Florida Constitutional Carry

[IronBeard]

Exert from the Heller decision.

After announcing that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms, the Supreme Court explained that, [l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.29 Nevertheless, the Court left for another day an analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment.30 The Court did clarify, however, that 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 firearms, among other presumptively lawful regulations.31 As for the kind of weapons that may obtain Second Amendment protection, the Court explained that Miller limits Second Amendment coverage to weapons in common use at the time that the reviewing court is examining a particular firearm, which, the Court added, is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.32


The 2A is most definitely regulatory, as to what you can and can not have. "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited". Meaning... yes, it can be infringed!

Dude, up front NOT, n-o-t, a personal attack on you. I respect that you will "speak" freely. Hope you, and others, will entertain same.

It takes an awful lot to get all that from this. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What you've posted perfectly illustrates an unconstrained, control-obsessed (un-Constitutional?) government that "governs" by bullying/opinionating/threatening with punishment it's citizens/subjects into submission. What submission (fear?) requires, is enough (the majority) of citizens to just lay down and accept bullying/oppression as just the way it is, for safety. Most, IMO, will equate their circumstances/position of disadvantage to being a good "follower/patriot" as a means of quieting a conscience that is screaming, this ain't right!" just so they can get a sleep and do it again tomorrow. Not my personal version of the "American" dream.

 

[DustyDog]

Cops are not just people,

Oh, but they are... clothes don't alter DNA : )

 

[DustyDog]

Read the heller decision.

View attachment 218526

It is not unlimited.

Do you grasp what that means?

The First Amendment is not unlimited, either. So get off the Internet, because it says nothing about online forums : )

The First Amendment is not unlimited. So, what do we do? Ban words? Words like "FIRE!"? NOPE. If they harm others, the ACTIONS you take with words... e.g., inciting a RIOT... can be criminalized. But we do NOT universally ban certain WORDS, because the same words that can be used to incite a riot can also save lives.

And where in the Second Amendment does it say that the government can have nukes, since you seem to think it was written to tell US what arms the GOVERNMENT can have?

I swear to God, be thankful you don't have to go through life with a reading comprehension that has always scored in the 99th percentile, because those who scored in the 98th percentile or less can drive you nuts. The Second Amendment refers to a right of the people, NOT a right of the "militias".

 

[seandizzie]

And where in the Second Amendment does it say that the government can have nukes, since you seem to think it was written to tell US what arms the GOVERNMENT can have?

I will respond to this as its the only thing that stay on topic.

Are you aware of the original intention of the 2A? You speak of comprehension but appear to lack it.

Exerts from this below https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

The real purpose of the 2a was to have a milita to fdefend the people against a standing army. The term arms doesn’t mean only guns… means weapons weapons.

A suit case nuclear bomb, is arms.

Use the comprehension skills you claim to possess…

The modern military firepower has grown massively out of balance with what the original intended purpose of the rights the 2A provides. And has been that way for over a century.

Its not that hard of a concept to graps or… comprehend.

 

[DustyDog]

The term arms doesn’t mean only guns… means weapons weapons.

A suit case nuclear bomb, is arms.

Use the comprehension skills you claim to possess…

I'm confused. Just a few comments back, you said it DOESN'T give us the right to possess nukes. NOW, you say it DOES. REMEMBER:

"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS (which you just said includes NUKES) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

 

[seandizzie]

Dude, up front NOT, n-o-t, a personal attack on you. I respect that you will "speak" freely. Hope you, and others, will entertain same.

It takes an awful lot to get all that from this. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What you've posted perfectly illustrates an unconstrained, control-obsessed (un-Constitutional?) government that "governs" by bullying/opinionating/threatening with punishment it's citizens/subjects into submission. What submission (fear?) requires, is enough (the majority) of citizens to just lay down and accept bullying/oppression as just the way it is, for safety. Most, IMO, will equate their circumstances/position of disadvantage to being a good "follower/patriot" as a means of quieting a conscience that is screaming, this ain't right!" just so they can get a sleep and do it again tomorrow. Not my personal version of the "American" dream.

That is an exert from a supreme court vs heller.

I am not saying I agree with the decision, just stateing what they, the supreme court ruled, and how it is used to apply the law.

Yes in my opinion the rights granted by the 2nd amendment have been and are significantly “ nutered”.

In the current state of the country, given its actual intentions. It hardly provides the rights to arms in parody with modern standing armies.

 

[seandizzie]

I'm confused. Just a few comments back, you said it DOESN'T give us the right to possess nukes. NOW, you say it DOES. REMEMBER:

"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS (which you just said includes NUKES) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

no, you are not understanding my point.

The modern interpretation doesn’t let you have arms, like a suitcase nuke. When the original intention of the 2A was access to arms for a militia to fight a standing army.

I use nukes as an example as its the most extreme type modern arms not available when the 2A was written… especially when the current president said your gonna needs some nukes and F-15’s.

The OG reason behind the 2A has been completely neutered. To the point its hardly applicable in modern times.

 

[RHINOWSO]

The OG reason behind the 2A has been completely neutered. To the point its hardly applicable in modern times.

Funny someone like yourself can't admit that we 'lost Afghanistan' when we quit / forfeited / whatever you want to say (not that I'm sad, we should have left in 2002, the rest was just a lot of pissing into the wind). Yet somehow you think our military would be better able to handle an insurgency on home soil and use their "nukes and F-15s" to blast the civilian populace to smithereens. All while we tiptoed around SW Asia letting bad guys run free with pissy ROEs.

 

[DustyDog]

no, you are not understanding my point.

The modern interpretation doesn’t let you have arms, like a suitcase nuke. When the original intention of the 2A was access to arms for a militia to fight a standing army.

I use nukes as an example as its the most extreme type modern arms not available when the 2A was written… especially when the current president said your gonna needs some nukes and F-15’s.

The OG reason behind the 2A has been completely neutered. To the point its hardly applicable in modern times.

So now were basing opinions on what Biden said? When we know that the most sophisticated piece of military equipment possessed by the sandal-wearing goat herders known as the "Taliban" was the TOYOTA PICKUP? And THEY are now stronger than ever while the U.S. is weaker than ever?

 

[RHINOWSO]

no, you are not understanding my point.

We understand your point, we just think you are incorrect.

Logic, and all that.

 

[DustyDog]

Funny someone like yourself can't admit that we 'lost Afghanistan' when we quit / forfeited / whatever you want to say...

Just plumbed the depths of my "mental thesaurus" and concluded: The Taliban didn't "win", they prevailed : )

 

[RHINOWSO]

victory

noun​

1. A defeat of an enemy or opponent.
2. A success in a struggle against difficulties or an obstacle.
3. The state or fact of having defeated an opponent or of having achieved success.

defeated

adjective​

1. subjugated, beaten, overcome
2. beaten or overcome; not victorious
3. disappointingly unsuccessful

lose

intransitive verb​

1. To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay.
2. To be deprived of (something one has had).
3. To be unable to keep control or allegiance of.
4. To fail to win; fail in.

concede

intransitive verb​

1. To acknowledge or admit (defeat).
2. To acknowledge defeat in.
3. To yield or surrender (something owned or disputed, such as land).
4. To yield or grant (a privilege or right, for example).
5. To allow (a goal or point, for example) to be scored by the opposing team or player.
6. To make a concession or acknowledge defeat; yield.

 

[seandizzie]

So now were basing opinions on what Biden said? When we know that the most sophisticated piece of military equipment possessed by the sandal-wearing goat herders known as the "Taliban" was the TOYOTA PICKUP? And THEY are now stronger than ever while the U.S. is weaker than ever?

o yeah I forgot a conversation with you that stays on subject (2A)is a waste of time.

We did not lose the fighting, the Afghans decided their fate when they choose not to fight, after we left. They lost what we established, we didn’t loose.

I am out.

 

[DustyDog]

the Afghans decided their fate when they choose not to fight, after we left.

Oh. So, what nationality are the Taliban?

 

[RHINOWSO]

o yeah I forgot a conversation with you that stays on subject (2A)is a waste of time.

We did not lose the fighting, the Afghans decided their fate when they choose not to fight, after we left. They lost what we established, we didn’t loose.

I am out.

"What we established".

You mean nothing, that is was we established.

Nothing. Complete waste of time, resources, and lives after spring '02.

 

[IronBeard]

That is an exert from a supreme court vs heller.

I am not saying I agree with the decision, just stateing what they, the supreme court ruled, and how it is used to apply the law.

Yes in my opinion the rights granted by the 2nd amendment have been and are significantly “ nutered”.

In the current state of the country, given its actual intentions. It hardly provides the rights to arms in parody with modern standing armies.

We're probably gonna continue to disagree on some points, but that's okay. One point of contention being, the SC is far beyond bias, and ought to be disbanded and reseated IAW the Constution.

My enduring question is, why can't/won't government allow/trust a law-abiding citizen to own whatever they desire so long as they accept full responsibility for their own action with that whatever?

The number one answer I cannot set aside is, control, fueled by fear. So, what brings a "representative" government of a "free," and Constitutional Republic, to the point they must control, and fear those they "represent?" Survey says, they're doing things that warrant exercise of the 2A, damn well know it, and continually strive to reduce that legal ability with the goal being to neutralize it, if it cannot be fully eliminated. Look at canada and the eu for prime examples of "neutralize."

Open to any/all PROOF that conclusively proves me wrong.

 

[ABlaster]

No one who strives for power likes competition.

 

[IronBeard]

No one who strives for power likes competition.

Totally agree. Question open to all: So why the government-wide strive for power?

 

[ABlaster]

I think they believe their version of life is the best one there is and should be enforced on the rest of the population. It’s the classic “Everything I don’t like should be banned and everything I like should be mandatory“ philosophy.

Camus famously said that the welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.

 

[seandizzie]

We're probably gonna continue to disagree on some points, but that's okay. One point of contention being, the SC is far beyond bias, and ought to be disbanded and reseated IAW the Constution.

My enduring question is, why can't/won't government allow/trust a law-abiding citizen to own whatever they desire so long as they accept full responsibility for their own action with that whatever?

The number one answer I cannot set aside is, control, fueled by fear. So, what brings a "representative" government of a "free," and Constitutional Republic, to the point they must control, and fear those they "represent?" Survey says, they're doing things that warrant exercise of the 2A, damn well know it, and continually strive to reduce that legal ability with the goal being to neutralize it, if it cannot be fully eliminated. Look at canada and the eu for prime examples of "neutralize."

Open to any/all PROOF that conclusively proves me wrong.

You are not too far off my personal believe of what's right. It seems some people assume the topics that I am sharing, means I endorse them. No, I don't. I am just trying to point out the decisions that have been made by the courts that pushed this control and understanding how that law is applied. NOT endorsing it as my personal opinion of what if right. Also many people see the 2A and relate it to only guns, which in my personal opinion is not the original intentions of the 2A, it says arms for a reason, and they had a legitimate reason.

As to your enduring question, I think you have it right, they want to be in control, they have neutralized the ability of a citizen militia, as written in the second amendment, of its true intended purpose. Yes hold people accountable for their actions, not take away their tools.

Calling open carry " constitutional carry " is like arguing over the chicken bone after the meat had long since rotted away.