Gun Control Is NOT The Answer!

[woodwork201]

Excellent off base remark, having nothing to do with what I said.

So you're saying that you actually are not able to identify the place in the Constitution that says the government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[miketx]

So you're saying that you actually are not able to identify the place in the Constitution that says the government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

Keep babbling, you're doing well. For some reason when I wrote this:

The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

It goes beyond your ability to comprehend.

 

[woodwork201]

Keep babbling, you're doing well. For some reason when I wrote this:

The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

It goes beyond your ability to comprehend.

And then you said the government has the right to take the right away.

 

[miketx]

And then you said the government has the right to take the right away.

Are you that stupid? Do convicted felons get to keep and bear arms? No, they don't! They lost that right! Are you really that goddamned stupid that you think convicted felons can be armed legally?

Please stop responding to me. I can't take that much stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Preposterous.
The Founders never intended any such restriction on the rights. In fact. They expressly forbade it.

None of your examples prove your point - the fact someone did not choose to remove a right thru due process doe snot mean a right cannot be removed though due process.
And there's no recod of the forbiddance you claim.

 

[SavannahMann]

None of your examples prove your point - the fact someone did not choose to remove a right thru due process doe snot mean a right cannot be removed though due process.
And there's no recod of the forbiddance you claim.

What part of Shall Not Be Infringed don’t you understand? You have no right under the Constitution to do so.

 

[flan327]

Keep babbling, you're doing well. For some reason when I wrote this:

The 2nd says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

It goes beyond your ability to comprehend.

MILITIA

 

[M14 Shooter]

What part of Shall Not Be Infringed don’t you understand? You have no right under the Constitution to do so.

You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

MILITIA

People.

 

[flan327]

People.

ARE YOU OKAY?

Many people
Both gun nuts
And the opposite
Have NO IDEA what the SECOND AMENDMENT actually says

 

[flan327]

People.

Are they roller skating?
Drinking tea?
Walking dogs?

 

[M14 Shooter]

ARE YOU OKAY?

Many people
Both gun nuts
And the opposite
Have NO IDEA what the SECOND AMENDMENT actually says

-I- do.
I also understand the meaning of the text.

 

[flan327]

-I- do.
I also understand the meaning of the text.

You don’t seem to

IMO

 

[woodwork201]

Are you that stupid? Do convicted felons get to keep and bear arms? No, they don't! They lost that right! Are you really that goddamned stupid that you think convicted felons can be armed legally?

Please stop responding to me. I can't take that much stupid.

Yes, convicted felons can legally bear arms. Common law accepts that they do not have access to their guns while in prison but, according to the Constitution, they cannot be stripped of the right. For 179 years in this country, their guns were still theirs, still waiting for them when they were released. For 179 years, the Congress and the Government knew that such a thing was unconstitutional. It wasn't until 1968 that the government and Congress figured that the people were far enough away from the memory of actual liberty that they could get away with such an infringement.

The laws forbidding it are unconstitutional - I refer you to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and to American Jurisprudence. Both make it clear that unconstitutional legislation are not law and cannot be treated as law. It is only through tyranny that the government uses the force of it's guns to enforce such unconstitutional measures.

Once again, and I know you won't do it again because you can't do it - please tell where in the Constitution the government gets the authority to take a person's human rights by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[miketx]

Yes, convicted felons can legally bear arms.

This boy is eat up with a dumb ass. Yes, let's arm the murderers and rapists and child molesters. Please, for God's sake stop.

 

[woodwork201]

You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.

You have no understanding of the Constitution, whatsoever. If what you say were so then the Constitution is meaningless; there are no rights, only privileges, and any judge, through any process, could strip you of your rights. And, in fact, in no jury trial was any defendant notified that their right to keep and bear arms were being tried and in no sentencing ever, did any judge tell a defendant that their right to keep and bear arms was revoked - so even by your illegitimate understanding of due process, there was no due process. The entire meaning of due process, going back to the Magna Carte, was that a person was notified and able to defend their rights.

But, you're assigning to due process the power for the government to do things not already permitted in the Constitution. As long as a court rules that a person no longer has the right to a trial by jury, then can the court sentence someone to life in prison without a jury trial?

But even this ridiculous example would offer more protection than you're suggesting due process offers. By your example, there would not even be a hearing to say that the right to a trial was stripped, the judge could simply go straight from indictment to sentencing.

To make this stripping of the right to trial match the scenario that you say gives the government the right to strip someone's right to keep and bear arms, all that would need to be done is for Congress to pass a bill that says convicted felons no longer have the right to a trial by jury or the right to legal representation, or the right to a speedy trial. Congress could take away all rights, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, Amendments gone.

In fact, why can't Congress create a law stripping the right to due process on conviction of a crime? And if they can do it based on conviction of a crime, why can't they do it based on accusation of a crime? Or based on skin color or religion?

So, please make it clear, you're making the claim that the Congress can take any right from any person for any reason by passing a bill that says they can do it. Correct?

 

[miketx]

You have no understanding of the Constitution, whatsoever. If what you say were so then the Constitution is meaningless; there are no rights, only privileges, and any judge, through any process, could strip you of your rights. And, in fact, in no jury trial was any defendant notified that their right to keep and bear arms were being tried and in no sentencing ever, did any judge tell a defendant that their right to keep and bear arms was revoked - so even by your illegitimate understanding of due process, there was no due process. The entire meaning of due process, going back to the Magna Carte, was that a person was notified and able to defend their rights.

But, you're assigning to due process the power for the government to do things not already permitted in the Constitution. As long as a court rules that a person no longer has the right to a trial by jury, then can the court sentence someone to life in prison without a jury trial?

But even this ridiculous example would offer more protection than you're suggesting due process offers. By your example, there would not even be a hearing to say that the right to a trial was stripped, the judge could simply go straight from indictment to sentencing.

To make this stripping of the right to trial match the scenario that you say gives the government the right to strip someone's right to keep and bear arms, all that would need to be done is for Congress to pass a bill that says convicted felons no longer have the right to a trial by jury or the right to legal representation, or the right to a speedy trial. Congress could take away all rights, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, Amendments gone.

In fact, why can't Congress create a law stripping the right to due process on conviction of a crime? And if they can do it based on conviction of a crime, why can't they do it based on accusation of a crime? Or based on skin color or religion?

So, please make it clear, you're making the claim that the Congress can take any right from any person for any reason by passing a bill that says they can do it. Correct?

Ignore list, troll.

 

[woodwork201]

And there's no recod of the forbiddance you claim.

And just what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you? Does it forbid or does it empower?

 

[woodwork201]

You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.

You are an idiot of un-fucking-believable proportions. Stripping the right IS infringing you fucking moron. And due process is a limitation on government power, not a grant of absolute government power.

Please quit pretending to be a 2nd Amendment supporter. you're a gun controller through and through.

 

[woodwork201]

You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.

What Did The Founders Mean by 'Due Process of Law?'

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution each have a Due Process Clause. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibited the federal government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law...

www.americanthinker.com

History of the Due Process Clause, Sample of Essays

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes a clause called Due Process Clause and it is stated in the passage “no person… shall be

educheer.com

5th Amendment Due Process Clause

The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees that the government must obey written laws. It promises that your life, liberty and property will be protected, but what does that mean exactly?

www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com

Please provide the source of your opinion that the due process clause empowers the government to strip any right from any person by whatever steps or process that the government, itself, decides is "due process".