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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is called an "infringment".

Not according to the USSC. I'm afraid your opinion doesn't measure up.

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".

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Miller concerned nothing of the sort.

And acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see US v. Morrison).

That the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of the constitutionality of laws disallowing prohibited persons from possessing firearms does not mean such laws are an 'infringement' on the Second Amendment right.

Moreover, the Heller Court reaffirmed the validity of such laws when it admonished lower courts to not infer that their ruling undermined laws designating prohibited persons.

 

[bripat9643]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

The sentence is purely explanatory. It has no legal force.

Of course, you've had this explained to you 100 times already, but you obviously don't give a crap.

 

[konradv]

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.

Alright, NO EVASION. If the USSC doesn't say something is unconstitutional, it isn't unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't have a problem with "common sense" regulations and laws,

The Constitution does.

Unlike many other sections that say "Except by due process of law" or "unreasonable search and seizure...", the Framers carefully left out any such exceptions from the 2nd amendment.

Why do you suppose they did wrote the 2nd so differently from the other sections?

They didn't.

The Second Amendment is written in the same manner as the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights; and the Framers fully expected the Second Amendment to be subject to interpretation as those other Amendments.

As with other Amendments, the Second Amendment is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

For example, shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is not speech entitled to First Amendment protection, someone subject to criminal prosecution for doing so is not having his right to free speech 'violated.'

The First Amendment does not protect speech that manifest as fighting words seeking to provoke violence, it does not protect speech that advocates for imminent lawlessness, and it does not protect speech that constitutes defamation.

Consequently, the Constitution has 'no problem' with reasonable restrictions on citizens' rights that are perceived as common sense measures to the average person, such as prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms.

 

[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.

As with other Amendments, the Second Amendment is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

See?

 

[konradv]

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

As with other Amendments, the Second Amendment is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

See?

What I see is that you want to talk about the Constitution, but ignore the arbiters of the Constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As with other Amendments, the Second Amendment is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government

Illiterate nonsense.

 

[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.

And the cow jumped over the moon.

And I can back up everything you say, and you resort to simple diversion tactics to avoid talking about this topic. What are you afraid of exactly?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

No, they still have the right. They just can't exercise it. Maybe they get pardoned, maybe they find out they didn't do the crime. What then? If they lost their right then they can't get it back.

In China everyone has rights, but they can't exercise these rights. They haven't had the rights taken away from them. They're just infringed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law

Sheer nonsense.

Why?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law

Sheer nonsense.

Why?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law

Sheer nonsense.

Why?

 

[amrchaos]

By the way

Felons can get all their rights re-instated by the courts. Hence, they can regain the right to bear arms through court review.

Thank a liberal/libertarian for that. Or should you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

The sentence is purely explanatory. It has no legal force.

Of course, you've had this explained to you 100 times already, but you obviously don't give a crap.

If it's explanatory, then it's explaining that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the right of states to form and arm militias.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no stated 'exceptions' to the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and the press,

but the Court has not been prevented from ruling there are exceptions.

Find me the people who believe that the Court wrongly denies producers of child pornography 1st amendment protections.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By the way

Felons can get all their rights re-instated by the courts. Hence, they can regain the right to bear arms through court review.

Thank a liberal/libertarian for that. Or should you?

Convicted felons can lose all sorts of rights and privileges by the mere fact of their conviction. If the statutory penalties for any or all felonies in any given state include the loss of gun rights, that is not in conflict with the Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Ah, yes, they start talking about what the courts say, what exists, what the constitution says, rather than just making stuff up on the spot.

 

[Kosh]

By the way

Felons can get all their rights re-instated by the courts. Hence, they can regain the right to bear arms through court review.

Thank a liberal/libertarian for that. Or should you?

Convicted felons can lose all sorts of rights and privileges by the mere fact of their conviction. If the statutory penalties for any or all felonies in any given state include the loss of gun rights, that is not in conflict with the Constitution.

Thus proving that they are not "rights", correct far left drone?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

And I can back up everything you say, and you resort to simple diversion tactics to avoid talking about this topic. What are you afraid of exactly?

The topic has been discussed ad infinitum, and the issue has been settled by history, the writings of the FF's, American tradition, the recent SCOTUS reiteration and the fact that Obama has increased gun ownership in the United States by 50% all by himself.

Scream "militia" all you want. Your side lost.

 

[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.

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.

Only an idiot doesn't know how much effort and activity it takes to amend the constitution. I'm a fan of Thomas Jefferson....he wrote that he believed the constitution and bill of rights should be reviewed and amended periodically to adjust for variance and modernization. I'll give ten to one odds if there had been caches of automatic weapons and nukes around the original would have read one helluva lot different.

Just curious....what do you think the framers meant when they referred to a "well regulated militia?"