Jay Tea is correct. Nowhere else in the constitution is the term “the people” meant in the collective except the left thinks that is the case for the second amendment.

Now getting back to the original claims made by certain people here, the people suddenly concerned about “states rights” have all it wrong, because the federal government is well within their power to pass federal legislation that supersedes state law on the matter of reciprocity. This legislation merely allows somebody who is legally allowed to carry a firearm in one state, be free to travel to or through another state without committing a crime the moment he/she crosses the border. It does not in some magical way legally allow some dude to travel to where his wife lives and kick the shit out of her so please people, get rid of the stupid in you.

It also does not mean that if I pack up and move from Florida to New Jersey that my right to carry follows me to New Jersey. No, once I move to NJ, I am subject to their gun laws, idiotic as they are.

And when you’re being thoughtful, while I usually fiercely disagree with you, your comments are often a welcome relief from the general right wing discourse here.

Please take over the Republican Party from the extremists, the country would be significantly better for it.

Which is probably one of the few things we agree on.

Using linguistic gymnastics to arrive at dubious legal conclusions at best and clearly specious conclusions to those accustomed to reading clear language (without the filter of theoretical grammatical red herrings) is something the right claims to be against, unless it helps push their agenda, of course.

Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.

The clear language of the 2nd Amendment says that States can regulate the Arms of a well regulated militia while the Federal government cannot.

My only concession would be that “Arms” would only be anything pre-1776 (pre-1788 if you want to be a stickler).

Otherwise, join a well regulated State militia and work within individual State’s laws to secure your “Arms”.

Why do right wingers hate State’s rights?

A gun, when used correctly, kills stuff.

I have used many firearms many times and never killed a thing. Was I not doing it correctly?

Despite your protestations, a car is STILL not designed specifically to kill something or someone.

Yet they they’re far more dangerous than a firearm, kill thousands more people, and injure millions more, but subject to such lax regulation and licensing in their use.

Yet Mr. Willis wants Harry Reid fired because he may support a law which will require states to respect the Constitutional rights of Americans from other states the same way the states treat drivers licenses?

Treat Americans equally? “No We Can’t!” says OW.com!

The difference being that the only reason one opposes civil rights is the sadistic desire to make people’s lives harder just so that they can get an undeserved sense of self-worth.

I see I need to give a little grammar lesson to “Newsy.”

There are two possible interpretations. The one you seem incapable of grasping is that the first, dependent clause is exhortatory, citing one justification for the independent clause that makes up the latter half of the Amendment. This is buttressed by the context; nowhere else in the Bill of Rights is a right granted specifically to “the people” one that is subject to state regulation or interpretation as a “collective” right versus an individual right.

It’s probably the most poorly crafted part of the Constitution.

J.

Despite your protestations, a car is STILL not designed specifically to kill something or someone.

And anyone driving 85 in a 45 zone gets a ticket because that’s what the local driving law says, you nitwit.

Did you even stop to think about this before you picked, of all things, driving laws as your analogy? You know, the thing that is always varied from locality to locality depending on the conditions thereof? Speed limits. Check the Google, you’ll learn something.

Cars are “well regulated” and the ‘right’ to drive a car is well regulated.

As are firearms. There is even an entire Federal agency devoted to regulating firearms.

There are age restrictions…

Need to be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a hand gun.

…disability restrictions (blind people aren’t allowed to drive)…

However owning a firearm is a Constitutional right so physical disability doesn’t disqualify you from owning a firearm, just as being disabled doesn’t prevent you from worshiping the diety of your choice or protect you from unreasonable search and siezure.

…legal restrictions (drunk drivers can have their license restricted and/or revoked).

Convicted felons cannot legally possess a firearm. The crime for being a felon in possession is a felony. There are also misdemeanors which will prevent you from legally purchasing a firearm.

Again, the words “well regulated” are selectively ignored by the right wingers.

One, “right wingers” are not ignoring the “well-regulated” bit. Firearms are extremely regulated. I guess you could argue whether they’re “well regulated”. But even if they were ignoring that, is that better, worse, or as bad as those who disagree with “right wingers” ignoring the “shall not be infringed.”?

There are age restrictions, disability restrictions (blind people aren’t allowed to drive), and legal restrictions (drunk drivers can have their license restricted and/or revoked).

And in some states if you are caught driving without a license you might spend some time in jail (post Oklahoma bombing ruling by some states) and your auto is impounded (which if you’ve got a long way to walk from where it was impounded can be significantly more than “merely a fine”).

And last I recall, guns kill some 30,000 people a year and guns injure some 70,000 a year (anyone have those stats bookmarked from a credible source?).

Again, the words “well regulated” are selectively ignored by the right wingers.

The Constitution’s 2nd Amendment:

““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.””

The connection than is that if a convicted domestic abuser moved to a state that didn’t have that restriction the new law would allow that convicted domestic abuser to then freely drive to the state with a weapon that otherwise prohibits or restricts that convicted domestic abuser from carrying that weapon.

What state in the USA allows someone convicted of domestic violence to legally purchase or own a firearm?

Also, the GOP love of state’s rights suddenly disappears when its a gun civil rights issue.

Fixed it for you Mr. Willis.

A car isn’t designed to kill people.

Yet they kill 40,000 and injure almost 3,000,000 people a year, and anyone 15 or above who can pass a simple written test and identify letters on a eye chart will be allowed to drive one. Even convicted felons like wife beaters will be allowed to drive a car. Hell, the crime for operating a vehicle without a license or even on a suspended license is merely a fine.

And looking through my copy of the Constitution I don’t see one mention of having people having a right to own or operate a vehicle anywhere.

Oh nonsense. That was Bill Clinton.

““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.””

Apparently the words “well regulated” were inconvenient so are selectively ignored.

As I understand it, some states bar convicted domestic abusers from certain gun rights (anybody know about this?).

The connection than is that if a convicted domestic abuser moved to a state that didn’t have that restriction the new law would allow that convicted domestic abuser to then freely drive to the state with a weapon that otherwise prohibits or restricts that convicted domestic abuser from carrying that weapon.

Thus: The Gun Rights For Wife Beaters Act of 2009.

For bonus points, where did “domestic abusers” come from in this discussion?

J.