Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
Well, I was talking about Madison, but there are many others who shared their views if you read the link. I linked you to the federalist papers. You should read them to get an idea of how the founding fathers felt about the 2nd amendment right. It is actually one of THE most important rights in their minds.
AGAIN, because you seem to demand on ignoring this fact, there were laws that backed specific religions as after the founding as well.Prohibitions on where firearms can be discharged for practice, and regulations on storage that don't "infringe" on self-defense.Such as?How can a right be violated if the restriction placed on it is consistent with limitations of freedoms present when the constitution and BoR were ratified?No right is unlimited -- and no one argues otherwise.Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.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.
That, however, does not mean that any limit you might want to place on a right does not violate that right.
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.
Well, I was talking about Madison, but there are many others who shared their views if you read the link. I linked you to the federalist papers. You should read them to get an idea of how the founding fathers felt about the 2nd amendment right. It is actually one of THE most important rights in their minds.
I have read everything Publius, in the persons of Hamilton, Jay and Madison, wrote. If you'll look at my sig line you'll see a quote of Madison's from #10 on faction, which I fully trust is the base issue this fractured Nation is staggering form under its weight. I saw neither link nor citation in your post...an oversight?
I know the history, but I also know the Constitution, not as a scholar, or lawyer, but as a long time student as it was written, with Congress endowed with SPECIFIC enumerated Article I powers and as judicially reviewed by SCOTUS.
I do not have to overcome the impediment of being poorly informed of the factual bases of the Constitution or the Federalist. However, those persons who make the claim that Congress is powerless to regulate arms control statutes and SCOTUS has no power of judicial review over those same arms control statutes are simply dead wrong!
Congress passes the laws and if contested the Courts will review based on the intent of the Constitution and other pertinent documents and sources. The bottom line is that it matters not what the OPINIONS of a number of Federalist and Anti-Federalist were near the end of the 18th Century, but rather their distinct INTENT determining what the LAW passing from Congress and/or as REVIEWED by SCOTUS is TODAY!!!!
LET ME AGAIN POINT OUT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND OURSELVES WAS PRIMARILY PROTECTED BY THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE NINTH AMENDMENT AND EMPHASIZED BY THE 2A.
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.
Well, I was talking about Madison, but there are many others who shared their views if you read the link. I linked you to the federalist papers. You should read them to get an idea of how the founding fathers felt about the 2nd amendment right. It is actually one of THE most important rights in their minds.
I have read everything Publius, in the persons of Hamilton, Jay and Madison, wrote. If you'll look at my sig line you'll see a quote of Madison's from #10 on faction, which I fully trust is the base issue this fractured Nation is staggering form under its weight. I saw neither link nor citation in your post...an oversight?
I know the history, but I also know the Constitution, not as a scholar, or lawyer, but as a long time student as it was written, with Congress endowed with SPECIFIC enumerated Article I powers and as judicially reviewed by SCOTUS.
I do not have to overcome the impediment of being poorly informed of the factual bases of the Constitution or the Federalist. However, those persons who make the claim that Congress is powerless to regulate arms control statutes and SCOTUS has no power of judicial review over those same arms control statutes are simply dead wrong!
Congress passes the laws and if contested the Courts will review based on the intent of the Constitution and other pertinent documents and sources. The bottom line is that it matters not what the OPINIONS of a number of Federalist and Anti-Federalist were near the end of the 18th Century, but rather their distinct INTENT determining what the LAW passing from Congress and/or as REVIEWED by SCOTUS is TODAY!!!!
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events
Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
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.
Well, I was talking about Madison, but there are many others who shared their views if you read the link. I linked you to the federalist papers. You should read them to get an idea of how the founding fathers felt about the 2nd amendment right. It is actually one of THE most important rights in their minds.
I have read everything Publius, in the persons of Hamilton, Jay and Madison, wrote. If you'll look at my sig line you'll see a quote of Madison's from #10 on faction, which I fully trust is the base issue this fractured Nation is staggering form under its weight. I saw neither link nor citation in your post...an oversight?
I know the history, but I also know the Constitution, not as a scholar, or lawyer, but as a long time student as it was written, with Congress endowed with SPECIFIC enumerated Article I powers and as judicially reviewed by SCOTUS.
I do not have to overcome the impediment of being poorly informed of the factual bases of the Constitution or the Federalist. However, those persons who make the claim that Congress is powerless to regulate arms control statutes and SCOTUS has no power of judicial review over those same arms control statutes are simply dead wrong!
Congress passes the laws and if contested the Courts will review based on the intent of the Constitution and other pertinent documents and sources. The bottom line is that it matters not what the OPINIONS of a number of Federalist and Anti-Federalist were near the end of the 18th Century, but rather their distinct INTENT determining what the LAW passing from Congress and/or as REVIEWED by SCOTUS is TODAY!!!!
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events
Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
You wrote:
"Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia."
I never implied he did. Besides, the Constitution already existed when it was amended by the BoR! You seem confused with the genesis of the Constitution and the following amendment process During the First Session of Congress under the new and RATIFIED Constitution.
Now will you address what Justice Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, posted below regarding Amendment II;
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >
Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"
"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >
That is currently the law of the land. Q.E.D.
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.
Well, I was talking about Madison, but there are many others who shared their views if you read the link. I linked you to the federalist papers. You should read them to get an idea of how the founding fathers felt about the 2nd amendment right. It is actually one of THE most important rights in their minds.
I have read everything Publius, in the persons of Hamilton, Jay and Madison, wrote. If you'll look at my sig line you'll see a quote of Madison's from #10 on faction, which I fully trust is the base issue this fractured Nation is staggering form under its weight. I saw neither link nor citation in your post...an oversight?
I know the history, but I also know the Constitution, not as a scholar, or lawyer, but as a long time student as it was written, with Congress endowed with SPECIFIC enumerated Article I powers and as judicially reviewed by SCOTUS.
I do not have to overcome the impediment of being poorly informed of the factual bases of the Constitution or the Federalist. However, those persons who make the claim that Congress is powerless to regulate arms control statutes and SCOTUS has no power of judicial review over those same arms control statutes are simply dead wrong!
Congress passes the laws and if contested the Courts will review based on the intent of the Constitution and other pertinent documents and sources. The bottom line is that it matters not what the OPINIONS of a number of Federalist and Anti-Federalist were near the end of the 18th Century, but rather their distinct INTENT determining what the LAW passing from Congress and/or as REVIEWED by SCOTUS is TODAY!!!!
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events
Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
You wrote:
"Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia."
I never implied he did. Besides, the Constitution already existed when it was amended by the BoR! You seem confused with the genesis of the Constitution and the following amendment process During the First Session of Congress under the new and RATIFIED Constitution.
Now will you address what Justice Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, posted below regarding Amendment II;
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >
Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"
"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >
That is currently the law of the land. Q.E.D.
Right. We already have laws regarding weapons. I'm not confused. The point is, the founders wanted all citizens to have 2nd amendment rights. Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to take away an individual citizen's 2nd amendment right because of something like a bounced check?
Well, I was talking about Madison, but there are many others who shared their views if you read the link. I linked you to the federalist papers. You should read them to get an idea of how the founding fathers felt about the 2nd amendment right. It is actually one of THE most important rights in their minds.
I have read everything Publius, in the persons of Hamilton, Jay and Madison, wrote. If you'll look at my sig line you'll see a quote of Madison's from #10 on faction, which I fully trust is the base issue this fractured Nation is staggering form under its weight. I saw neither link nor citation in your post...an oversight?
I know the history, but I also know the Constitution, not as a scholar, or lawyer, but as a long time student as it was written, with Congress endowed with SPECIFIC enumerated Article I powers and as judicially reviewed by SCOTUS.
I do not have to overcome the impediment of being poorly informed of the factual bases of the Constitution or the Federalist. However, those persons who make the claim that Congress is powerless to regulate arms control statutes and SCOTUS has no power of judicial review over those same arms control statutes are simply dead wrong!
Congress passes the laws and if contested the Courts will review based on the intent of the Constitution and other pertinent documents and sources. The bottom line is that it matters not what the OPINIONS of a number of Federalist and Anti-Federalist were near the end of the 18th Century, but rather their distinct INTENT determining what the LAW passing from Congress and/or as REVIEWED by SCOTUS is TODAY!!!!
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events
Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
You wrote:
"Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia."
I never implied he did. Besides, the Constitution already existed when it was amended by the BoR! You seem confused with the genesis of the Constitution and the following amendment process During the First Session of Congress under the new and RATIFIED Constitution.
Now will you address what Justice Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, posted below regarding Amendment II;
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >
Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"
"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >
That is currently the law of the land. Q.E.D.
Right. We already have laws regarding weapons. I'm not confused. The point is, the founders wanted all citizens to have 2nd amendment rights. Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to take away an individual citizen's 2nd amendment right because of something like a bounced check?
NO, NO, NO not so very fast. To respond to your possible trap question properly, first respond to mine which goes to the REAL question which is intrinsically and overridingly linked to yours, well the other way around, actually. I don't respond to hypotheticals without all boundaries being defined. Do you agree that what Scalia wrote in Heller is established law? "Something like a bounced check" can be redefined so easily to twist meanings. So where are you with the bounds Scalia set for Amendment II and those proscriptions and inclusions?
I have read everything Publius, in the persons of Hamilton, Jay and Madison, wrote. If you'll look at my sig line you'll see a quote of Madison's from #10 on faction, which I fully trust is the base issue this fractured Nation is staggering form under its weight. I saw neither link nor citation in your post...an oversight?
I know the history, but I also know the Constitution, not as a scholar, or lawyer, but as a long time student as it was written, with Congress endowed with SPECIFIC enumerated Article I powers and as judicially reviewed by SCOTUS.
I do not have to overcome the impediment of being poorly informed of the factual bases of the Constitution or the Federalist. However, those persons who make the claim that Congress is powerless to regulate arms control statutes and SCOTUS has no power of judicial review over those same arms control statutes are simply dead wrong!
Congress passes the laws and if contested the Courts will review based on the intent of the Constitution and other pertinent documents and sources. The bottom line is that it matters not what the OPINIONS of a number of Federalist and Anti-Federalist were near the end of the 18th Century, but rather their distinct INTENT determining what the LAW passing from Congress and/or as REVIEWED by SCOTUS is TODAY!!!!
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events
Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
You wrote:
"Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia."
I never implied he did. Besides, the Constitution already existed when it was amended by the BoR! You seem confused with the genesis of the Constitution and the following amendment process During the First Session of Congress under the new and RATIFIED Constitution.
Now will you address what Justice Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, posted below regarding Amendment II;
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >
Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"
"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >
That is currently the law of the land. Q.E.D.
Right. We already have laws regarding weapons. I'm not confused. The point is, the founders wanted all citizens to have 2nd amendment rights. Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to take away an individual citizen's 2nd amendment right because of something like a bounced check?
NO, NO, NO not so very fast. To respond to your possible trap question properly, first respond to mine which goes to the REAL question which is intrinsically and overridingly linked to yours, well the other way around, actually. I don't respond to hypotheticals without all boundaries being defined. Do you agree that what Scalia wrote in Heller is established law? "Something like a bounced check" can be redefined so easily to twist meanings. So where are you with the bounds Scalia set for Amendment II and those proscriptions and inclusions?
Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?
I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.
Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?
If you can find one for sale in any gun store you walk into, it's not unusual.Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events
Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
You wrote:
"Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia."
I never implied he did. Besides, the Constitution already existed when it was amended by the BoR! You seem confused with the genesis of the Constitution and the following amendment process During the First Session of Congress under the new and RATIFIED Constitution.
Now will you address what Justice Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, posted below regarding Amendment II;
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >
Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"
"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >
That is currently the law of the land. Q.E.D.
Right. We already have laws regarding weapons. I'm not confused. The point is, the founders wanted all citizens to have 2nd amendment rights. Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to take away an individual citizen's 2nd amendment right because of something like a bounced check?
NO, NO, NO not so very fast. To respond to your possible trap question properly, first respond to mine which goes to the REAL question which is intrinsically and overridingly linked to yours, well the other way around, actually. I don't respond to hypotheticals without all boundaries being defined. Do you agree that what Scalia wrote in Heller is established law? "Something like a bounced check" can be redefined so easily to twist meanings. So where are you with the bounds Scalia set for Amendment II and those proscriptions and inclusions?
Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?
I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.
Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?
I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.
If you can find one for sale in any gun store you walk into, it's not unusual.Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?
Not that I have seen, and certainly not one according to law.Well, is there a specific definition they are using for the term "unusual weapon."If you can find one for sale in any gun store you walk into, it's not unusual.Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?
Recall that the weapon in question must be both dangerous AND unusual, with the understanding that as all guns are inherently dangerous, the term used in the decision must refer to a distinctly greater level.I understand that probably owning a fully armed military style tank would be made illegal, but I just wonder what would make one gun more unusual than another gun?
You wrote:
"Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia."
I never implied he did. Besides, the Constitution already existed when it was amended by the BoR! You seem confused with the genesis of the Constitution and the following amendment process During the First Session of Congress under the new and RATIFIED Constitution.
Now will you address what Justice Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, posted below regarding Amendment II;
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >
Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"
"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >
That is currently the law of the land. Q.E.D.
Right. We already have laws regarding weapons. I'm not confused. The point is, the founders wanted all citizens to have 2nd amendment rights. Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to take away an individual citizen's 2nd amendment right because of something like a bounced check?
NO, NO, NO not so very fast. To respond to your possible trap question properly, first respond to mine which goes to the REAL question which is intrinsically and overridingly linked to yours, well the other way around, actually. I don't respond to hypotheticals without all boundaries being defined. Do you agree that what Scalia wrote in Heller is established law? "Something like a bounced check" can be redefined so easily to twist meanings. So where are you with the bounds Scalia set for Amendment II and those proscriptions and inclusions?
Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?
I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.
Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?
I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.
Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.
While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.
While the protection afforded to the right to arms by the 2nd is broad, extensive, expansive and powerful, certain things must be noted:I see the usual liberals are still trying to hijack this thread, away from the subject of whether the 2nd amendment allows for no exceptions and restrictions, and talk about what judges and lawyers have said instead. And even gun-rights-supporters such as M14shooter are falling for it and going along.
Back to the subject:
When the 2nd amendment was written and ratified, there existed weapons such as large cannons firing explosive shells, pistols that could fire multiple shots without reloading, and gunpowder bombs that could blow up an entire building and kill hundreds. And there were just as many criminals (in proportion) and crazy people who might murder people with those weapons.
Yet the Framers wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions, and NO "reasonable restrictions", unlike several other amendments and passages in the Constitution.
Correct. It only protects your right to keep and bear. Not to murder people, destroy property, actively threaten people etc. Not that anybody ever said it did.- As the 1st amendment does not protect anything you can possibly think of to say, the 2nd does not protect every possible way you could use any possible weapon.
The 6th amendment says nothing even close to that. Did some liberal tell you it did? And you believed him?The 6th amendment allows the state to remove any and all liberties someone may have, thru due process; the right to arms is no exception.
Right. And so, you can see that while the end does not say "except for...", it is not all-encompassing.Correct. It only protects your right to keep and bear. Not to murder people, destroy property, actively threaten people etc. Not that anybody ever said it did.- As the 1st amendment does not protect anything you can possibly think of to say, the 2nd does not protect every possible way you could use any possible weapon.
Whoops - 5th amendment, Mis-yped.The 6th amendment says nothing even close to that. Did some liberal tell you it did? And you believed him?The 6th amendment allows the state to remove any and all liberties someone may have, thru due process; the right to arms is no exception.
