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

[Bob Blaylock]

See previous. Also, the Constitution requires NO interpretation. It is quite clear in what it says.

Interpretation is necessary.

Only to those who do not agree with what the Constitution clearly says, and who do not wish for it to be obeyed.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're interpreting the Constitution incorrectly.

I am not interpreting at all. I am reporting what it clearly says.

The 2nd amendment says "the peoples" [sic] right may not be abridged. It doesn't say that a "person" may not have to meet certain standards.

You are speaking with a forked tongue.

That “‘the people's’ right may not be abridged” or that “…the right of the people shall not be infringed” clearly means exactly that government is not allowed to subject individuals to any “certain standards” as a condition of being allowed to exercise the right thus affirmed.

It is worth noting that those who first tried to apply such “certain standards” used the standard that one must not be a “nígger”. Later, the standard was being allied with Timothy Sullivan's criminal gang.

 

[konradv]

You're interpreting the Constitution incorrectly.

I am not interpreting at all. I am reporting what it clearly says.

The 2nd amendment says "the peoples" [sic] right may not be abridged. It doesn't say that a "person" may not have to meet certain standards.

You are speaking with a forked tongue.

If it were as clear as you say there'd be no need for interpretation. As for speaking with a forked tongue, I used the language as stated. Why is alright for you to do so, but not me? That's rather hypocritical!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're interpreting the Constitution incorrectly.

I am not interpreting at all. I am reporting what it clearly says.

The 2nd amendment says "the peoples" [sic] right may not be abridged. It doesn't say that a "person" may not have to meet certain standards.

You are speaking with a forked tongue.

If it were as clear as you say there'd be no need for interpretation. As for speaking with a forked tongue, I used the language as stated. Why is alright for you to do so, but not me? That's rather hypocritical!

It is as clear as I say it is.

There is only any controversy because too many do not agree with it, do not want it to be obeyed, and are motivated to try to twist and “interpret” it away from its clear meaning in order to excuse infringements of the right which it forbids from being infringed.

If your side was honest, then you'd be working toward trying to get a new amendment ratified to overturn the Second Amendment, rather than on lying about what the Second Amendment says and means.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The medieval Church discouraged reading of the Bible, encouraging instead a belief that only the priests of the Church were qualified to tell you what it meant.

Today's legal profession, particularly those on the Left, are the new priesthood.

We could use a Reformation of our own.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

Does the 2nd amendment say that it can be denied to people who are incarcerated? Would you like us to put guns in prisons?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

a. The framer's had many of their discussions / debates in a tavern;

or

b. The framers chose the words "arms" and not "guns" and arms included the sword, and flintlock firearms carried by the infantry and used by most 18th Century hunters to bring home the dinner. The Brown Bess being the most common which at its best could fire four rounds a minute and had an effective range of about 100 yards.

[in re b. a classroom of kids could most likely run away after the first round an most of them would be out of range before the second ball could be fired - point to consider]

or

c. Over tankards of ale the bill of rights was discussed, argued about and finally agreed upon, likely when the ale was gone or the tavern owner tossed them out, before they could imagine the weapons misused by 21st Century mad men.

You omitted something which has always bugged me......they owned slaves. Then to add insult to injury they actually wrote into the constitution that their worth was 35% of a free man. What a set of balls that required.

That's true. But to be an abolitionist - did the word exists before the Revolutionary War? - would have put Jefferson, et al in danger and kept them out of leadership positions at the time. It is unfair to judge the founders from our current perspective in the 21st Century.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The medieval Church discouraged reading of the Bible, encouraging instead a belief that only the priests of the Church were qualified to tell you what it meant.

Today's legal profession, particularly those on the Left, are the new priesthood.

We could use a Reformation of our own.

Your are free to nail to the Halls of Congress your 93 feces, the rest you can dispose of in a toilet.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Does the 2nd amendment say that it can be denied to people who are incarcerated? Would you like us to put guns in prisons?

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

 

[SwimExpert]

Does the 2nd amendment say that it can be denied to people who are incarcerated? Would you like us to put guns in prisons?

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

I skimmed it. A bunch of bloviating. Let's keep it succinct, shall we? Answer the question.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As you can see, when liberals want to start restricting people's right to carry a gun, they start talking about

(a) what courts say,
(b) what Federal law says,
(c) what "everybody knows", or
(d) 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.

 

[SwimExpert]

As you can see, when liberals want to start restricting people's right to carry a gun, they start talking about

(a) what courts say,
(b) what Federal law says,
(c) what "everybody knows", or
(d) 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.

Speaking of evasions, you are ignoring my question about the constitution..

 

[Little-Acorn]

Speaking of evasions, you are ignoring my question about the constitution..

Already answered, many times in this thread. Go read it.

Quit squalling and demanding other people spoon-feed you.

 

[SwimExpert]

Speaking of evasions, you are ignoring my question about the constitution..

Already answered, many times in this thread. Go read it.

Quit squalling and demanding other people spoon-feed you.

So, you support people in prison keeping and bearing arms, right? Since the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about being able to deny them that right, yes?

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, you support people in prison keeping and bearing arms, right? Since the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about being able to deny them that right, yes?

Already answered, many times in this thread. Go read it.

Quit squalling and demanding that people spoon-feed you.

 

[SwimExpert]

So, you support people in prison keeping and bearing arms, right? Since the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about being able to deny them that right, yes?

Already answered, many times in this thread. Go read it.

Quit squalling and demanding that people spoon-feed you.

B-but, the constitution!

You complain about people doing things that aren't in the constitution, but you throw it away yourself when you cannot maintain a position that is consistent with your own invented blather.

And because you know that you can't, you squirm and engage in ad hominems, hoping that you can conceal the fact that your entire position is based on asinine reasoning that is beneath an angsty pre-teen who is angry that they have a curfew.

 

[konradv]

So, you support people in prison keeping and bearing arms, right? Since the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about being able to deny them that right, yes?

Already answered, many times in this thread. Go read it. Quit squalling and demanding that people spoon-feed you.

You've been told many times you're wrong and that the USSC decides questions of constitutionality, but that hasn't stopped you from "squalling" that what the court is doing is unconstitutional. I guess you're one of those "special snowflakes" that likes to lay down the rules, but doesn't follow them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As you can see, when liberals want to start restricting people's right to carry a gun, they start talking about

(a) what courts say,
(b) what Federal law says,
(c) what "everybody knows", or
(d) 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.

What is funny is when wrong-wingers speak of the rule of law, in defense of violating the highest law.

 

[Centinel]

You've been told many times you're wrong and that the USSC decides questions of constitutionality, but that hasn't stopped you from "squalling" that what the court is doing is unconstitutional. I guess you're one of those "special snowflakes" that likes to lay down the rules, but doesn't follow them.

Which of Congress' enumerated powers would allow it to enact gun control legislation?

 

[SwimExpert]

You've been told many times you're wrong and that the USSC decides questions of constitutionality, but that hasn't stopped you from "squalling" that what the court is doing is unconstitutional. I guess you're one of those "special snowflakes" that likes to lay down the rules, but doesn't follow them.

Which of Congress' enumerated powers would allow it to enact gun control legislation?

The same one that allows it to enact legislation prohibiting murder.