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

[Slyhunter]

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

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I know, I know

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

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Common sense would say criminals shouldn't have arms.
The second amendment doesn't.
Our bill of rights allows criminals to have guns.
We need a convention to change the constitution to allow for the striping of a persons rights if they are a criminal, terrorist, or on US land illegally.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I know, I know

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

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Criminals lose their rights through due process.

Do they?
Sounds right, sounds good. Where in the constitution does it say that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

I don't. Not once one has completed his sentence, anyway. I believe that once a convicted criminal has “paid his debt to society”, that he ought to be restored to his full rights, including his right to keep and bear arms.

If a person has achieved such a level of criminality that he cannot ever be trusted with such rights, then the only proper solution is to permanently remove him from society.

And that's one area where our society has gone soft, much to our own detriment. At the time the Constitution was written, the very worst criminals, anyone who had proven that he could not be trusted with freedom, usually served his sentence at the end of a rope, and was thereafter left in such a condition as to render completely moot any discussion as to whether he should be allowed to possess arms after that point.

The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and it doesn't work. You say gone soft, I'd say gone ridiculous having too many people and gone stupid in being unable to deal with social issues before it ends in massive problems.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's called the commerce clause. How many times does it have to be said for you to get it through your thick skull?

Once little swimexpert is carefully ignoring previous posts that have already debunked his wishful thinking.

I don't even have to read the argument to know how dumb you are. The FEDs can regulate commerce. If a gun were made with materials only within that state, and sold only to people within that state, who would NEVER transport them outside that state.

THEN and ONLY THEN would the Feds not have a say in firearms.

Even then they would have to violate the second amendment in order to restrict gun sales.

No they wouldn't. Restricting sales is a constitutionally valid means of regulating commerce. Restrictions on gun sales go back 100 years. Always been found constitutional over and over again.

The second amendment is not unlimited. We have a right to keep and bear arms. Congress also has the power to regulate commerce. It is within the power of Congress to regulate commerce by regulating, even to the point of outright prohibiting, the manufacture and transfer of ownership of a group of firearms.

Now, if we were considering a complete and total ban on the manufacture and/or transfer of ownership of all firearms whatsoever, then that would likely be found to violate the second amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I know, I know

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

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Common sense would say criminals shouldn't have arms.
The second amendment doesn't.
Our bill of rights allows criminals to have guns.
We need a convention to change the constitution to allow for the striping of a persons rights if they are a criminal, terrorist, or on US land illegally.

Actually it doesn't. No right is 100%.

Just because it says "shall not be infringed", what shall not be infringed? A criminal can own a gun, and not have it in his possession in prison. Is the right to own a gun being infringed upon? Not necessarily. There are laws which do infringe on this, but then again, you break the law, after due process you can have rights infringed upon.

 

[Slyhunter]

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

I don't. Not once one has completed his sentence, anyway. I believe that once a convicted criminal has “paid his debt to society”, that he ought to be restored to his full rights, including his right to keep and bear arms.

If a person has achieved such a level of criminality that he cannot ever be trusted with such rights, then the only proper solution is to permanently remove him from society.

And that's one area where our society has gone soft, much to our own detriment. At the time the Constitution was written, the very worst criminals, anyone who had proven that he could not be trusted with freedom, usually served his sentence at the end of a rope, and was thereafter left in such a condition as to render completely moot any discussion as to whether he should be allowed to possess arms after that point.

The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and it doesn't work. You say gone soft, I'd say gone ridiculous having too many people and gone stupid in being unable to deal with social issues before it ends in massive problems.

People should not be imprisoned for victimless crimes.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

I don't. Not once one has completed his sentence, anyway. I believe that once a convicted criminal has “paid his debt to society”, that he ought to be restored to his full rights, including his right to keep and bear arms.

If a person has achieved such a level of criminality that he cannot ever be trusted with such rights, then the only proper solution is to permanently remove him from society.

And that's one area where our society has gone soft, much to our own detriment. At the time the Constitution was written, the very worst criminals, anyone who had proven that he could not be trusted with freedom, usually served his sentence at the end of a rope, and was thereafter left in such a condition as to render completely moot any discussion as to whether he should be allowed to possess arms after that point.

The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and it doesn't work. You say gone soft, I'd say gone ridiculous having too many people and gone stupid in being unable to deal with social issues before it ends in massive problems.

jailing dopers is a failed project

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I know, I know

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

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Criminals lose their rights through due process.

Do they?
Sounds right, sounds good. Where in the constitution does it say that?

Tbe Fifth Amendment.

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”​

 

[Slyhunter]

I know, I know

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

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Criminals lose their rights through due process.

Do they?
Sounds right, sounds good. Where in the constitution does it say that?

Tbe Fifth Amendment.

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”​

So, You're saying, that the Fifth Amendment allows the government to take away a persons constitutional rights, as long as they do it via the legal system?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Criminals lose their rights through due process.

Do they?
Sounds right, sounds good. Where in the constitution does it say that?

Tbe Fifth Amendment.

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”​

So, You're saying, that the Fifth Amendment allows the government to take away a persons constitutional rights, as long as they do it via the legal system?

Due process of the Law.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Restricting sales is a constitutionally valid means of regulating commerce.

Except where the power to regulate commerce has been specifically removed from Congress, by an amendment that came later.

Such as the 2nd amendment.

Once the 2nd was ratified (along with the rest of the BOR), Congress no longer had any power to regulate sales or transfers of guns across state lines. (They NEVER had any power to regulate gun sales or transfers within a state.)

Congress can still regulate interstate commerce in tools, horses, wheat, sundials, and twinkies. But they can no longer regulate interstate commerce in guns.

This ban has been regularly violated by leftist big-govt pushers (in both parties). But making a violation common does not make it legal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Why does it say it's a right of "the people" and not "person". That seems to indicate that you can't ban gun ownership, but measures short of depriving "the people" of guns is OK.

The Heller decision says otherwise.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, You're saying, that the Fifth Amendment allows the government to take away a persons constitutional rights, as long as they do it via the legal system?

That's what happens when one is convicted of a crime, and is subsequently deprived of liberty (as in being locked in prison), property (being fined), or even of life (death penalty). One is deprived of essential rights as punishment for a crime. Not to be done lightly, hence the high standard that must be met to convict. That's due process.

 

[konradv]

]Why does it say it's a right of "the people" and not "person". That seems to indicate that you can't ban gun ownership, but measures short of depriving "the people" of guns is OK.

The Heller decision says otherwise.

Then why are gun registrations allowed and why can convicted criminals lose the right to own a gun? I think you're misinterpreting the decision.

 

[M14 Shooter]

]Why does it say it's a right of "the people" and not "person". That seems to indicate that you can't ban gun ownership, but measures short of depriving "the people" of guns is OK.

The Heller decision says otherwise.

Then why are gun registrations allowed....

Has the SCotUS upheld registration of firearms? I must have missed that. Cite?

You stated:
That seems to indicate that you can't ban gun ownership, but measures short of depriving "the people" of guns is OK
Heller stated that:
Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional
And so, we see a restriction short of banning guns that violates the constitution, thusly disproving your statement.

Further, the 2nd clearly sates that the right shall not be "infringed"; there is no sound basis for any argument to the effect that "infringement" means, in toto, a ban on guns and nothing less.

 

[Slyhunter]

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Criminals lose their rights through due process.

Do they?
Sounds right, sounds good. Where in the constitution does it say that?

Tbe Fifth Amendment.

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”​

So, You're saying, that the Fifth Amendment allows the government to take away a persons constitutional rights, as long as they do it via the legal system?

Due process of the Law.

ok, then let's get rid of citizenship via birth via the court system then.

 

[Centinel]

Your middle school level ignorance does not constitute an argument. Like I said, you need to go get educated on the subject. You're making an ass out of yourself.

manufacture, noun - the making of articles on a large scale using machinery.

commerce, noun - the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale.

Manufacture and commerce are two different things.

 

[SwimExpert]

Restricting sales is a constitutionally valid means of regulating commerce.

Except where the power to regulate commerce has been specifically removed from Congress, by an amendment that came later.

Such as the 2nd amendment.

Once the 2nd was ratified (along with the rest of the BOR), Congress no longer had any power to regulate sales or transfers of guns across state lines. (They NEVER had any power to regulate gun sales or transfers within a state.)

Congress can still regulate interstate commerce in tools, horses, wheat, sundials, and twinkies. But they can no longer regulate interstate commerce in guns.

This ban has been regularly violated by leftist big-govt pushers (in both parties). But making a violation common does not make it legal.

That's a new category of pathetic, trying to make an argument like that. Nothing in the second amendment strips Congress of the power to regulate commerce.

 

[SwimExpert]

Your middle school level ignorance does not constitute an argument. Like I said, you need to go get educated on the subject. You're making an ass out of yourself.

manufacture, noun - the making of articles on a large scale using machinery.

commerce, noun - the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale.

Manufacture and commerce are two different things.

Education. You need it. But clearly, you wish to reject it. Such is your right. But please do the world a favor and make sure that you don't procreate. And if you do accidentally, make sure to kill the thing like a sickly Spartan, mkay?

 

[rdean]

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


The founders never thought right wingers would be so fucking stupid they would give weapons to criminals. It's just assumed an idiotic thing to do.

Bobby Jindal made guns for felons a "fundamental right".

Louisiana law floods courts with pro-gun cases

In Louisiana, one of the most notable cases using the amendment involves Glen Draughter, 20, of New Orleans, a felon convicted of simple burglary who was later caught riding in a car with a handgun in the backseat and an AK-47 with a 30-round clip in the trunk – a violation of state law. His lawyers brought the case to court, arguing that the new amendment gives him the same "fundamental right" to bear arms as anyone else, and his gun possession case should be dropped.
On March 21, an Orleans Parish judge ruled that, under the new amendment, the statute forbidding felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional.