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

[Little-Acorn]

Right. And so, you can see that while the end does not say "except for...", it is not all-encompassing.

Well, the 2nd certainly doesn't protect the right to murder people. Or to steal guns. Or to rob banks. Or to cross a street in the wrong place. In that sense it is "not all-encompassing". Glad we got that straightened out. (Did anybody think it DID cover those things?)

It merely protects our right to keep and bear arms. And in that protection, the Framers were careful to make it all-encompassing. Though they made exceptions to other amendments, they kept all such exceptions OUT of the 2nd.

Why do you suppose they did that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right. And so, you can see that while the end does not say "except for...", it is not all-encompassing.

Well, the 2nd certainly doesn't protect the right to murder people. Or to steal guns. Or to rob banks. Or to cross a street in the wrong place. In that sense it is "not all-encompassing". Glad we got that straightened out. (Did anybody think it DID cover those things?)
It merely protects our right to keep and bear arms. And in that protection, the Framers were careful to make it all-encompassing.

But you see that it isn't -- you readily agree that there ARE limits to what the 2nd protects.
The operative words in the 2nd - "arms", "keep" and "bear", all have certain inherent definitions; anything that lies outside those definitions are not protected, even though the founders did not specifically mention exceptions.

 

[regent]

Again, as Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It merely protects our right to keep and bear arms. And in that protection, the Framers were careful to make it all-encompassing.

But you see that it isn't -- you readily agree that there ARE limits to what the 2nd protects.

Sure. The things the 2nd doesn't mention at all, aren't protected. (This is news?)

But for the things the 2nd DOES mention ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms"), its protection is all-encompassing, with no exceptions mentioned. The Framers most carefully wrote it that way.

Why do you suppose they did that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It merely protects our right to keep and bear arms. And in that protection, the Framers were careful to make it all-encompassing.

But you see that it isn't -- you readily agree that there ARE limits to what the 2nd protects.

Sure. The things the 2nd doesn't mention at all, aren't protected. (This is news?)
But for the things the 2nd DOES mention ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms"), its protection is all-encompassing, with no exceptions mentioned. The Framers most carefully wrote it that way.

I'm not sure I understand your argument here -- you freely admit that the 2nd does not protect everything but then say it is all-encompassing.
Please, help me out.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You appear to be contending that, since the 2nd amendment doesn't forbid government from making laws against murdering people (or using guns in other such destructive and illegal ways), that means it also doesn't forbid government from banning (say) handguns and permitting only long guns.

Such a contention is patently absurd.

The 2nd forbids government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Murdering someone is not "keeping and bearing arms". It a destructive and illegal use of arms - something the 2nd does not address at all.

The 2nd protects keeping and bearing arms. It doesn't protect murdering people, whether by using a gun or by other means.

Not sure how many different ways I can say this. They're all true and relevant. Your apparent contention is not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You appear to be contending that, since the 2nd amendment doesn't forbid government from making laws against murdering people (or using guns in other such destructive and illegal ways), that means it also doesn't forbid government from banning (say) handguns and permitting only long guns.
Such a contention is patently absurd.

But that's not my assertion.
My assertion is that the fact that the are no exceptions listed in the 2nd in no way means that the 2nd protects -everything- related to the right to keep and bear arms. You seem to agree...?
And so, the "no exceptions" tack doesn't really hold water.

And of course, the 5th amendment effectively deals with the "No felons" part.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Justice Scalia in Heller says you are dead wrong! Why don't you write Scalia and tell him he and four other SCOTUS Justices got it wrong and you know the right of it! Now why do you want to keep pissing into the wind?

FREEMEN WILL DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO, THE NARCOTIZED WILL LOOK FOR PRETEXTS TO CONTINUE THEIR INERTIA AND COMPLACENCY.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Justice Scalia in Heller says you are dead wrong! Why don't you write Scalia and tell him he and four other SCOTUS Justices got it wrong and you know the right of it! Now why do you want to keep pissing into the wind?

FREEMEN WILL DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO, THE NARCOTIZED WILL LOOK FOR PRETEXTS TO CONTINUE THEIR INERTIA AND COMPLACENCY.

One can lead a horses ass to water, but...
Justice Scalia and the Constitution say you are dead wrong, Putz!
Revel in your stubborn ignorance and drink not from the well of truth, but rather take the foul wine of fools!

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Justice Scalia in Heller says you are dead wrong! Why don't you write Scalia and tell him he and four other SCOTUS Justices got it wrong and you know the right of it! Now why do you want to keep pissing into the wind?

FREEMEN WILL DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO, THE NARCOTIZED WILL LOOK FOR PRETEXTS TO CONTINUE THEIR INERTIA AND COMPLACENCY.

One can lead a horses ass to water, but...
Justice Scalia and the Constitution say you are dead wrong, Putz!
Revel in your stubborn ignorance and drink not from the well of truth, but rather take the foul wine of fools!

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE ....YOU ARE NOT LEADING ANYONE TO WATER . WHAT YOU ARE PROVIDING IS THE JIM JONES BRAND OF KOOL-AID.

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

But that's not my assertion.
My assertion is that the fact that the are no exceptions listed in the 2nd in no way means that the 2nd protects -everything- related to the right to keep and bear arms.

(patiently)

The use of a gun to murder someone is not "related to the right to keep and bear arms" in any significant way.

I have yet to find anyone who thinks it is.

The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms. Without exception.

Clear now?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But that's not my assertion.
My assertion is that the fact that the are no exceptions listed in the 2nd in no way means that the 2nd protects -everything- related to the right to keep and bear arms.

(patiently)
The use of a gun to murder someone is not "related to the right to keep and bear arms" in any significant way.
I have yet to find anyone who thinks it is.
The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms. Without exception.
Clear now?

The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms, and everything contained therein; it does not protect usage and weaponry that does not fall under its umbrella. Gotcha.
I agree 99.99% - it is possible for infringements on the RKBA to pas constitutional muster, should they survive a strict scrutiny test.

 

[RKMBrown]

But that's not my assertion.
My assertion is that the fact that the are no exceptions listed in the 2nd in no way means that the 2nd protects -everything- related to the right to keep and bear arms.

(patiently)
The use of a gun to murder someone is not "related to the right to keep and bear arms" in any significant way.
I have yet to find anyone who thinks it is.
The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms. Without exception.
Clear now?

The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms, and everything contained therein; it does not protect usage and weaponry that does not fall under its umbrella. Gotcha.
I agree 99.99% - it is possible for infringements on the RKBA to pas constitutional muster, should they survive a strict scrutiny test.

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If the founders had wanted to make gun rights absolute they could have written it as such

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD
They did not

That seems absolute enough to me, especially when you ponder the meaning ofthe word “infringed”, and the choice of that word for this use in the Second Amendment. It's related to the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something. To “infringe” a thing is to touch that barest edge of it. By prohibiting government from infringing the right that it asserts, the Second Amendment is saying that government is not to even touch the barest edges of this right. It is the clearest, strongest, and most absolute language found anywhere in the Constitution. This right is stated as belonging to the people, and not to government, not even to the states (as one might otherwise try to suppose from the Tenth Amendment), and government is forbidden from even touching the barest edges of this right.

Yet, restrictions on ownership have been upheld repeatedly. Scalia even said assault rifles can be banned. Curious that.

at one point the supreme court thought it constitutional to own slaves, to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, or gays to marry, It was constitutional at one point for women and blacks to be kept from voting. Actually voting was at one time constitutional for only property owners to participate.
I am assuming that you think we should go back to that because the supreme court could never get it wrong,.

That aside, could you provide a link to the area in the constitution that says there are limits on the 2nd?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Incorrect.
The 2nd has been incorporated against the states.

 

[RKMBrown]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Incorrect.
The 2nd has been incorporated against the states.

That would be the 14th not the 2nd. And it has not been "fully" incorporated. Nor has the 2nd been "fully" defended by our courts. See current federal and state restrictions against your rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Incorrect.
The 2nd has been incorporated against the states.

That would be the 14th not the 2nd. And it has not been "fully" incorporated.

Mv. CHICAGO
Incorporated.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd does not specify which government it is forbidding to infringe the RKBA. So, that means it for bids ALL governments in the US, from infringing. Fed, state, local.

The 1st says "Congress shall make no law respecting..." etc. etc. So when it was ratified, it only restricted the Federal govt. It did this because most states at the time had laws specifying the state's official religion! And the Framers didn't want to mess with that. Those state laws mostly fell into disuse if they hadn't already. And the 14th amendment later changed that to extend the 1st to state and local governments ("incorporation").

But the 2nd started off restricting ALL governments, not just the Fed. The Supremes recently announced in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that it "now" extends to the states and local govts too. But in fact it always did.

If you want to know what the amendment says, read it. Its text overrules any "opinion" from any Court, including the Supremes. Only if the text of an amendment isn't clear, do the courts' "opinions" have any weight... and the 2nd is completely clear.

 

[ChrisL]

But that's not my assertion.
My assertion is that the fact that the are no exceptions listed in the 2nd in no way means that the 2nd protects -everything- related to the right to keep and bear arms.

(patiently)
The use of a gun to murder someone is not "related to the right to keep and bear arms" in any significant way.
I have yet to find anyone who thinks it is.
The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms. Without exception.
Clear now?

The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms, and everything contained therein; it does not protect usage and weaponry that does not fall under its umbrella. Gotcha.
I agree 99.99% - it is possible for infringements on the RKBA to pas constitutional muster, should they survive a strict scrutiny test.

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

The McDonald decision said that, in 2010.

But the 2nd amendment said that in 1791. The Supremes just repeated it. See my previous post.