The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[Rigby5]

The mere fact that we are required to defend the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as intending to protect individual rights is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that all gun control is intended to end in BAN AND CONFISCATION.

You cannot vote for these people. EVER.

.

There are plenty of weapon that citizens aren't allowed to own, cruise missiles, nukes, WMD... Did controlling these arms end in a total ban? No. Maybe you need training wheels for this subject.

Totally and completely wrong.
There not only is NO weapon citizens are not allowed to own, but it would be totally illegal to ever consider such an outright ban.
More dangerous weapons allow for stricter regulation, but never an outright ban.
If nothing else, all weapons come from civilian research, so civilians clearly need and do have access and ownership.

And yes, the more controls there are on weapons, the more they result in inappropriate confiscations and arrests.

The point is not over bans but that the government wants stupid bans that are essentially illegal because it causes the police and military to have a monopoly instead of the citizen soldiers the founders envisioned.
It is the military and police who we need to regulate weapons access to the most, because they are the ones most likely to become corrupt and a danger.

And clearly many candidates HAVE called for a total ban on what they call Assault weapons, even though in history, that includes all small rifles, all pistols, all shotguns, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

Great post man, very smart. I don't know, I can say I have a problem with crazies having guns. But I recognize the inherent problem. Who defines crazy, when is it redefined and at what point doe it become an intrusion?

Our founding fathers were smart MFers man, they truly blow my mind. Especially considering how dumbed-down we've become, and dumb is progressive.

Those too crazy to be allowed guns should also not be allowed a car, truck, poisons, flammables, explosives, etc.
Which means they need to be supervised at all time.
Banning only one weapon type is pointless.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

Great post man, very smart. I don't know, I can say I have a problem with crazies having guns. But I recognize the inherent problem. Who defines crazy, when is it redefined and at what point doe it become an intrusion?

Our founding fathers were smart MFers man, they truly blow my mind. Especially considering how dumbed-down we've become, and dumb is progressive.

Those too crazy to be allowed guns should also not be allowed a car, truck, poisons, flammables, explosives, etc.
Which means they need to be supervised at all time.
Banning only one weapon type is pointless.

Point taken

 

[Ernie S.]

Felons are typically …

Do you know how easy it is to become a “felon” on some bullshit city-hall trumped-up charge? When you have political enemies?

Court-appointed attorney plea-bargain or else? Defense oh-so-graciously assumes the defendant’s guilt + good faith on the part of the prosecutor who drinks & practices law at the same local bar?

Point being, you’d live a lot longer if you did not stereotype “felons.”

I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

I didn't ask if felons should be disenfranchised.

So is anyone who owns a gun a murderer, then?

Maybe you should read for comprehension... I own a friggin arsenal here and so far, I haven't needed to kill anyone. Came close once but the dude saw the stupidity of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I asked a specific question that called for no moral assessment of me or my opinion of the second amendment.

I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

And I think the answer is that while in jail before trial or after sentencing, I think not.
But after they have finished their sentence, then yes, most definitely.
Otherwise you can not make him pay taxes without committing the crime of taxation without representation.

So you want murderers, rapists drug dealers and child molesters electing your President? No thank you. I see restoring the right to vote on a an individual basis for people who deserve it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

Except there already are exceptions and reasonable restrictions. Your assertion that it "pemits none" is flawed from the beginning.

The fact the federal government has already been breaking the law, does not mean it is ok for them to keep doing it.
Clearly the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal abuse, and we should go back to basics.
That is the whole point of the Rule of Law.
You let them get away with a little abuse at a time, and eventually you have nothing left at all.

There's only one authority to appeal to when deciding constitutionality. They don't agree with you.

No, the SCOTUS not only has been wrong before, such as the Dred Scott Decision, but the SCOTUS is no more the last word than the king of England was in 1776.
It is absolutely clear the founders wanted and intended absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction over weapons.
"Reasonable restrictions" has nothing to do with it.
Clearly ONLY states and municipalities were to have jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is not altered by whether or not restrictions are reasonable. Clearly any federal weapons legislation is criminal.

SCOTUS is the sole arbiter. They were granted that role by the very same document you now hold as gospel.

 

[Ernie S.]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

Except there already are exceptions and reasonable restrictions. Your assertion that it "pemits none" is flawed from the beginning.

The fact the federal government has already been breaking the law, does not mean it is ok for them to keep doing it.
Clearly the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal abuse, and we should go back to basics.
That is the whole point of the Rule of Law.
You let them get away with a little abuse at a time, and eventually you have nothing left at all.

There's only one authority to appeal to when deciding constitutionality. They don't agree with you.

No, the SCOTUS not only has been wrong before, such as the Dred Scott Decision, but the SCOTUS is no more the last word than the king of England was in 1776.
It is absolutely clear the founders wanted and intended absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction over weapons.
"Reasonable restrictions" has nothing to do with it.
Clearly ONLY states and municipalities were to have jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is not altered by whether or not restrictions are reasonable. Clearly any federal weapons legislation is criminal.

SCOTUS is the sole arbiter. They were granted that role by the very same document you now hold as gospel.

Sorry. The final arbiter is the people. We can call a Constitutional Convention and amend the Constitution. Or, because we have the right to possess weapons, we can eject a cruel, despotic government.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Except there already are exceptions and reasonable restrictions. Your assertion that it "pemits none" is flawed from the beginning.

The fact the federal government has already been breaking the law, does not mean it is ok for them to keep doing it.
Clearly the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal abuse, and we should go back to basics.
That is the whole point of the Rule of Law.
You let them get away with a little abuse at a time, and eventually you have nothing left at all.

There's only one authority to appeal to when deciding constitutionality. They don't agree with you.

No, the SCOTUS not only has been wrong before, such as the Dred Scott Decision, but the SCOTUS is no more the last word than the king of England was in 1776.
It is absolutely clear the founders wanted and intended absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction over weapons.
"Reasonable restrictions" has nothing to do with it.
Clearly ONLY states and municipalities were to have jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is not altered by whether or not restrictions are reasonable. Clearly any federal weapons legislation is criminal.

SCOTUS is the sole arbiter. They were granted that role by the very same document you now hold as gospel.

Sorry. The final arbiter is the people. We can call a Constitutional Convention and amend the Constitution. Or, because we have the right to possess weapons, we can eject a cruel, despotic government.

The people elect the officials who appoint and confirm the SCOTUS. That's the system laid out in the document you hold as gospel.

The only thing "cruel and despotic" about that is your inability to reconcile and accept that reality.

 

[Taz]

The mere fact that we are required to defend the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as intending to protect individual rights is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that all gun control is intended to end in BAN AND CONFISCATION.

You cannot vote for these people. EVER.

.

There are plenty of weapon that citizens aren't allowed to own, cruise missiles, nukes, WMD... Did controlling these arms end in a total ban? No. Maybe you need training wheels for this subject.

Totally and completely wrong.
There not only is NO weapon citizens are not allowed to own, but it would be totally illegal to ever consider such an outright ban.
More dangerous weapons allow for stricter regulation, but never an outright ban.
If nothing else, all weapons come from civilian research, so civilians clearly need and do have access and ownership.

And yes, the more controls there are on weapons, the more they result in inappropriate confiscations and arrests.

The point is not over bans but that the government wants stupid bans that are essentially illegal because it causes the police and military to have a monopoly instead of the citizen soldiers the founders envisioned.
It is the military and police who we need to regulate weapons access to the most, because they are the ones most likely to become corrupt and a danger.

And clearly many candidates HAVE called for a total ban on what they call Assault weapons, even though in history, that includes all small rifles, all pistols, all shotguns, etc.

So you think that the government will allow you to own nukes? Um... no.

 

[Ernie S.]

The fact the federal government has already been breaking the law, does not mean it is ok for them to keep doing it.
Clearly the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal abuse, and we should go back to basics.
That is the whole point of the Rule of Law.
You let them get away with a little abuse at a time, and eventually you have nothing left at all.

There's only one authority to appeal to when deciding constitutionality. They don't agree with you.

No, the SCOTUS not only has been wrong before, such as the Dred Scott Decision, but the SCOTUS is no more the last word than the king of England was in 1776.
It is absolutely clear the founders wanted and intended absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction over weapons.
"Reasonable restrictions" has nothing to do with it.
Clearly ONLY states and municipalities were to have jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is not altered by whether or not restrictions are reasonable. Clearly any federal weapons legislation is criminal.

SCOTUS is the sole arbiter. They were granted that role by the very same document you now hold as gospel.

Sorry. The final arbiter is the people. We can call a Constitutional Convention and amend the Constitution. Or, because we have the right to possess weapons, we can eject a cruel, despotic government.

The people elect the officials who appoint and confirm the SCOTUS. That's the system laid out in the document you hold as gospel.

The only thing "cruel and despotic" about that is your inability to reconcile and accept that reality.

The system laid out in the document I hold as gospel provides 2 methods of circumventing SCOTUS. Both have to do with the People.

 

[justinacolmena]

So you think that the government will allow you to own nukes? Um... no.

Handguns, pistols, rifles and shotguns are not “nukes” and neither is the ordinary smokeless gunpowder used with them.

We need more iron, brass and lead, and a lot less paperwork on guns.

Somehow you think I can mail-order a kit & supplies for a nuke for <$10,000 and just put it together on my kitchen table, so the government has to step in to make sure I don't do that.

Fucking idiots out in left field.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you think that the government will allow you to own nukes? Um... no.

Handguns, pistols, rifles and shotguns are not “nukes” and neither is the ordinary smokeless gunpowder used with them.

We need more iron, brass and lead, and a lot less paperwork on guns.

Somehow you think I can mail-order a kit & supplies for a nuke for <$10,000 and just put it together on my kitchen table, so the government has to step in to make sure I don't do that.

Fucking idiots out in left field.

Exactly. It's a commonly used strawman.

How long has the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAN been trying to get a nuke?

.

 

[Taz]

So you think that the government will allow you to own nukes? Um... no.

Handguns, pistols, rifles and shotguns are not “nukes” and neither is the ordinary smokeless gunpowder used with them.

We need more iron, brass and lead, and a lot less paperwork on guns.

Somehow you think I can mail-order a kit & supplies for a nuke for <$10,000 and just put it together on my kitchen table, so the government has to step in to make sure I don't do that.

Fucking idiots out in left field.

My point is that the 2nd has already been infringed on massively.