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

[Little-Acorn]

And the Framers also put a way to modify or add to the Constitution, any time the people thought it wasn't adequate.

So far, the people have found the 2nd amendment to be perfectly adequate, even to the modern life we lead. In part because they realize that making more laws won't do any good, and will only restrict people who obey laws.

Only a few disgruntled liberals who can't bear not being in total control of those around them, are whining.

But the Constitution was specifically designed to keep such whiny liberals, far from any power. Unless the people decided they want to be controlled by whiny government-uber-alles liberals.

 

[Campbell]

Because in those days, muskets posed little danger in the hands of one lunatic who wanted to play tyrant for a day. Much less, nobody back then was foolish enough to think that firing one round per minute could protect one individual from the government if it were to become corrupt. A person had to have the help of the rest of the community for such an effort.

And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?

Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.

Right On!!

There's one helluva difference in 2 rounds a minute vs 500 rounds a minute. Also a considerable difference in a cannon ball and a cruise missile.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The right to own weapons is a tricky one too.

Not really. The 2nd amendment lays it out clearly and concisely.

It's only gun-right-hating liberals who try to pretend it's tricky, in an attempt to fool people into letting them violate it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Because in those days, muskets posed little danger in the hands of one lunatic who wanted to play tyrant for a day. Much less, nobody back then was foolish enough to think that firing one round per minute could protect one individual from the government if it were to become corrupt. A person had to have the help of the rest of the community for such an effort.

And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?

Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.

Right On!!

There's one helluva difference in 2 rounds a minute vs 500 rounds a minute. Also a considerable difference in a cannon ball and a cruise missile.

Then go ahead and amend the 2nd to give government the power to restrict of ban weapons you don't like.

Let us know how that goes for you.

 

[jillian]

The right to own weapons is a tricky one too.

Not really. The 2nd amendment lays it out clearly and concisely.

It's only gun-right-hating liberals who try to pretend it's tricky, in an attempt to fool people into letting them violate it.

no, idiota. for 200 years no one believed the nonsense you idiots spew. even heller doesn't go as far as you wackos do.

and if it were that simple, then everyone would believe your BS

 

[jillian]

Because in those days, muskets posed little danger in the hands of one lunatic who wanted to play tyrant for a day. Much less, nobody back then was foolish enough to think that firing one round per minute could protect one individual from the government if it were to become corrupt. A person had to have the help of the rest of the community for such an effort.

And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?

Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.

Right On!!

There's one helluva difference in 2 rounds a minute vs 500 rounds a minute. Also a considerable difference in a cannon ball and a cruise missile.

Then go ahead and amend the 2nd to give government the power to restrict of ban weapons you don't like.

Let us know how that goes for you.

government already has the power to regulate. heller says so. total ban, is another thing, but that wasn't the law until scalia perverted it. but such is life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why then aren't felons in confinement allowed to have guns?

Didn't even read the post you quoted, eh?

Why aren't felons in confinement allowed to have guns? How is it possible for their gun rights to be taken away in that case?

Didn't even read the post you quoted, eh?

Felons can lose their right to own guns and there is no need for the 2nd to explicitly state that.

End of story.

 

[konradv]

The usual liberal diversion: If he can't refute something I said, he tries to pretend I said something else, and tries to bash me for that instead.

Are you saying you already forgot that you posted this?

The USSC has never addressed the issue, except in one case in the 1930s where the entire defense team never showed up for the trial. They rubber-stamped a number of lies by the govt prosecution, into an "opinion". And the Left has been desperate to never touch the issue ever since that "case".

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to own weapons is a tricky one too.

Not really. The 2nd amendment lays it out clearly and concisely.

It's only gun-right-hating liberals who try to pretend it's tricky, in an attempt to fool people into letting them violate it.

Not really? You could expand on this rather than just going off bitching about liberals.

I know what I'm talking about, so you could respond to what I wrote or you could talk nonsense. So try to respond to what I said.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Because in those days, muskets posed little danger in the hands of one lunatic who wanted to play tyrant for a day. Much less, nobody back then was foolish enough to think that firing one round per minute could protect one individual from the government if it were to become corrupt. A person had to have the help of the rest of the community for such an effort.

And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?

Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.

The type of weapon that can be borne is of no consequence where concerns the amendment, save ordnance. It's a silly argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why then aren't felons in confinement allowed to have guns?

Didn't even read the post you quoted, eh?

Why aren't felons in confinement allowed to have guns? How is it possible for their gun rights to be taken away in that case?

Didn't even read the post you quoted, eh?

Felons can lose their right to own guns and there is no need for the 2nd to explicitly state that.

End of story.

Not really. They don't lose their right, they have their right infringed upon. They just sometimes make that permanent.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because in those days, muskets posed little danger in the hands of one lunatic who wanted to play tyrant for a day. Much less, nobody back then was foolish enough to think that firing one round per minute could protect one individual from the government if it were to become corrupt. A person had to have the help of the rest of the community for such an effort.

And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?

Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.

The type of weapon that can be borne is of no consequence where concerns the amendment, save ordnance. It's a silly argument.

Well, it's not about bearing specific weapons anyway. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The militia would either require you to bring your own, or in modern times most likely provide you with weapons, mainly because you'd be in the National Guard.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why then aren't felons in confinement allowed to have guns?

Didn't even read the post you quoted, eh?

Why aren't felons in confinement allowed to have guns? How is it possible for their gun rights to be taken away in that case?

Didn't even read the post you quoted, eh?

Felons can lose their right to own guns and there is no need for the 2nd to explicitly state that.

End of story.

Not really. They don't lose their right, they have their right infringed upon. They just sometimes make that permanent.

No, they lose the right, same as the right to vote, as part of the penalty for their crimes. The rights in most states can be recovered by the Governor's authority if deemed proper.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Because in those days, muskets posed little danger in the hands of one lunatic who wanted to play tyrant for a day. Much less, nobody back then was foolish enough to think that firing one round per minute could protect one individual from the government if it were to become corrupt. A person had to have the help of the rest of the community for such an effort.

And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?

Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.

The type of weapon that can be borne is of no consequence where concerns the amendment, save ordnance. It's a silly argument.

Well, it's not about bearing specific weapons anyway. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The militia would either require you to bring your own, or in modern times most likely provide you with weapons, mainly because you'd be in the National Guard.

And the cow jumped over the moon.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There's one helluva difference in 2 rounds a minute vs 500 rounds a minute. Also a considerable difference in a cannon ball and a cruise missile.

There's also a hell of a difference between setting type by hand, and printing up a dozen copies on an old hand-operated printing pres,s to be distribute locally; and which would take months to cross the ocean if sent by messenger; and being able to post something on an Internet forum and have it instantly be seen by people all over the world.

The First Amendment only explicitly mentions freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Do you think it applies as well to postings on the Internet?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the Framers also put a way to modify or add to the Constitution, any time the people thought it wasn't adequate.

So far, the people have found the 2nd amendment to be perfectly adequate, even to the modern life we lead. In part because they realize that making more laws won't do any good, and will only restrict people who obey laws.

Only a few disgruntled liberals who can't bear not being in total control of those around them, are whining.

But the Constitution was specifically designed to keep such whiny liberals, far from any power. Unless the people decided they want to be controlled by whiny government-uber-alles liberals.

Nonsense.

The Court's interpretive authority in no way 'modifies' or 'adds to' the Constitution, to maintain otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

It's a majority of conservatives who are disgruntled, frustrated that the Constitution and its case law prohibit them from seeking to disadvantage classes of persons because those persons refuse to conform to wrongheaded conservative dogma, and the fear of diversity and expressions of individual liberty common to most on the authoritarian right.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law

Sheer nonsense.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As you can see, when liberals want to start restricting people's right to carry a gun, they start talking about what courts say, what Federal law says, what "everybody knows", or what "is only common sense"... but they carefully avoid talking about what the Constitution says. Even though it supersedes all the rest.

Or they simply announce the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says. But somehow the rest DO mean it.

There's a reason for their oh-so-careful evasion. They know they are wrong, and the Constitution flatly forbids what they want.

Their evasions are simply a means to justify violating it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Acorn..........to me, all this executive action shit...........its all good. Make apolitical people political. Sells waaaaaaaaaaaay more guns......ammo. Gets people involved. Sharpens peoples anger thus increases action. It more clearly defines the lines between those who love our country and those who loath it. To me.....its all good. It brings people to the point of realizing that the constitution will need to be defended one way or another.

Watch the gun sales numbers by the end of January!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Because in those days, muskets posed little danger in the hands of one lunatic who wanted to play tyrant for a day. Much less, nobody back then was foolish enough to think that firing one round per minute could protect one individual from the government if it were to become corrupt. A person had to have the help of the rest of the community for such an effort.

And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?

Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.

The type of weapon that can be borne is of no consequence where concerns the amendment, save ordnance. It's a silly argument.

Well, it's not about bearing specific weapons anyway. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The militia would either require you to bring your own, or in modern times most likely provide you with weapons, mainly because you'd be in the National Guard.

And the cow jumped over the moon.