We have to learn to drive before we can get a driver license. We must show ourselves credit-worthy before we can buy a house. Why not prove we’re competent enough to handle a deadly weapon before allowing us to, well, carry one?
Because, supporters argue, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. OK, I’m good with that. Still, that doesn’t mean gun regulation is outlawed. You have to be a certain age before you can buy a gun. Federal law requires a person be 21 before buying a handgun from a licensed dealer (only 18 years old if they buy the gun from a private seller – go figure).
Even so, there is a line drawn, so we’re not debating whether guns can be regulated, only where the line is drawn regulating them.
Me? I’d like to know that somebody carrying a gun has been vetted and knows how to use said gun before they carry. Just like I’m happy to know that people should be licensed before they drive.
— Joey Kennedy in Let’s all carry guns and reap the consequences
It always starts like that, doesn’t it!?
“ Me? I’d like to know that somebody carrying a gun has been vetted and knows how to use said gun before they carry. Just like I’m happy to know that people should be licensed before they drive.”
OK, idiot. We’ll and good. So let’s start out on all the career crooks, gangstas and other “prohibited” types who’ve been out there packing and killing for years. I’m betting that when we “vet” them first, it’s magically discovered that there really is NO crime problem in the US- firearm-related or otherwise.
It just goes on to show that other than Senator John K from LA, the only good Kennedy is a…
Robert F Kennedy Jr. seems like a good guy.
It’s called regulating the militia.
Mustering the militia for “regulating” means “training & practice” in 1789 terminology.
So bring back shooting sports in school……. well ammo prices would go up but may finally justify upping production.
That is the test question that I give every gun-grabber. Do you support teaching Second Amendment history and having rifle and handgun teams in elementary and high schools?
And they fail it every single time.
But they’re always for teaching middle schoolers how to put condoms on bananas and for graphic novels on how to do gay BJ’s.
“So bring back shooting sports in school…….”
Finally – The conversation goes where it needs to go.
Actual, real, not pretend ‘Gun Safety’ first.
Students are taught safe gun handling first, starting with the “4 Rules”. Then how to safely load and fire the firearm.
People die every year because they don’t know the basics. “I removed the magazine, I thought it was unloaded”, etc.
Hollywood movies make an impact on people, the ‘Marvin’ scene in ‘Pulp Fiction’ provides a dramatic example we can use to demonstrate the consequences of unsafe gun handling… 🙂
Bearing arms is the right of the people, not the right of the militia.
And his “driving license” argument would only apply on public roads.
Correct, Mark, but more to the point, DRIVING is widely acknowledged to be a PRIVILEGE (I think that is a stupid decision, but the Court makes stupid decisions all the time), but RKBA is unquestionably an inherent right, PROTECTED by the Constitution from governmental interference (apparently, not well enough).
Just because you have a driver’s licence joey kennedy does not indicated you know how to drive. Like owning a car does not indicate you know where the hood larch is or know how to change a tire, oil, etc.
A Concealed Carry Permit or a badge does indicate you are special and all others who have not been “vetted by an anal exam” are less safe and a threat to you. Frankly joey if you believed in an afterlife with the Good Lord you wouldn’t worry so much about injury or death. On way or another, sooner or later we are all going to die. In the meantime everyone has a right to defend their short lives the best they can…so get the f out of their way.
…and yet I bet you’re one of the boot lockers who runs out to get a permit to carry, like the good, compliant sheep you pretend not to be.
” and yet I bet you’re one of the boot lockers who runs out to get a permit to carry, like the good, compliant sheep you pretend not to be ”
You’re conflating compliance with agreement. In those unfortunate places that require a mother-may-I card, it’s just a matter of making your life a little easier if you go out and get the card — why invite trouble if you don’t have to? In no way does this compliance mean that you agree with the requirement or that you support it. Compliance does not make you a “sheep”. It makes you a pragmatist who just wants to keep the man off his back.
“…and yet I bet you’re one of the boot lockers…”
How *hilarious*, the moron who so proudly claims that he is “highly educated” can’t spell the phrase “boot licker” properly.
Why, it’s almost like he’s actually brain-damaged… 🙂
And, because I went and got a CHL after 35 years of carrying illegally, assuming that, now, I am so cowed by the wonderfulness of you pussies that I will certainly help you enforce such stupid laws on others, would be a very possibly fatal mistake.
Moderate away.
Does the Joey know how many unlicensed drivers there are on the highway and byways of this country? I daresay that in CA with all the illegals (oops did I mention a forbidden word?) in the state there are as many unlicensed drivers as there are licensed. And as far as uninsured, I would suspect that the number of uninsured is higher than insureds.
Almost. In 1789 Terminology, “well regulated” meant properly functioning. the 1789 meaning of regulated is also where we got the praise “regular as clockwork” I do get what you mean and I don’t disagree.
Regulars vs. irregulars. Regulated actually meant drilled in close order drill necessary for the battle formations of the 18th century. Do you remember von Stuben teaching the soldiers at Vally Forge in drill? In order to move masses of men around the 18th century battlefield regulated meant drilled in close order drill. “Forward march; Column left, march; By the right flank, march; Squads, left front on to line, march (Bet you didn’t remember that one did you?) Companies usually march in column but if the commander wants to move them on line as opposed to in column, that is the command used to get them on line to address the enemy. Instead of being column deep the company presents on line, four men deep. First rank fires and falls back to reload. Second rank advances and fires and falls back, etc., etc until the first rank is again presenting to fire at the advancing enemy.
In order to do that smoothly, troops had to be drilled, otherwise in the confusion, noise, smoke and what have you, it would devolve into a disorganized goat rope. It frequently did anyway but that’s why the Brits were so fearsome on the battlefield. They were well-regulated. They drilled constantly and they were extremely disciplined as contrasted to the Continentals prior to von Stuben. Von Steuben was a Prussian quite familiar with drilling troops and proved a valuable aide to Washington, who, being accustomed to irregulars, perhaps didn’t know his right foot from his left and may have stumbled around on the battlefield like a first week boot. Parades were designed to continue the teaching of close order drill. Go watch the Marine Barracks on their evening drills during the summer. Forget the fancy stuff with throwing the rifles back and forth, concentrate on the troop movements as they drill on the parade ground. That’s 17th century battlefield technique on display. The Marine Barracks may still be the only unit still using such antiquated maneuvers as “Company, right front onto line” and such other arcane troop movements but they are a magnificent sight to watch, especially if one served in The Old Corps where such antiquated troop movements were still taught.
I was in boot camp when our training battalion suddenly had to learn a whole new, but simpler drill from the one we had spent many weeks learning.
That’s the real meaning of “well regulated”. Each town maintained a company or a battalion or even a regiment if it was large enough and that company or other was the ready reserve under local command even after being called up. It was a hold-over from the feudal system still in existence in England where the local lord would provide a company of “his men” in service to the kingey-poo in times of emergency.
We got away from that during WWII when a company from a small town in, I think it was, West Virginia had very heavy casualties and the town lost most of their young men. It made for very poor morale back in the U.S. when things were dark all over the world for freedom from dictatorships. Even if you live in a major city, having a hundred or more young men from your city killed in a week in battle would be an incredible morale blow.
Brothers serving together still was a thing in WWII until the five Sullivan brothers serving on a single ship went down together. That practice was then discontinued. That was the theme of “Saving Private Ryan”. The surviving male of the family was assigned a non-combat position.
Your concept of “well regulated” is completely wrong. What you describe is “well drilled”.
Who vetted you before you wrote this? I don’t care how comfortable you are with my rights. I don’t seek your approval.
So, let’s get to the mustering and training, then! I’m all for it! You realize, of course, you will be mustered and trained, as well, and you will also be taxed to pay for it as well, too. Let’s go, Brandon, time’s a wasting!
Who vets the vetters?
And there you have it: THE core problem with government “vetting” any right is government propensity to use “vetting” as a rationale to prohibit good people from exercising their rights.
As many people have stated at various times in various forums: the only reasonably safe “vetting” (before people can exercise rights) is whether or not people are free in society or confined in prison.
The militia are responsible to regulate the vetters.
To regulate them to death, if necessary.
AMEN BROTHER PREACH ON IT!!
“I’d like to know that somebody carrying a gun has been vetted and knows how to use said gun before they carry. ”
And I’d like to know someone writing for a newspaper has been vetted for strong journalistic principles and a demonstrated willingness to separate personal opinion – editorializing – from reporting.
Amen! Preach it, brother!
I’d like to vet people before they exercise their First Amendment right to speak publicly on any issue that affects me.
I’d also like to vet people before they exercise their right to vote.
Who’s with me?
Absolutely! The article convinced me, as long as we have someone to vet the vetting of the vetters, I’m all in.
He missed the “MAKE NO LAW” part….
How do you feel about a Literacy Test before exercising the right to vote?
Browsing the internet, I’d like to see a literacy test requirement for getting on the web. People often don’t understand that words have meanings, even if they seem capable of spelling.
Yep, and don’t forget ‘vetting’ for manners and politeness. My right to NOT have my hearing assaulted by ‘foul’ cursing and obnoxious caustic invective is more valuable than your right to spit shit!
…and within, a battery of tests determining at least mediocre reading comprehension.
ftfy
Driving a car and buying a house are not enumerated constitutional rights.
Getting a drivers license and operating a car on public roads is a privilege.
In short this stuff from Kennedy is the old idea of gun-control the the second amendment exercose should be a egulayed as a privilege and not a right.
Damn typos and phone…
In short this stuff from Kennedy is the old idea of gun-control that the second amendment exercise should be a regulated as a privilege and not a right.
.40 cal Booger,
“Getting a drivers license and operating a car on public roads is a privilege.”
Please be aware that such a sentiment is extremely dangerous. If traveling on public roads is a government privilege, government can revoke that privilege at any time for any reason, including (but not limited to) having the “wrong” politics. Never, ever underestimate government propensity to attack/weaken/silence political enemies using any and all means available.
Traveling is an inalienable right even though it is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. That would include travelling on public roadways. By-and-large our method of travel–our conveyance–is immaterial. Whether we walk, peddle a bicycle, ride a motorcycle, drive a car, or drive a truck/RV is not relevant. (Note: this paragraph is a statement of what is righteous, not necessarily what federal, state, and local governments consider kosher.)
The only “regulations” that should apply to traveling on public roads covers the usual stuff–ensuring that our method of travel does not unfairly interfere with the rights of others to travel. Thus, it would be unfair to everyone else if I attempt to drive a 40-foot wide monstrosity down an interstate at 15 miles-per-hour because I would be blocking traffic flow. On the other hand, if I want to drive that 40-foot wide monstrosity at 15 m.p.h. off the edge of an interstate such that I do not interfere with other people on the interstate and I do not damage the shoulder and public right-of-way, I should be able to do that. (Of course most–if not all–jurisdictions would deem that illegal which is wrong.)
There are an awful lot of people in this country that are licensed to drive that have no business driving.
Like 10-15% who have never had a drivers license, are currently suspended or revoked, and how about those with a cancelled license? Lets add the 10% of the population driving over the legal alcohol limit right now.
Let’s not mention the illegal immigrants who do not speak English and cannot read ANY language, who are driving every day although they have never had a moment of instruction. They are not supposed to be in the country, why would they pay attention to any law?
10 to 15%? Are you kidding. In some illegals refuge states it is much higher than that.
I’m all for it Joey’s idea if it comes with life long free ammo for weekly proficiency training!
Common sense gun control laws would be good. Problem is, common sense is in such short supply. Common sense dictates that you grow familiar enough with archaic American English to understand what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Talk to 100 Random Strangers in America today, and between 5 and 10 of them understand that the FFs intended for us to overthrow our own government if/when that government began to grow tyrannical.
Common sense: Not enough people have it to make it common.
Paul,
Needless to say I am on the same page!
Try this just to begin. Common sense gun control law would begin with “if you don’t own a gun you don’t vote.” And work from there.
Funny. He left out the fact that the number of shootings hasn’t changed in the 20 or so other states which already have constitutional carry. Must’ve been an oversight on his part.
“Me? I’d like to know that somebody carrying a gun has been vetted and knows how to use said gun before they carry.”
None of your damn business, Joey. I don’t need your frikken permission.
Precisely. Who the hell cares what you’d like? Are you even armed, you pansy?
Who cares what IT thinks!! Is TTAG going to publish every opinion from every hoplaphobe who hates guns and doesn’t know the difference between the Second Amendment RIGHT and privileges like driving?
Maybe IT should have to take a competency test on an issue before writing a stupid article? Maybe IT should be tested on civics and knowledge of candidates before IT is allowed to VOTE?!
Yeah Brian…it made you comment. 1st time here?!?👌
wally’s kid has been around a little while.
Brian,
“…the difference between the Second Amendment RIGHT and privileges like driving?”
Driving is one way (among several possibilities) to travel and travelling is NOT a privilege–see my comment above.
It is better to enter the arena for a conversation or perhaps a concert. Instead of having to enter an arena with a sword.
Damn straight, Chris.
We can do it the easy way, or the hard way… 🙂
Lol. I bet your Florida Concealed Handgun License was probably one of the first issued, as I’m sure you rushed to comply with that illegitimate government mandate. You got the Wu-Flu vaccine, and then tried shame those of us who know Covid is just another .gov scam for not getting the harmful vaccine. And yet you expect anyone to believe you’ll be out front when TSHTF? And you call other people delusional.
🖕🤡.
Hi, again, nameless, brainless troll!!
My, you sound stupid today – you must be having a particularly good day. Ever complete that GED?? ‘Cause your writing still sucks.
Have a nice day, nitwit!
Piss on ’em, Brian, Welcome!
Permitless carry and Constitutional Carry are two different things. They are NOT the same.
If all your concerned about is vetting then that flys in the face of O’Rourke. If that is all you want then the type of gun, capacity, and all this other craziness is meaningless. This is NOT about vetting anyone. This is about disarming everyone with the ONLY exception of a handful of people the government can control. This was NEVER about vetting anyone. If that were the case then California would let it’s citizens get permits and then be perfectly allowed to own as many 30 round magazines as they want. So would New York and Illinois.
It is interesting that we have state level governments that will sooner grant everyone in the world the right to select the US president but at the same time demand every AR15 is the worst thing this country can allow people to own.
I think he’d probably be surprised to know just how many of those folks on the road around him are either suspended/revoked, licensed but drunk, licensed but incompetent/stupid/inattentive, etc, etc. In driving, licensed don’t mean much. Hell, they don’t give actual physical driving tests much any more. Thirty two years as a LEO primarily doing highway work is MY experience.
Ken, you should sit in the cab of an 18-wheeler traveling through any city. Rush hour or not, you can look down into the cars around you to see what people are doing. It’s insane from that perspective – less than half the people are paying attention to the road. In today’s world, almost everyone has SOMETHING going on besides driving. Some of it makes sense – like GPS, radar detectors, and maybe a stereo (not touch screen things that require you LOOK AT IT to operate it) – but far more of it is just flirting with death.
If a city needed to generate some revenue quick, a cop could sit in the cab of a truck with a radio, and tell his mates in squad cars which cars to pull over to ticket for distracted driving. That could be a fun day!
I’ve actually done that. Most state highway patrol agencies have some form of that program although it’s mostly an open-road type of thing rather than city driving. Logistically, it’s easier to do out on the interstate. My agency even used confiscated drug-hauler 18 wheelers.
Just found out recently from a neighbor (he has teen children) that every child is not required to physically test for driver’s license. A couple of students are randomly chosen from each driving class to show up at Motor Vehicle Division and test. Those random samples serve as a QC indicator on the Instructor’s effectiveness. Definitely helps explain many of the Yahoo’s who slip through the cracks and receive licenses.
When I took Driver’s Ed…EVERYBODY tested…still not a guarantee, but it tended to improve the odds of a marginally competent driver.
Proving competence sounds nice and all buy more often than not the almighty bureaucracy defines competence as simple fealty to the system.
All the hemming and hawing today over “social credit” when it has been thus all along.
….THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
THAT IS THE ONLY LAW CONCERNING FIREARMS.
NTex, I think we have located your long lost twin brother…. it’s considered impolite to shout at people, even in a post.
In this case, I don’t believe Country Boy is wrong to shout per this post. Seems shouting at the top of the lungs is perhaps the last chance at getting anything accomplished before even more aggressive action is needed.
Of course in truth, we are well past that point.
“The RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall NOT be INFRINGED” – The language of the 2nd is quite clear- whatever is meant by “regulated” “militia”, the words “right”, “people” “not” and “infringed” indicate an inherent right to own and carry arms, not specifically firearms, and prohibits government from any law or action which contravenes or violates that inherent right. The US Constitution protects the person from government. The Second and the Tenth amendments make this clear.
okay I’ll give ya an inch
BUT
here is my foot I want in return
Once I show basic ‘safety’
Then I can buy full auto, suppressors, anything I want without anymore BS or tax stamps and CCW while having any of the above!
Now I genuinely love that idea. And the fact that (I’m willing to bet) we couldn’t get a single Gun Control advocate to agree to that is just one example of, they always take and never give.
Be careful, we have already seen plenty of evidence the gub’t can agree to all that and somehow end up with everything they wanted and none of what you wanted, but you agreed to it!
Why is Jerry so concerned with verifying competency and safety among people carrying firearms? Is Alabama beset with people missing their target, or with negligent discharges?
Across the country, both number and rate of accidental firearm related injury and death have been decreasing for decades. Has Alabama been bucking that trend? Has that trend reversed in states that have restored recognition of their citizens’ civil rights?
This came up in an article here a couple of weeks ago? Where the author said something like “My right to life is more important than your right to have a gun”?
My personal answer to that is “Well, it depends. Without the individual uninfringeable right to have firearms, how fucking valuable do you really, really, think your piss-ant ‘life’ would be?!
It has been well proven throughout history that Human life is the cheapest physical commodity on the planet. And when A.I. and robotics advance far enough (already previewed in a theatre near you) to give a firearm the ability to walk around, think, and decide for itself to shoot or not, who do think will win the ‘debate’ over “the right to human life over the right of a gun” if the human doesn’t have a gun?!
Many would conclude that the right to bear arms without any regulation or qualification is far more important than an individual right to life. Because without that right, your life is basically about as safe as a piss-ant about to be stomped by an elephant. Which is why many scholars say the 2nd/A protects ALL the other rights enumerated in the Constitution.
There is a solemn responsibility of human existentialism to Preserve and Protect your life before you can develop any value for it. Evolution provided advanced ‘tools’ and methodology to facilitate that necessity.
If these commies disguised as ‘Karens’ try in any way shape or rationale to nullify this reality, THEY, themselves, are endangering life far more than firearms could.
Totalitarian enemies of liberty have always tried that type of illogical diatribe when they can’t manipulate statistics and the perception of reality anymore in their favor. It’s part of their Marxist mentality and incessant obsession to prioritize disarmament of the sheeple so they can facilitate their communist take over without the threat of too much physical resistance. The Framers knew this only too well and therefore I agree with Country Boy here. That the only ‘Regulating’ is NO FUCKING INFRINGEMENT or Regulating PERIOD! Which already is written in sacrosanct Stone in Our Constitution.
In Fact, To end this absurd agenda based dumb-bate once and for all, there is plenty of Supreme Court Case precedent already in place along with Criminal Statutory punishment for a violation in any way of the 2nd/A under 18 241-242 for Deprivation of these inalienable rights, but unfortunately, these laws are just not currently enforced due to the abject political corruption in our Justice Departments.
As far as ‘Vetting’ goes, we all better get going NOW, not wait until the last minute, on the Big Vetting job coming up in the Midterms. Only if every true American Patriot starts now to convince a new voter, donate to a PAC group, or volunteer to help a candidate do we have a decent chance to take it back. My State has a commie governor and I’m working on that race now for next November. We’ve got a good chance to change it back to Red from a swing state if everyone gets cranking. We missed the recall during the height of the pandemic, but not by much.
Then we do the big Vetting in the sky. We impeach or fire all the dangerous commie bureaucrats who violate their oath of office to protect the Constitution and Repeal The NFA, the 68’GCA, et al.
That’ll teach them, once and for all, about ‘Shall Not BE INFRINGED’ !
Your right to life is worth every bit of the effort and risk you are personally willing to invest in defending it, and not one iota more. If you think *I* care a whit about your life, or that anyone else will die to defend you, you are a certifiable idiot.
It is astonishing to see history in the making. States that were members of the Confederacy. Or in the case of Kentucky not part of the Confederacy but a slave state. The states that it started racist gun control laws. Now those same States are passing constitutional carry. For all residents regardless of their race, Creed, color or national origin.
And in the former states of the Union the reverse is happening. Racist gun control is expanding and being strengthened.
Alabama is the state of Governor George Wallace. It will be astonishing if this state passes constitutional carry.
The significance of two former slave states Mississippi and Kentucky, both passing constitutional carry, passes right over the heads of even most people in the “gun community”.
That’s a pretty good point!
Joey baby, wake up. Shall not be infringed is aimed at all government.
Criminal use of guns is an abuse of the right to arms and it is illegal. But who gets the hit there? The guns? The criminal? The average citizen? The criminal of course.
Gun control is an unconstitutional response to fear or tyrannical beliefs.
I have no problem with states mandating regular safety training is the supply the ammo, and pay for the facility and the trainer.
But since it is a right, lack of training is not a controlling factor.
But we could create a culture where safety training/proficiency is considered a normal part of being a citizen.
Real good! The right is sacrosanct, if the state wishes training, the state should pay to make it easy and fun, in order to ENTICE citizens to participate, since the state does not have the authority to require such training at the citizen’s expense. Not tough! It is not important enough for the state to pay for such training? Then drop it.
Thanks NRA! This is where your compromise has gotten us!
The Constitution is absolute or it is nothing. The NRA has made it nothing.
If i walk into Bath Iron Works to collect my new Destroyer, the line better still be pretty far away from me. Because over 200 years ago the founding fathers made it very clear that i don’t need the crowns permission to strap as many of the most modern cannons on my ship as i want. Might buy a recreational McNuke for shits and giggles while i’m there.
Privilege (granted by Gov’t) vs. Right (cannot be taken by Gov’t)
plenty of people out there driving cars without licenses.
plenty of people buying houses without credit checks.
I had a credit check! Mortgage was denied! Not qualified! Paid cash! Something is wrong with that. But we still live there 25 years later.
Drivers license tests don’t prevent fatalities. Plus we dont get to sue the government when they license an alcoholic, terrorist, distracted driver, etc. Yawn, next.
Joey Kennedy, a Pulitzer Prize winner, writes a column every week for Alabama Political Reporter. Email: [email protected]. Twitter: @joeykennedy.
Nobody knows you, listens to you, or cares wtf you have to say.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
An exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.
A lot of people have looked at those options, and I can actually agree with some of them. I have no problem with restricting concealed carry, so long as OPEN carry is completely unlimited, carry a machine gun over your shoulder, no problem. You wish to avoid open carry because it frightens the Karens, OK, so long as concealed carry is completely unrestricted. But just as soon as such a law is in place, the antis seek to outlaw the rest, as well. Before too long it becomes obvious that the only sensible answer is “come and take it.”
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. . . But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.
There is no problem of *handgun* violence in this country, or any other country. There *is* a problem of -violence- in many (not all) parts of this country, and someone ensconced in a protected cocoon for all of his/her life (read; ANY Supreme Court Justice, never mind race, gender, political leanings *or anything else*) would have any tiny inkling of what that means. They just simply do not have the capability to understand the issues, and should sensibly restrict themselves to strict interpretation of clear directives such as “Shall not be infringed”. Leave alterations to the Amendment process. Duh.
Vetted
So he wants everyone to be ran over by a car before they can get a gunm.
Good idea
Possum, would that be similar to fording a river?
Difficult as most Fords only make it to the ditch
Don’t be bitter now, I’m sure more than a few chevys n dodges have taken a run at you and your brethren as well. Cross more faster.
I’d go along with that logic if it was universally applied such as, you need to pass a civics test before having a valid vote.
And yet, we have Supreme Court Justices that fail simple civics.
And actually lie about current events!
Fording a river is a little difficult as most fords only make it to the ditch
The U.S. Constitution’s mandates are ABSOLUTE and I see NO language contained in the Second Amendment (2A) that permits signatory government(s) (States’ and General) to regulate ‘… the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry, possess on one’s person) Arms’ in ANY manner. To the contrary, said language FORBIDS the government(s) from doing so. In fact, Article VI, which dictates that the U.S. Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”, that all “Laws… shall be made in pursuance thereof;” that “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby;” and that “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary…” is “notwithstanding” in the law. Such statutes that violate any of Article VI’s conditions are thereby unconstitutional overreachs which are by the mandate of “supreme Law” “void” (re: Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, “… that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”). In addition to that, they are thereby an act of treason (re: warring on the Constitution, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1) by those who propose and enforce such obvious governmental overreaches.
As for “driver’s licenses” (ie: govt. permission to exercise a right). The Constitution protects the right to own property (a car) and to free and unencumbered “movement” and/or “travel” (re: Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618) in said property. The freedom to go where we want, when we want, in our property, unencumbered by government regulation, is a God given natural right that pre-existed to birth of this Republic. It is thereby a right that is protected under the Ninth Amendment. The SCOTUS has ruled that the government(s) are forbidden from converting a right that is secured by the U.S. Constitution (ie. “movement”, “travel”) into a privilege that requires us to pay a fee (licenses and insurance aren’t free) in order to exercise said right (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105). Furthermore, Shuttlesworth v Birmingham AL, 373 US 262, clearly dictates that when the State does convert a right into a privilege – that we can ignore such an unlawful requirement and engage in the right with impunity. The requirements for one to possess a driver’s license and insurance is thereby a governmental overreach that invades the natural rights and pocketbooks of the people. Such statutes are thereby unconstitutional.
What I read makes sense.
Yes Kennedy is very correct.
When you let some ignorant Yahoo buy a gun and start packing it he many times has no idea what the laws in his state are in regards to when and when you cannot shoot.
Neither does Jethro Yahoo often know what any of the rules of safe gun handling and carrying are either.
There have been countless incidents in the past in states that either outlawed the carrying of concealed weapons or let anyone carry with no training and then the local Yahoo ended up accidentally shooting someone or in many cases shooting someone when they had no right to shoot them. That is History the Far Right Fanatics in their total ignorance cannot refute, its in the records of the courts and the police.
Any “laws in his state” violate the second amendment and are therefore null and void. Come and take it, pussy.
yahoo has something to do with internet, it cant buy and pack a gunm.
Dad burn it dacian I’m pissed at you, we’re not moving to a civilized country are we. I thought that was our plan.
Wow buzz kill 2022 what a bummer.
Congratulations on your pending constitutional carry status!
Gee, dacian the stupid and uneducated, if there are so many such instances, why are crime, and murder, rates so much higher in BLUE cities than in the rural areas where all those “local Yahoos” (oh, and if you were even SLIGHTLY literate, which you aren’t, you would know that “Yahoo” is not, in that context, a proper noun, ya twit) live????
Oh, I forgot . . . you’re stupid and uneducated. Bye!
“The RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall NOT be INFRINGED” – The language of the 2nd is quite clear- whatever is meant by “regulated” “militia”, the words “right”, “people” “not” and “infringed” indicate an inherent right to own and carry arms, not specifically firearms, and prohibits government from any law or action which contravenes or violates that inherent right. The US Constitution protects the person from government. The Second and the Tenth amendments make this clear.
We are again trying to get Constitutional Carry pushed through here in Alabama. The main opponents have been the Sherriff’s assc. and the far-left Dems. The Sherriff’s like the annual $25.00 fee and the far left hates the idea of anyone of age not prohibited being able to carry a weapon if they so choose.
I have, and will maintain a carry permit because it allows me to carry across state lines should I need to travel out of state. Only wish it was like my DL and considered valid in all states.
Maybe everybody that wants it can bribe the sheriff’s with $35.
“Shall Not Be Infringed”
Shall Not Kinda Be Infringed
There are already way too many restrictions placed on law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. How about focusing where the focus needs to be? On the criminals.
Home cash making way which enables you to start making cash online from home. earn upto $500 in just 2 hours and do make this regularly. easiest work i’ve ever seen in my life. its earning are awesome. go to this page now for more details.
==-==>> http://www.Fox72.com
By all means, let’s just apply all the same regulatory requirements to the 1st Amendment that we do to the 2nd Amendment. Me? I’d like to know that somebody publishing an op-ed has been vetted and knows how to write before they post something truly inane, like Joey Kennedy just did. Then we could revoke his free speech license.
Guns are like cars a necessary tool used for the right reasons 99.99% of the time. But there will always be the law breaking individuals and accidents that are statistically impossible to stop and no one can deny all the good they do! Learn how to use one and be safe. Just like driving!
I went to link for the article and I understand where the writer is coming from. Here in Louisiana Constitutional Carry was passed by the legislature but vetoed by the Governor. The writer’s concern is that a person carrying concealed should be knowledgeable about how to operate his firearm safely around people. The concealed carry class is supposed to ensure that. But with constitutional carry you don’t have that. But a CCW permit doesn’t really ensure that either. A good example was when I took the class, a couple was there taking the class also. They had just picked up their firearm the evening before! The instructor had to take them aside to show them how it worked! Another couple couldn’t get their Ruger .22 pistol to work. So are these people any more prepared than a person carrying under a ‘Constitutional Carry’ system?