To: Alighieri who wrote (696711 ) 2/1/2013 10:24:28 PM From: one_less Respond to Me: That single notion is exactly what the Bill of Rights was founded on (fear of government encroachment on human rights). I would love to see any argument to that point if you have one. Yes the constitution and the comments from the constitution were written at another time. Yes, by design and by oath of allegiance then and now. It is not clear to me why you are inserting these comments. Me: I think I have already addressed that. Simply stated in one word, “infringement,” specifically with regard to the 2nd amendment. You may not think I proved 1) our rights are supposed to be protected from government infringement by the constitution. 2) The intent of authoring 2nd amendment was to strengthen that protection; in that a government, any government, is inclined to abuse the rights of citizens and tend toward tyranny when an armed population superior to the government's standing army is not present. 3) The 2nd Amendment has already been infringed upon.(2) 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. Pp. 54–56. Felons and the mentally ill" are exceptions. I disagree: with their blanket statement about sensitive places but only because it can be applied too broadly in that every corner, nook , and cranny can be labeled as a sensitive place whenever a government entity decides to make that determination. Currently as your evidence proved the entire region called New York City can be labeled as such. "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. Pp. 54–56." I disagree: "Common use at the time" is vague. In addition, it suggests the government is worried about the population becoming too well armed. Thinking from the government's perspective... a highly armed population might be impossible to control if they decided they didn't like what the government was doing. Right, and we go back to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment which is to remind the government... you are not supposed to think you are in control of the population. So this again becomes evidence that the government is managing to circumvent the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I disagree: "prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"... weapons are ok but not dangerous weapons??? Well anyway refer to the last paragraph if you wonder why I find this disagreeable. You gave an excellent example of Government infringement when you posted the laws of New York City. The evidence you gave of New York City laws makes it clear that the government would not allow me to carry a gun as a tourist in New York City. Do I have the right? Yes I believe the constitution clearly states that and the founders clarified why that must remain true. Has the government removed that right from me in the region known as New York City? Yes it has.
