Opinion versus Fact - Arguing with the Left

[SavannahMann]

You can argue the 2nd Amendment does not protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and does not protect the right to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home-- but if you do, you choose to be wrong.

Nothing in the Second says Self Defense. If we are using Judicial Rulings, Judges Law which is the point of this discussion, then we are all falling into the trap. We approve of one decision, and disdain another.

Let’s keep this simple. The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law. Judicial Decisions, the same Judges Laws that allowed Abortion, decided that the First Amendment was an Individual Right. But if we go strictly by what is written, isn’t it true that the States could ban religions? Or create a single religion for the occupants of the State? Utah could make it a death penalty offense to be anything but Mormon as one example.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It says "militia" in the amendment.

Sorry. Not sorry.

If the founders had wanted only the militia to have the right to keep and bear arms, they would have written it that way. Instead they wrote PEOPLE. And in their letters and papers they made it clear that they meant people and that the militia was composed of ALL the people (men at that time) and that’s why the people had to be armed. Plus, with the exception of the Tenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights is all about individual rights, not collective ones.

 

[SavannahMann]

I do? Quote me.
It's the law. You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it

Absent current jurisprudence, there's no constitutional limit to the "arms" the people have the right to keep and bear; to limit those 'arms" infginges upon the right.

The second amendment says arms. It doesn’t say what arms are. We understand that from the era, it means firearms. But we limit and make it illegal for people to possess nuclear weapons, as one extreme example. Artillery, as another. When at the time the Second was passed, people could buy them. People could buy Cannon. Teddy Roosevelt set off to war with privately owned Machine Guns donated by a wealthy supporter.

At the time the Second was written, a person convicted of a crime was handed his guns, if they still existed, upon his release from prison. Today we restrict those people from having firearms.

But all those examples are restrictions that the majority support. The Judges interpreted this to be Constitutional. It was fine to limit the sale of Machine Guns. It was fine to limit the sale of automatic weapons. It was fine to restrict sale of artillery. It was fine to prohibit a Convicted Felon from owning a weapon ever again.

None of those restrictions were in place when the Second was passed. But even the most adamant supporters of the Second on this board support those restrictions, and many would support the restrictions of firearms to minorities.

Either you support the intent, and the maximum freedom, or you have a scale of restrictions you approve of.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing in the Second says Self Defense.

"...such as self defense". The court used it as one example among many uses of a firearm protected by the 2nd.
Probably because it is the most obvious.
This differentiates the uses of a gun that are not protected, such as murder, assault, etc.
I don't understand your complaint.

Let’s keep this simple. The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law. Judicial Decisions, the same Judges Laws that allowed Abortion, decided that the First Amendment was an Individual Right. But if we go strictly by what is written, isn’t it true that the States could ban religions? Or create a single religion for the occupants of the State? Utah could make it a death penalty offense to be anything but Mormon as one example.

If not for the 14th amendment.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You deny it says "militia"? Apparently third graders read better than you.

The first amendment also says SPEECH can’t be regulated. Using your ‘logic” the written word could be censored by the government .

 

[hadit]

The better argument to have with a liberal is not over whether a law says one thing or another, it is to establish whether laws should be followed or not. An emotional liberal will argue that it doesn't really matter if the president doesn't have the authority to order everyone to wear a mask or not if he likes the result. He will argue that it doesn't really matter if the Constitution actually guarantees a right to privacy or not if it means something he likes is permitted. If it is something he opposes, he finds no problem with the authorities putting a stop to it. To the emotional liberal, laws are there to be selectively enforced or not at all. He will scream bloody murder about employers hiring illegal aliens and say nothing at all (or nod approvingly) about a city declaring that it will ignore immigration law.

Thus, rioters that break a curfew law generate no condemnation, but a person opposing the rioters does. Somehow, it is heinous for the one to be out after curfew but acceptable for the other.

 

[AZrailwhale]

But those are Judges decisions. Judicial law that you claim to detest, when it comes to Abortion. Without using Judicial Decisions, explain why the Federal Government can’t limit you to mechanical weapons. In other words, pump, bolt, or lever action firearms. Prohibiting as a matter of law any semi automatic weapons.

Legally the government has no right to limit the types of weapons owned by citizens. It’s based on the 1934 firearms act which if FDR hadn't packed SCOTUS with hand picked friends would have been overturned. The founders were perfectly OK with private citizens owning artillery and warships.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second amendment says arms. It doesn’t say what arms are. We understand that from the era, it means firearms. But we limit and make it illegal for people to possess nuclear weapons, as one extreme example. Artillery, as another.

Righrt, Because of jurisprudence.
You asked me to ignore said jurisprudence, which I did -- absent some legalinterpretation, 'arms" = all weapons.

But all those examples are restrictions that the majority support.

Constitutional protections are not subject to popular opinion - if you have a right to (x), the fact 99% of the people support a restriction that violates the right to (x), suid restriction is still unconstitutional.

The Judges interpreted this to be Constitutional. It was fine to limit the sale of Machine Guns.

The court has never ruled this

It was fine to prohibit a Convicted Felon from owning a weapon ever again.

So long as said right was removed through due process.
All rights can be so removed.

Either you support the intent, and the maximum freedom, or you have a scale of restrictions you approve

The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to free speech, has inherent boundaries.
Outside those boundaries, the protections of the constitution do not necessarily apply.
Inside those boundaries the rights are as aboslute, and absoltely protected , as rights get.

 

[candycorn]

The first amendment also says SPEECH can’t be regulated. Using your ‘logic” the written word could be censored by the government .

Umm no. But thanks for playing.

 

[candycorn]

If the founders had wanted only the militia to have the right to keep and bear arms, they would have written it that way. Instead they wrote PEOPLE. And in their letters and papers they made it clear that they meant people and that the militia was composed of ALL the people (men at that time) and that’s why the people had to be armed. Plus, with the exception of the Tenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights is all about individual rights, not collective ones.

Ahh...sounds like you're making an interpretation. According to the OP, we can't do that.

 

[Tax Man]

You deny it says "militia"? Apparently third graders read better than you.

Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II.

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.

 

[Circe]

I get the impression that Leftists, at all levels, are unable or unwilling to differentiate between fact and opinion. And it is difficult and frustrating to debate Leftists because they refuse to countenance this difference. Allow me to provide a few examples on common debating points.

• It is rational to debate whether or not it is good policy to have a relatively porous southern border on the U.S. There are reasons that support that view and reasons that run counter to it. But there should be no debate that the EXISTING immigration laws should be enforced, to the extent that the Executive Branch has the ability to do so. If "we, the people" want to change the immigration laws, there is a process that must be gone through; until then, the law should be enforced as written. This is not a debating point; it is the law.
• We can debate whether the Death Penalty is a good idea. Opinions are all over the lot on this question. But there should be no debate on the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution permits the death penalty, as currently written. If you can't be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law, then presumably if you have due process of law, then you can be deprived of life - and the Constitution is fine with it. You can take your "evolving standards" and apply them to things that are not spelled out, but the death penalty is expressly sanctioned in the Constitution. It cannot be done away with because a group of black-robed outlaws think it should be.
• We can debate whether and to what extent women should have the ability to terminate a pregnancy, but the notion that somewhere in the Constitution, this "right" is enshrined - and can never again be re-visited, is simply a delusion. It is "judge-made law," which can always be revisited.
• We can debate whether it is a good idea for "Government" to mandate things like masks, vaccines, and interpersonal behavior in response to a public health threat, but there should be no question that the President lacks the power to issue such general decrees on his own authority. This is absurd. He may have the power to do so in government agencies, or among government contractors (for which contractors can demand compensation), but to issue those orders to the public at large, no way.
• We can debate what levels of voting and ballot security are appropriate, and what impacts any restrictions might have, but the question of who runs elections - the state legislatures and the respective Secretaries of State - is not really open to debate. It is entirely consistent with the concept of Federalism that each state will have its own rules, and the rules in some states would be unpopular or unacceptable in another state. The U.S. Congress has NO POWER to change this reality.

One reasons why Leftists in Congress seem so cavalier about ignoring our basic, founding documents - even though they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - is because the Constitutionality of a law cannot be immediately challenged, the process usually takes years, and they know they can get away with it.

The Constitution and the laws are what they are. We can debate whether they are well-considered, wise, or enforceable, but we cannot simply presume that they can be rewritten or ignored on a whim.

"Fact" is a problem word. It mostly means "things I want veryveryveryvery much for people to believe!!" There follows a lot of propaganda.

Because of this problem I have gone to the word "reality," which Phillip K. Dick defined as what is left whether you like it or not after you stop believing in it. I think there is a lot of opinion in your piece --- I've seen a lot of lists of "facts" on this forum and usually it's a list of what people wish were true. Whatever true means.

First claim:

• It is rational to debate whether or not it is good policy to have a relatively porous southern border on the U.S. There are reasons that support that view and reasons that run counter to it. But there should be no debate that the EXISTING immigration laws should be enforced, to the extent that the Executive Branch has the ability to do so. If "we, the people" want to change the immigration laws, there is a process that must be gone through; until then, the law should be enforced as written. This is not a debating point; it is the law.

It may be the LAW, but all too plainly it's not the facts on the ground. On the ground people are debating constantly whether we should be border-free and let everybody crowd in here. Maybe there SHOULD not be debate, but there clearly is. That the law should be enforced is just an opinion, and I think it's clear that the law is being WILDLY ignored, to the point of flying illegals who get in all over the country! I'm not too impressed with the effect of "should" on "facts."

• We can debate whether the Death Penalty is a good idea. Opinions are all over the lot on this question. But there should be no debate on the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution permits the death penalty, as currently written. If you can't be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law, then presumably if you have due process of law, then you can be deprived of life - and the Constitution is fine with it. You can take your "evolving standards" and apply them to things that are not spelled out, but the death penalty is expressly sanctioned in the Constitution. It cannot be done away with because a group of black-robed outlaws think it should be.

Huh, there is a call to revoke the death penalty? I missed that. I agree with your logical statement that it IS legal, though I do not see where the Constitution REQUIRES it. It only says you can't interfere with life, liberty, or property without a process of law: it doesn't appear to say anyone has to take property, or liberty, or life. For that reason, yeah, they could suppress the death penalty.
I myself think it should be expanded hugely, and not for deterrence, but for eliminating people who cannot stop taking people's stuff or hurting people. I would go further: never mind "cannot stop," that implies a third-strike kind of thing. I'd say if the evidence is clear, which it usually is, that the dealth penalty within a week of a very fast, brief trial for most crimes would save this country.

• We can debate whether and to what extent women should have the ability to terminate a pregnancy, but the notion that somewhere in the Constitution, this "right" is enshrined - and can never again be re-visited, is simply a delusion. It is "judge-made law," which can always be revisited.

All right, and so can all laws be revisited, so that's a problem for us, women. We'll see. IMO, forcing us to spend 18 to 20-some years raising you males' illicit get all by ourselves at our expense, not able to get a good job or a husband, is a way to keep women DOWN and that is IMO the whole point. These men don't care about the fetuses; if they did, they'd take care of them at least financially. They care about pounding women and getting the better of us. I sure know what I think of that: that we are going to stop you.

• We can debate whether it is a good idea for "Government" to mandate things like masks, vaccines, and interpersonal behavior in response to a public health threat, but there should be no question that the President lacks the power to issue such general decrees on his own authority. This is absurd. He may have the power to do so in government agencies, or among government contractors (for which contractors can demand compensation), but to issue those orders to the public at large, no way.

I don't see how you can say the president "lacks the power" when corporations all over the country have been getting ready to lose a lot of employees (they'd certainly lose me!) by Jan. 4 when they have to go to a whole lot of expense to implement this mandate or be fined. You say Biden can do that for government contractors, but that was just struck down in the courts yesterday. He HAS issued the order to the public at large, and I think that is pretty awful, but we have to respect facts. You say he didn't have the power: but he clearly did. He did it. That's how we know he had the power. Maybe they'll strike it all down, but in the meantime he's persuaded a lot of people to set up a lot of programs they may never use, verifying, firing, etc. So he did have the power. We gave him that power. People never have power in themselves: people give it to them. That's why they fall so hard and fast, when the people suddenly take it back. One can only hope.

• We can debate what levels of voting and ballot security are appropriate, and what impacts any restrictions might have, but the question of who runs elections - the state legislatures and the respective Secretaries of State - is not really open to debate. It is entirely consistent with the concept of Federalism that each state will have its own rules, and the rules in some states would be unpopular or unacceptable in another state. The U.S. Congress has NO POWER to change this reality.

Again, you say something is NOT open to debate which is constantly being debated nevertheless. This sounds like a "should" argument, which is not at all useful. "Should" is an opinion, certainly not a fact. I don't know whether the U.S. Congress has power to change state election rules. Not right now, perhaps, because it hasn't tried: we will know by whether it DOES that or not. I would like a voter ID, for instance. We know whether people have power to do something by whether they do it: it's a question of facts on the ground. Shoulds don't come into it.

 

[Circe]

"How are you?" "I'm fine" (actually I'm not fine, but you don't want to hear about my problems, you're not asking how I am, it's just a greeting. In China they say "Have you eaten?" or "are you going to work?" "have you finished work?" They don't care either if you actually have)

Nowadays grocery store clerks say "Did you find everything?" I HATE that. I hated it before all the shortages, and now the worst stores for shortages are still saying it!! They don't care if you did or not!! I'm going to put a stop to it, at least to me. ("I don't want to answer that question." Frosty face look.)

 

[SavannahMann]

Righrt, Because of jurisprudence.
You asked me to ignore said jurisprudence, which I did -- absent some legalinterpretation, 'arms" = all weapons.

Constitutional protections are not subject to popular opinion - if you have a right to (x), the fact 99% of the people support a restriction that violates the right to (x), suid restriction is still unconstitutional.

The court has never ruled this

So long as said right was removed through due process.
All rights can be so removed.

The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to free speech, has inherent boundaries.
Outside those boundaries, the protections of the constitution do not necessarily apply.
Inside those boundaries the rights are as aboslute, and absoltely protected , as rights get.

Actually. The court has ruled on it.

Supreme Court Lets Stand Ban on Machine Gun Ownership

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to recognize a constitutional right to own machine guns sought by the National Rifle Assn., which had described a lower court's ruling in the matter as "the first ban on firearms possession by law-abiding citizens in American history."

www.latimes.com

No decision has overturned this one.

 

[SavannahMann]

"...such as self defense". The court used it as one example among many uses of a firearm protected by the 2nd.
Probably because it is the most obvious.
This differentiates the uses of a gun that are not protected, such as murder, assault, etc.
I don't understand your complaint.

If not for the 14th amendment.

The 14th does not say that. It says that the rights for one are the rights for all. You can’t deny the rights for one group or another.

It does not say that all rights are individual. It says they must be applied equally by every state for their residents.

What says the First is an Individual right except Judicial Decision?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually. The court has ruled on it.

Cert denied is not a ruling.
They did not hear the case, and therefore did not uphold or overturn anything.

Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. However, as the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins,[31] such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case". In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in the case of the Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. The reasons for why a denial of certiorari cannot be treated as implicit approval were set forth in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. (1950), in which the Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Certiorari - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you did not respond to the other responses in my post, I assume your concession on the relevant points.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 14th does not say that. It says that the rights for one are the rights for all. You can’t deny the rights for one group or another.

Upon incorporation, the 14th applies the protections and governmental restrictions in the bill of rights to the states, through the due process clause, the equal protection clause, or both.
See: McDonald v City of Chicago

 

[SavannahMann]

Upon incorporation, the 14th applies the protections and governmental restrictions in the bill of rights to the states, through the due process clause, the equal protection clause, or both.
See: McDonald v City of Chicago

So you are denouncing the OP who decries the Judges Lae?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you are denouncing the OP who decries the Judges Lae?

OP:
"The Constitution and the laws are what they are. We can debate whether they are well-considered, wise, or enforceable, but we cannot simply presume that they can be rewritten or ignored on a whim."
Why do you think my response translates to me denouncing the OP?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Ahh...sounds like you're making an interpretation. According to the OP, we can't do that.

It's not an interpretation. It's the plain language and confirmed by other sources.