortable living under.

It's been argued repeatedly by your nemesis on these these threads that we are not to be allowed to choose the laws under which we are to be governed...that is the divine right of Judges and Kings.

[INVAR]

It's been argued repeatedly by your nemesis on these these threads that we are not to be allowed to choose the laws under which we are to be governed...that is the divine right of Judges and Kings.

Our own history proves his notions bogus and, regardless of what he insists - tyranny is not limited to king and parliament.  It is just as easily be imposed via president, court and congress. 

The Founders understood the basest attributes of human nature and power and made sure that the State had no power to *reasonably regulate* an inalienable right.  They directed government that our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.  Our nemesis says that they can and dumps dissents and court opinions as some kind of evidence that they have a moral and legal right to do so.

They have none, and all he has done is illustrate himself a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

That we have surrendered so much because we were deceived into believing this government is benevolent and we prefer dependency to liberty does not eliminate our need to defy and resist the continuing measures and efforts these pretend countrymen evince to render us under absolute despotism.

[Cyber Liberty]

Our own history proves his notions bogus and, regardless of what he insists - tyranny is not limited to king and parliament.  It is just as easily be imposed via president, court and congress. 

The Founders understood the basest attributes of human nature and power and made sure that the State had no power to *reasonably regulate* an inalienable right.  They directed government that our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.  Our nemesis says that they can and dumps dissents and court opinions as some kind of evidence that they have a moral and legal right to do so.

They have none, and all he has done is illustrate himself a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

That we have surrendered so much because we were deceived into believing this government is benevolent and we prefer dependency to liberty does not eliminate our need to defy and resist the continuing measures and efforts these pretend countrymen evince to render us under absolute despotism.

You will note, I hope, that I am not disagreeing with you...the courts and presidents have arrogated too much power unto themselves, to the applause of many who are too chickenshit to pass the laws they desire themselves.

[INVAR]

You will note, I hope, that I am not disagreeing with you...

Nope.  Quite the contrary. 

We're reiterating fundamental truths and principles that clever and evil men seek to undermine and abolish if they could.