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

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit
No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.
The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.



PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.



.
Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it? :biggrin:



YES, INDEED , the fascists are still frantically changing the subject away from what the Constitution, the 2nd and 9th Amendments say. , and yes they are trying to talk about what "judges" and lawyers say instead.

By citing Amendment IX, you totally destroy your own fucking argument based on what you have written before this point, IDIOT! You don't understand that, but nonetheless you have, IDIOT!

As Madison wrote it:

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.” [Emphasis Added]
< 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) >

You and your brethren will probably not understand the FULL implication of Madison's words in the Congressional record above. I underscored the important part, but it will just be casting more pearls before swine. You'll refuse to concur with the efficacy of Madison's words and the pretend they are nothing. Pity the fools, for they are IDIOTS!
 
Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.
And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.
It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.
It is odd but the reality is that the court system makes it very challenging to address unconstitutional infringement of your rights. It takes a really long time to go through the process and a LOT of money. Even then, get the wrong appeals judges and bad lower court judges and it makes it almost impossible.

The system is fundamentally broken but that is for another thread.
The system is not 'broken,' that notion is naïve and sophomoric – and just because a judge rules in a manner with which you disagree doesn't mean that judge is 'bad.'
 
No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.
The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.



PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.



.
Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it? :biggrin:



YES, INDEED , the fascists are still frantically changing the subject away from what the Constitution, the 2nd and 9th Amendments say. , and yes they are trying to talk about what "judges" and lawyers say instead.

By citing Amendment IX, you totally destroy your own fucking argument based on what you have written before this point, IDIOT! You don't understand that, but nonetheless you have, IDIOT!

As Madison wrote it:

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.” [Emphasis Added]
< 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) >

You and your brethren will probably not understand the FULL implication of Madison's words in the Congressional record above. I underscored the important part, but it will just be casting more pearls before swine. You'll refuse to concur with the efficacy of Madison's words and the pretend they are nothing. Pity the fools, for they are IDIOTS!

What do you think he is saying there?
 
Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.
Except that will not work to make you any safer whatsoever. This has been shown time and time again. The evidence is solid - gun bans do not curb homicide rates. That is simply a fact.

You might 'feel' safer but that is about it and, quite frankly, how you feel is irrelevant to my rights. You do not get to limit or remove a right simply because you don't like the fact it exists.

Agree. The government had better have a damn good reason for taking away a right from a citizen.
 
I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.
And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.
It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.
It is odd but the reality is that the court system makes it very challenging to address unconstitutional infringement of your rights. It takes a really long time to go through the process and a LOT of money. Even then, get the wrong appeals judges and bad lower court judges and it makes it almost impossible.

The system is fundamentally broken but that is for another thread.
The system is not 'broken,' that notion is naïve and sophomoric – and just because a judge rules in a manner with which you disagree doesn't mean that judge is 'bad.'

It is bad. They make you have to BUY back your rights that you lost. Do you think a person should lose a right because they wrote a bad check?
 
Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.
Except that will not work to make you any safer whatsoever. This has been shown time and time again. The evidence is solid - gun bans do not curb homicide rates. That is simply a fact.

You might 'feel' safer but that is about it and, quite frankly, how you feel is irrelevant to my rights. You do not get to limit or remove a right simply because you don't like the fact it exists.

Agree. The government had better have a damn good reason for taking away a right from a citizen.

Well....here in east Tennessee men have guns to take the place of their dicks and/or cojones. They also chew tobakky and drive their pickup trucks while displaying their confederate flags. What folks won't consider is that state-of-the-art weaponry when the constitution was written was muzzle loader muskets and cannon balls. Now every son-of-a-bitch in town thinks he's entitled to carry an automatic killing machine capable of firing military style bullets two or three a second.

Until something is done about gun shows there is no control. I can go to the parking lot of any gun show I've ever attended or heard about and buy anything from automatic weapons with armor piercing ammunition to rpg's or hand grenades. Take it out of his trunk and place it into mine, hand him a few hundred dollar bills then drive happily on my way. This country needs a whole new education about just where one guy's rights end and where the other guy's rights begin. The NRA is responsible for most of the weapons attitude in this country and as long as they continue to finance political campaigns nothing will change.
 
Last edited:
Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.
Except that will not work to make you any safer whatsoever. This has been shown time and time again. The evidence is solid - gun bans do not curb homicide rates. That is simply a fact.

You might 'feel' safer but that is about it and, quite frankly, how you feel is irrelevant to my rights. You do not get to limit or remove a right simply because you don't like the fact it exists.

Agree. The government had better have a damn good reason for taking away a right from a citizen.

Well...down here in east Tennessee men have guns to take the place of their penises. They also chew tobakky and drive their pickup trucks while displaying their confederate flags. What folks won't consider is that state-of-the-art weaponry when the constitution was written was muzzle loader muskets and cannon balls. Now every son-of-a-bitch in town thinks he's entitled to carry an automatic killing machine capable of firing military ammunition two or three times a second.

Until something is done about gun shows there is no control. I can go to the parking lot of any gun show I've ever attended or heard about and buy anything from rpg's to hand grenades. Take it out of his trunk and place it into mine, hand him a few hundred dollar bills then drive happily on my way. This country needs a whole new education about just where one guy's rights end and where the other guy's rights begin.

As far as your first paragraph, so what? It's really none of YOUR business. Just because you don't like people does NOT make it okay to take rights away. IF they are not criminals, then they retain their rights, whether you like it or not. Your personal opinions aside, you are insignificant and irrelevant when it comes to OUR rights as citizens of the US.

How many murderers have obtained weapons from gun shows?
 
I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.
And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.
It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.
It is odd but the reality is that the court system makes it very challenging to address unconstitutional infringement of your rights. It takes a really long time to go through the process and a LOT of money. Even then, get the wrong appeals judges and bad lower court judges and it makes it almost impossible.

The system is fundamentally broken but that is for another thread.
The system is not 'broken,' that notion is naïve and sophomoric – and just because a judge rules in a manner with which you disagree doesn't mean that judge is 'bad.'

Bullshit.
 
Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.
Except that will not work to make you any safer whatsoever. This has been shown time and time again. The evidence is solid - gun bans do not curb homicide rates. That is simply a fact.

You might 'feel' safer but that is about it and, quite frankly, how you feel is irrelevant to my rights. You do not get to limit or remove a right simply because you don't like the fact it exists.

Agree. The government had better have a damn good reason for taking away a right from a citizen.

Well....here in east Tennessee men have guns to take the place of their dicks and/or cojones. They also chew tobakky and drive their pickup trucks while displaying their confederate flags. What folks won't consider is that state-of-the-art weaponry when the constitution was written was muzzle loader muskets and cannon balls. Now every son-of-a-bitch in town thinks he's entitled to carry an automatic killing machine capable of firing military style bullets two or three a second.

Until something is done about gun shows there is no control. I can go to the parking lot of any gun show I've ever attended or heard about and buy anything from automatic weapons with armor piercing ammunition to rpg's or hand grenades. Take it out of his trunk and place it into mine, hand him a few hundred dollar bills then drive happily on my way. This country needs a whole new education about just where one guy's rights end and where the other guy's rights begin. The NRA is responsible for most of the weapons attitude in this country and as long as they continue to finance political campaigns nothing will change.
And yet none of those things are a real problem. You are more likely to be killed with a hammer.

The vast majority of crimes that are committed with a gun are committed with a hand gun - NOT an automatic rifle or an RPG.
 
No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.
The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.



PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.



.
Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it? :biggrin:



YES, INDEED , the fascists are still frantically changing the subject away from what the Constitution, the 2nd and 9th Amendments say. , and yes they are trying to talk about what "judges" and lawyers say instead.

By citing Amendment IX, you totally destroy your own fucking argument based on what you have written before this point, IDIOT! You don't understand that, but nonetheless you have, IDIOT!

As Madison wrote it:

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.” [Emphasis Added]
< 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) >

You and your brethren will probably not understand the FULL implication of Madison's words in the Congressional record above. I underscored the important part, but it will just be casting more pearls before swine. You'll refuse to concur with the efficacy of Madison's words and the pretend they are nothing. Pity the fools, for they are IDIOTS!
You underscored the very thing Madison was arguing AGAINST. Do you even understand what he said?
 
I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.
And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.
It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.
It is odd but the reality is that the court system makes it very challenging to address unconstitutional infringement of your rights. It takes a really long time to go through the process and a LOT of money. Even then, get the wrong appeals judges and bad lower court judges and it makes it almost impossible.

The system is fundamentally broken but that is for another thread.
The system is not 'broken,' that notion is naïve and sophomoric – and just because a judge rules in a manner with which you disagree doesn't mean that judge is 'bad.'
Really? It is not broken?

So we don't have a disparity in sentencing for race? We do not have a disparity in sentencing (or even delivering a guilty verdict) for the rich vs. the poor? We do not have issues in people getting proper legal defense when they cannot afford it?

I would go on but why bother. The fact that the system is broken is not only obvious but BLATANLTY so. The only 'sophomoric' attitude here is your need to insult facts that you are unable to deal with.
 
Probably the murders which have remained unsolved. After all....that was the original intent...to get away with it.

The only thing more dangerous than an ignorant American is an ignorant American packin' iron.

I repeat....when the forebears wrote down that crap they intended for the government to have a militia....not every schwangin' dick to have a bazooka.
 
Last edited:
Probably the murders which have remained unsolved. After all....that was the original intent...to get away with it.

The only thing more dangerous than an ignorant American is an ignorant American packin' iron.

I repeat....when the forebears wrote down that carp they intended for the government to have a militia....not every schwangin' dick to have a bazooka.

Sorry. "Probably" is not good enough. No they didn't intend for the GOVERNMENT to have a militia. They were totally against a centralized military power controlled by government. Perhaps you need to study the founders documents. I posted them right here in this thread.
 
Probably the murders which have remained unsolved. After all....that was the original intent...to get away with it.

The only thing more dangerous than an ignorant American is an ignorant American packin' iron.

I repeat....when the forebears wrote down that carp they intended for the government to have a militia....not every schwangin' dick to have a bazooka.

EVERY able-bodied man (and even women) was expected to have a firearm properly maintained and to know how to use it properly and be ready to use it at a moment's notice. And THAT is exactly what happened during the Revolutionary War. That army was made up of citizens.

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

Samuel Adams
 
Probably the murders which have remained unsolved. After all....that was the original intent...to get away with it.

The only thing more dangerous than an ignorant American is an ignorant American packin' iron.

I repeat....when the forebears wrote down that carp they intended for the government to have a militia....not every schwangin' dick to have a bazooka.

Sorry. "Probably" is not good enough. No they didn't intend for the GOVERNMENT to have a militia. They were totally against a centralized military power controlled by government. Perhaps you need to study the founders documents. I posted them right here in this thread.

Like I said.....the controls and liberties were written for muzzle loader muskets and cannon balls. Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be reviewed and laws modified as needed every 20 years.
 
The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.



PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.



.
Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it? :biggrin:



YES, INDEED , the fascists are still frantically changing the subject away from what the Constitution, the 2nd and 9th Amendments say. , and yes they are trying to talk about what "judges" and lawyers say instead.

By citing Amendment IX, you totally destroy your own fucking argument based on what you have written before this point, IDIOT! You don't understand that, but nonetheless you have, IDIOT!

As Madison wrote it:

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.” [Emphasis Added]
< 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) >

You and your brethren will probably not understand the FULL implication of Madison's words in the Congressional record above. I underscored the important part, but it will just be casting more pearls before swine. You'll refuse to concur with the efficacy of Madison's words and the pretend they are nothing. Pity the fools, for they are IDIOTS!

What do you think he is saying there?

When Madison wrote that passage, he was speaking to the "penumbra" of rights not enumerated directly in the Bill of Rights which were of the People, not the Federal and in need of recognition. In those cases where a non enumerated right had been "disparaged", the only remedy in the Great Contract for justice would be through the Congress and/or the Courts.

Given the two folks I was in "discussion" with both disavowed the right of Congress to legislate in the area of gun control AS WELL AS the Courts power of judicial review to interpret law, when one invoked Amendment IX I saw the corner he had painted himself into.

Disavowing the Constitutional powers of Article I & Article III on the one hand to defend their perceived inviolability of Amendment II, THEN invoking Amendment IX displayed a gross ignorance and/or hypocrisy without measure! I'm not surprised so many have questions about Amendment IX because it is rather obscure and seldom referenced in SCOTUS decisions.
 
PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.



.
Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it? :biggrin:



YES, INDEED , the fascists are still frantically changing the subject away from what the Constitution, the 2nd and 9th Amendments say. , and yes they are trying to talk about what "judges" and lawyers say instead.

By citing Amendment IX, you totally destroy your own fucking argument based on what you have written before this point, IDIOT! You don't understand that, but nonetheless you have, IDIOT!

As Madison wrote it:

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.” [Emphasis Added]
< 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) >

You and your brethren will probably not understand the FULL implication of Madison's words in the Congressional record above. I underscored the important part, but it will just be casting more pearls before swine. You'll refuse to concur with the efficacy of Madison's words and the pretend they are nothing. Pity the fools, for they are IDIOTS!

What do you think he is saying there?

When Madison wrote that passage, he was speaking to the "penumbra" of rights not enumerated directly in the Bill of Rights which were of the People, not the Federal and in need of recognition. In those cases where a non enumerated right had been "disparaged", the only remedy in the Great Contract for justice would be through the Congress and/or the Courts.

Given the two folks I was in "discussion" with both disavowed the right of Congress to legislate in the area of gun control AS WELL AS the Courts power of judicial review to interpret law, when one invoked Amendment IX I saw the corner he had painted himself into.

Disavowing the Constitutional powers of Article I & Article III on the one hand to defend their perceived inviolability of Amendment II, THEN invoking Amendment IX displayed a gross ignorance and/or hypocrisy without measure! I'm not surprised so many have questions about Amendment IX because it is rather obscure and seldom referenced in SCOTUS decisions.

Obviously . . . no he was not. Those papers and all of the quotes are specifically related to the 2nd amendment right.
 
Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it? :biggrin:



YES, INDEED , the fascists are still frantically changing the subject away from what the Constitution, the 2nd and 9th Amendments say. , and yes they are trying to talk about what "judges" and lawyers say instead.

By citing Amendment IX, you totally destroy your own fucking argument based on what you have written before this point, IDIOT! You don't understand that, but nonetheless you have, IDIOT!

As Madison wrote it:

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.” [Emphasis Added]
< 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) >

You and your brethren will probably not understand the FULL implication of Madison's words in the Congressional record above. I underscored the important part, but it will just be casting more pearls before swine. You'll refuse to concur with the efficacy of Madison's words and the pretend they are nothing. Pity the fools, for they are IDIOTS!

What do you think he is saying there?

When Madison wrote that passage, he was speaking to the "penumbra" of rights not enumerated directly in the Bill of Rights which were of the People, not the Federal and in need of recognition. In those cases where a non enumerated right had been "disparaged", the only remedy in the Great Contract for justice would be through the Congress and/or the Courts.

Given the two folks I was in "discussion" with both disavowed the right of Congress to legislate in the area of gun control AS WELL AS the Courts power of judicial review to interpret law, when one invoked Amendment IX I saw the corner he had painted himself into.

Disavowing the Constitutional powers of Article I & Article III on the one hand to defend their perceived inviolability of Amendment II, THEN invoking Amendment IX displayed a gross ignorance and/or hypocrisy without measure! I'm not surprised so many have questions about Amendment IX because it is rather obscure and seldom referenced in SCOTUS decisions.

Obviously . . . no he was not. Those papers and all of the quotes are specifically related to the 2nd amendment right.

First, who precisely are you speaking of, Second, to which "papers" are you referring and Third, Amendment IX was referenced not the Second. I'm sorry but your post appears to be rather cryptic, so I'm going to need particulars rather than vague references to people and things to formulate a proper response.
 
Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?
Sigh.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top