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

[Contumacious]

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.
Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

Large type does not make your assertions less patently false.

YOU ARE FREE TO USE THE SMALLEST FONT AVAILABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT MY ALLEGATIONS ARE PATENTLY FALSE.


.

Look, it's not deniable that prior to the revolution colonies, and later states and towns, had regulations on storing firearms and where firearms could NOT be discharged. In the mid 19th century, municipalities had restrictions on where firearms could be carried. There was never a contention that those regulations were unconstitutional. You can yell as much as you want, or type as big as you can, but facts exist despite your apparent wishes.

But that does not mean a govt can take all the guns, or that we cannot use them to legitimately defend ourselves. That is, there are limits on govt power, and the Courts will give those laws that intentionally impact individual freedom the closest scrutiny possible, and that principal goes back the first scotus chief, Marshall.

THE COLONISTS DID NOT WANT STANDING ARMIES SO BEGINNING WITH PENNSYLVANIA THEY WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE STATE.


The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


.



.

 

[bendog]

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities.
Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)
(God help us)

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

But that is not really the question.

It is when you start talking about "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
Do you have a response?

Who struck you? Again another false analogy. You need to stick with the issue.

 

[bendog]

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

Large type does not make your assertions less patently false.

YOU ARE FREE TO USE THE SMALLEST FONT AVAILABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT MY ALLEGATIONS ARE PATENTLY FALSE.


.

Look, it's not deniable that prior to the revolution colonies, and later states and towns, had regulations on storing firearms and where firearms could NOT be discharged. In the mid 19th century, municipalities had restrictions on where firearms could be carried. There was never a contention that those regulations were unconstitutional. You can yell as much as you want, or type as big as you can, but facts exist despite your apparent wishes.

But that does not mean a govt can take all the guns, or that we cannot use them to legitimately defend ourselves. That is, there are limits on govt power, and the Courts will give those laws that intentionally impact individual freedom the closest scrutiny possible, and that principal goes back the first scotus chief, Marshall.

THE COLONISTS DID NOT WANT STANDING ARMIES SO BEGINNING WITH PENNSYLVANIA THEY WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE STATE.


The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


.



.

I'm sure you think you made a point or something. Again, are you attempting to deny that firearms were regulated before and after the revolution and before and after the constitution and BOR were ratified?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities.
Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)
(God help us)

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

But that is not really the question.

It is when you start talking about "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
Do you have a response?

Who struck you? Again another false analogy. You need to stick with the issue.

Did you read the post I responded to?

 

[Londoner]

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities.
Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)
(God help us)

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

There are plenty of laws that have to with protecting individuals from potential harm.

This is an unrelated side note, but there are also national defense statues that say we can legally attack a known criminal like Hussein because he might simply own WMDs - but your point is well taken.

I don't have a good answer, but I do have a genuine question designed to help me understand the limits of the Constitution.

Are we not allowed to confiscate guns from inmates of maximum security prison because the Constitution does not stipulate that the state this right inside the 2nd Amendment?

Or does that state have a countervailing and equally important constitutional power to create a prison system that doesn't allow violent inmates to carry weapons inside the prison?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities.
Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)
(God help us)

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

There are plenty of laws that have to with protecting individuals from potential harm

You weren't talking about potential harm, you were talking about actual harm..
Does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
Does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I don't have a good answer, but I do have a genuine question designed to help me understand the limits of the Constitution.
Are we not allowed to confiscate guns from inmates of maximum security prison because the Constitution does not stipulate this right inside the 2nd Amendment?

Sorta.
The 5th amendment allows the state to remove the rights of those convicted of a crime, through due process.
Any and all rights can be removed this way.

 

[Contumacious]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

Large type does not make your assertions less patently false.

YOU ARE FREE TO USE THE SMALLEST FONT AVAILABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT MY ALLEGATIONS ARE PATENTLY FALSE.


.

Look, it's not deniable that prior to the revolution colonies, and later states and towns, had regulations on storing firearms and where firearms could NOT be discharged. In the mid 19th century, municipalities had restrictions on where firearms could be carried. There was never a contention that those regulations were unconstitutional. You can yell as much as you want, or type as big as you can, but facts exist despite your apparent wishes.

But that does not mean a govt can take all the guns, or that we cannot use them to legitimately defend ourselves. That is, there are limits on govt power, and the Courts will give those laws that intentionally impact individual freedom the closest scrutiny possible, and that principal goes back the first scotus chief, Marshall.

THE COLONISTS DID NOT WANT STANDING ARMIES SO BEGINNING WITH PENNSYLVANIA THEY WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE STATE.


The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


.



.

I'm sure you think you made a point or something. Again, are you attempting to deny that firearms were regulated before and after the revolution and before and after the constitution and BOR were ratified?

NO, ACTUALLY FOR A RESPONSE TO YOUR FASCIST ASSERTION I WILL YIELD TO FOUNDING FATHER ALEXANDER HAMILTON

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.*********** They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given,********* and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government.

 

[bendog]

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities.
Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)
(God help us)

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

But that is not really the question.

It is when you start talking about "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
Do you have a response?

Who struck you? Again another false analogy. You need to stick with the issue.

Did you read the post I responded to?

Yes, Londoner correctly pointed out that all rights have limits. But he too is mixing and mashing rights and govt powers.

 

[bendog]

Large type does not make your assertions less patently false.

YOU ARE FREE TO USE THE SMALLEST FONT AVAILABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT MY ALLEGATIONS ARE PATENTLY FALSE.


.

Look, it's not deniable that prior to the revolution colonies, and later states and towns, had regulations on storing firearms and where firearms could NOT be discharged. In the mid 19th century, municipalities had restrictions on where firearms could be carried. There was never a contention that those regulations were unconstitutional. You can yell as much as you want, or type as big as you can, but facts exist despite your apparent wishes.

But that does not mean a govt can take all the guns, or that we cannot use them to legitimately defend ourselves. That is, there are limits on govt power, and the Courts will give those laws that intentionally impact individual freedom the closest scrutiny possible, and that principal goes back the first scotus chief, Marshall.

THE COLONISTS DID NOT WANT STANDING ARMIES SO BEGINNING WITH PENNSYLVANIA THEY WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE STATE.


The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


.



.

I'm sure you think you made a point or something. Again, are you attempting to deny that firearms were regulated before and after the revolution and before and after the constitution and BOR were ratified?

NO, ACTUALLY FOR A RESPONSE TO YOUR FASCIST ASSERTION I WILL YIELD TO FOUNDING FATHER ALEXANDER HAMILTON

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.*********** They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given,********* and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government.

you're babbling by quoting out context something you cannot begin to understand, and not responding to whether restrictions predated and succeeded the constitution and BOR.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.

As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew

Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.

In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional

Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Article II & III have no authority over firearms...Congress and the Courts have no jurisdiction over arms???? Seems to me you're under educated to a great degree.

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's...provide a reference, a link!

Where is your basis in law proving their is no authority to control/regulate ARMS in these here United States? Even a WELL REGULATED MILITIA has that authority, dipstick!

The A-Bomb, the UN, Japan? Now you're sounding like BOSS or RAMBOETTE runnin' out to the ozone layer and beyond. Are you wearing a pair of Political Chica's Space Panties thinking your ass is out of this world, too!

BTW, I'm not intimidated by your childish bombast or the large font you use or your advocacy toward guns to compensate for your diminished, err, ahh, manhood! You're a known quantity!

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

But that is not really the question.

It is when you start talking about "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
Do you have a response?

Who struck you? Again another false analogy. You need to stick with the issue.

Did you read the post I responded to?

Yes, Londoner correctly pointed out that all rights have limits.

Yes... limits like "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
That's why I asked what I did.
Do you have a response?

 

[Contumacious]

Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.

As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew

Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.

In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional

Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Article II & III have no authority over firearms...Congress and the Courts have no jurisdiction over arms???? Seems to me you're under educated to a great degree.

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's...provide a reference, a link!

Where is your basis in law proving their is no authority to control/regulate ARMS in these here United States? Even a WELL REGULATED MILITIA has that authority, dipstick!

The A-Bomb, the UN, Japan? Now you're sounding like BOSS or RAMBOETTE runnin' out to the ozone layer and beyond. Are you wearing a pair of Political Chica's Space Panties thinking your ass is out of this world, too!

BTW, I'm not intimidated by your childish bombast or the large font you use or your advocacy toward guns to compensate for your diminished, err, ahh, manhood! You're a known quantity!

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

 

[Contumacious]

YOU ARE FREE TO USE THE SMALLEST FONT AVAILABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT MY ALLEGATIONS ARE PATENTLY FALSE.


.

Look, it's not deniable that prior to the revolution colonies, and later states and towns, had regulations on storing firearms and where firearms could NOT be discharged. In the mid 19th century, municipalities had restrictions on where firearms could be carried. There was never a contention that those regulations were unconstitutional. You can yell as much as you want, or type as big as you can, but facts exist despite your apparent wishes.

But that does not mean a govt can take all the guns, or that we cannot use them to legitimately defend ourselves. That is, there are limits on govt power, and the Courts will give those laws that intentionally impact individual freedom the closest scrutiny possible, and that principal goes back the first scotus chief, Marshall.

THE COLONISTS DID NOT WANT STANDING ARMIES SO BEGINNING WITH PENNSYLVANIA THEY WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE STATE.


The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


.



.

I'm sure you think you made a point or something. Again, are you attempting to deny that firearms were regulated before and after the revolution and before and after the constitution and BOR were ratified?

NO, ACTUALLY FOR A RESPONSE TO YOUR FASCIST ASSERTION I WILL YIELD TO FOUNDING FATHER ALEXANDER HAMILTON

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.*********** They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given,********* and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government.

you're babbling by quoting out context something you cannot begin to understand, and not responding to whether restrictions predated and succeeded the constitution and BOR.

I FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR COGNITIVE LIMITATIONS , AND FOR THAT REASON I HAVE TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY THAT YOU SHOULD LIMIT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR THREADS TO THINGS YOU KNOW A LOT ABOUT , IE, COCKSUCKING AND BASKETWEAVING.

 

[bendog]

But that is not really the question.

It is when you start talking about "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
Do you have a response?

Who struck you? Again another false analogy. You need to stick with the issue.

Did you read the post I responded to?

Yes, Londoner correctly pointed out that all rights have limits.

Yes... limits like "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
That's why I asked what I did.
Do you have a response?

Why must you be so argumentative? Are you just naturally angry? The analogy of assault to a limitation on a second amendment right is a false analogy because both are premised upon different things. You may possess a firearm legally, or illegally in that you use it to commit a crime, or you obtain it illegally. You may only strike another person to defend yourself or another person.

If you actually have ANY interest in discussing the ISSUE, the question is whether the infringement upon our right to own firearms for legitimate reasons is outweighed, or not outweighed, by the govt's interest AND POWER, to prevent crazy people from buying guns. (Those supporting background checks sometimes contend criminals could be prevented from buying guns. Personally, I think they will get them otherwise, though "straw sales to gangs" may be another avenue)

 

[bendog]

Look, it's not deniable that prior to the revolution colonies, and later states and towns, had regulations on storing firearms and where firearms could NOT be discharged. In the mid 19th century, municipalities had restrictions on where firearms could be carried. There was never a contention that those regulations were unconstitutional. You can yell as much as you want, or type as big as you can, but facts exist despite your apparent wishes.

But that does not mean a govt can take all the guns, or that we cannot use them to legitimately defend ourselves. That is, there are limits on govt power, and the Courts will give those laws that intentionally impact individual freedom the closest scrutiny possible, and that principal goes back the first scotus chief, Marshall.

THE COLONISTS DID NOT WANT STANDING ARMIES SO BEGINNING WITH PENNSYLVANIA THEY WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE STATE.


The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


.



.

I'm sure you think you made a point or something. Again, are you attempting to deny that firearms were regulated before and after the revolution and before and after the constitution and BOR were ratified?

NO, ACTUALLY FOR A RESPONSE TO YOUR FASCIST ASSERTION I WILL YIELD TO FOUNDING FATHER ALEXANDER HAMILTON

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.*********** They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given,********* and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government.

you're babbling by quoting out context something you cannot begin to understand, and not responding to whether restrictions predated and succeeded the constitution and BOR.

I FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR COGNITIVE LIMITATIONS , AND FOR THAT REASON I HAVE TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY THAT YOU SHOULD LIMIT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR THREADS TO THINGS YOU KNOW A LOT ABOUT , IE, COCKSUCKING AND BASKETWEAVING.

Fuck you, cum face. You failed to even respond to the posts. God it must suck to actually know you. I pity your family, assuming you have any.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This reading doesn't preclude inmates from having their guns confiscated either. Also, the framers probably wanted sex offenders to keep their guns, making it easier for them to coerce their victims and protect themselves from the parents of raped children.

An important point, that is too often missed these days, is that back then, someone who was convicted of a serious enough crime to raise significant concerns over what that person might later do, usually never got the chance. Such criminals were usually put to death promptly, once convicted.

There was never any question about those convicted of serious crime being allowed, afterward, to possess arms, because they weren't allowed to live long enough to make that a concern.

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights.

The language identifying the right, and stating that it “shall not be infringed”, is quite clear enough. It's not a case of the Constitution failing to state any limits on this right, but a case of the Constitution explicitly forbidding any such limits.

And there is not any right, that anyone can rightfully claim, that is violated merely because someone else possesses a weapon, so no question of one's right to bear arms being in conflict with any other rights.

 

[Contumacious]

THE COLONISTS DID NOT WANT STANDING ARMIES SO BEGINNING WITH PENNSYLVANIA THEY WANTED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE STATE.


The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


.



.

I'm sure you think you made a point or something. Again, are you attempting to deny that firearms were regulated before and after the revolution and before and after the constitution and BOR were ratified?

NO, ACTUALLY FOR A RESPONSE TO YOUR FASCIST ASSERTION I WILL YIELD TO FOUNDING FATHER ALEXANDER HAMILTON

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.*********** They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given,********* and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government.

you're babbling by quoting out context something you cannot begin to understand, and not responding to whether restrictions predated and succeeded the constitution and BOR.

I FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR COGNITIVE LIMITATIONS , AND FOR THAT REASON I HAVE TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY THAT YOU SHOULD LIMIT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR THREADS TO THINGS YOU KNOW A LOT ABOUT , IE, COCKSUCKING AND BASKETWEAVING.

Fuck you, cum face. You failed to even respond to the posts. God it must suck to actually know you. I pity your family, assuming you have any.

LISTEN CLOSELY AND YOU WILL HEAR MY WIFE OF 50 YEARS SINGING BOBBY VINTON'S SONG,


.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's…?

“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

—Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Roscoe, December 27, 1820​

 

[Little-Acorn]

even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights.

What right of yours, is interfered with by my right to own and carry a weapon?

 

[Contumacious]

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's…?

“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

—Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Roscoe, December 27, 1820​

EXACTLY.

IT IS REALLY A SHAME THAT STUPID FUCKS LIKE 'bendover" CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE LETTER BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY A FREEMAN USING ENGLISH AS IT WAS USED IN 1820.


.