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

[bendog]

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion. There's a legal distinction between being stopped on the street just so the gummit can check to see if everyone is not a fleeing felon (not that I'm aware of any gummit doing that) and between the gummit stopping every car at a checkpoint to see if all drivers are licensed.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok. In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales. They are intended to make sure everyone on the road in gun commerce is legally entitled to buy a gun. Like license check points, some guys may be arrested, but in reality people are just told "you didn't pass the check, so I can't sell you the gun."

So, both license checks and background checks pose small inconveniences to every one in that their 4th and 2nd rights suffer a little bit of inconvenience. You agree felons can be prohibited from ownership. I don't see a distinction between the two. Do you?

I'll answer my own question, and not to argue so much as respond to the notion of felons owning guns and background check interferences.

Some felons have legit needs for guns and don't pose anymore threat than anyone else. Suppose I do time for selling drugs, get out and live in Southside Chi and work in a convenience/liquor store. I need a gun. LOL

Suppose my spouse regularly abuses me, and recently took it up notch, so I got a restraining order and moved to a shelter, but he's stalking me. I need a gun yesterday.

 

[Londoner]

The OP asks us to take literalist and originalist view, but he doesn't mention the words "a WELL REGULATED militia".

He wants us to comb through every word of every amendment ... until he gets to the 2nd - and then he plays fast and loose.

Next to his post he should list the last year of education he completed, along with the name of the place where he performed that final year.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Wrong . States should be able to outlaw selling guns to criminals, and then implement a system for sellers to ensure they don't.

The Constitution disagrees with you. And the Constitution is this nation's highest law. If you don't like it, try to get an amendment ratified to change it.

No, the current and incorrect interpretation of the law disagrees with me.

And it is a stupid interpretation that requires allowing the federal government to violate the 2nd Amendment in order to keep states incorporated . DO you really not get that?

You morons are willing to allow the federal government to violate the 2nd Amendment on a regular basis in order to keep states from doing what they want in regards to gun control. How fucking stupid is that?

Pretty fucking stupid.

There should be NO federal background checks. PERIOD. They are unconstitutional.

But right from the very beginning of our country, the colonies, then states passed their own laws regarding gun control. Is it logical to believe that the founding fathers themselves lived in cities and states that had gun laws but intended for the 2nd to apply to such? OF COURSE THAT ISN'T LOGICAL.

 

[bendog]

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion.

-I- was not confused; YOU introduced traffic stops.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok.

As I said - you agree that the sate unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case'. This is exactly what background checks do.

In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

The primary purpose is to see if someone is driving illegally.... that is, to uncover a specific crime.
You may promote pubic safety by doing so, but in the end the driver is stopped for the same reason.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales.

Background checks investigate for specific crimes, including and especially the crime of illegally buying a gun as well as perjury on a 4473.

And so, there's no constitutional difference between restraining you on the street and restraining you for background check.

You are being dishonest in saying I said traffic stops violated the const. I said they infringed on the fourth. Again, you refuse to answer the question of why the gummit can stop everyone on the road and ask to see their license, but not check everyone buying a gun to see if they have a felony.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion.

-I- was not confused; YOU introduced traffic stops.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok.

As I said - you agree that the sate unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case'. This is exactly what background checks do.

In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

The primary purpose is to see if someone is driving illegally.... that is, to uncover a specific crime.
You may promote pubic safety by doing so, but in the end the driver is stopped for the same reason.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales.

Background checks investigate for specific crimes, including and especially the crime of illegally buying a gun as well as perjury on a 4473.

And so, there's no constitutional difference between restraining you on the street and restraining you for background check.

You are being dishonest in saying I said traffic stops violated the const

I didn't say you said this.
I mentioned being stopped while walking down the street, without cause, to fish for someone violating the law.
You agree this violates the Constitution and "the scotus says that's not ok".

My positron is that this is -exactly- the same mechanism as a background check, and that if you agree the former violates the constitution, the the latter must as well.

Your addition of traffic stops to the conversation has no bearing on this and so there's no need for me to answer your question as it relates to same.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion.

-I- was not confused; YOU introduced traffic stops.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok.

As I said - you agree that the sate unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case'. This is exactly what background checks do.

In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

The primary purpose is to see if someone is driving illegally.... that is, to uncover a specific crime.
You may promote pubic safety by doing so, but in the end the driver is stopped for the same reason.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales.

Background checks investigate for specific crimes, including and especially the crime of illegally buying a gun as well as perjury on a 4473.

And so, there's no constitutional difference between restraining you on the street and restraining you for background check.

You are being dishonest in saying I said traffic stops violated the const

I didn't say you said this.
I mentioned being stopped while walking down the street, without cause, to fish for someone violating the law.
You agree this violates the Constitution and "the scotus says that's not ok".

My positron is that this is -exactly- the same mechanism as a background check, and that if you agree the former violates the constitution, the the latter must as well.

Your addition of traffic stops to the conversation has no bearing on this and so there's no need for me to answer your question as it relates to same.

It certainly isn't illegal for a cop to approach you and strike up a conversation , even if he is trying to find out if you committed a crime, I'm not sure why you think it is.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion.

-I- was not confused; YOU introduced traffic stops.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok.

As I said - you agree that the sate unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case'. This is exactly what background checks do.

In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

The primary purpose is to see if someone is driving illegally.... that is, to uncover a specific crime.
You may promote pubic safety by doing so, but in the end the driver is stopped for the same reason.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales.

Background checks investigate for specific crimes, including and especially the crime of illegally buying a gun as well as perjury on a 4473.

And so, there's no constitutional difference between restraining you on the street and restraining you for background check.

You are being dishonest in saying I said traffic stops violated the const. I said they infringed on the fourth. Again, you refuse to answer the question of why the gummit can stop everyone on the road and ask to see their license, but not check everyone buying a gun to see if they have a felony.

They can do BOTH, because we the people have allowed it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It certainly isn't illegal for a cop to approach you and strike up a conversation , even if he is trying to find out if you committed a crime, I'm not sure why you think it is.

It is, however, unconstitutional for him to, absent any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, stop you from walking down the street, detain you, force your ID from you and hold you until he determines you are not breaking the law by simply walking down the street.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It certainly isn't illegal for a cop to approach you and strike up a conversation , even if he is trying to find out if you committed a crime, I'm not sure why you think it is.

It is, however, unconstitutional for him to, absent any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, stop you from walking down the street, detain you, force your ID from you and hold you until he determines you are not breaking the law by simply walking down the street.

Of course, even states with strict stop and identify laws require some measure of reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Not necessarily that YOU committed a crime though. For example, if you were walking down the street and a police officer saw you and imagined you say matched the description of a man who stole cigars from a convenience store, he doesn't have to suspect YOU did it to stop you and question you. You match a description, that's good enough, even if later on the description turned out to be wrong. Still good enough.

 

[bendog]

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion.

-I- was not confused; YOU introduced traffic stops.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok.

As I said - you agree that the sate unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case'. This is exactly what background checks do.

In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

The primary purpose is to see if someone is driving illegally.... that is, to uncover a specific crime.
You may promote pubic safety by doing so, but in the end the driver is stopped for the same reason.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales.

Background checks investigate for specific crimes, including and especially the crime of illegally buying a gun as well as perjury on a 4473.

And so, there's no constitutional difference between restraining you on the street and restraining you for background check.

You are being dishonest in saying I said traffic stops violated the const

I didn't say you said this.
I mentioned being stopped while walking down the street, without cause, to fish for someone violating the law.
You agree this violates the Constitution and "the scotus says that's not ok".

My positron is that this is -exactly- the same mechanism as a background check, and that if you agree the former violates the constitution, the the latter must as well.

Your addition of traffic stops to the conversation has no bearing on this and so there's no need for me to answer your question as it relates to same.

This is the last time I'm going to put up with your bs, which you're well known for.\

What you didn't get first off is that cops can see you on the street ... loitering ... and ask for your ID. You refuse and they can take you to the cop shop to talk further. No rights violation. But that's not really analogous to back ground checks. So, I'm putting up with your bs about that.

To try and give your lack of experience on the issue a break, I put up the traffic license check point analogy. The cops MAY infringe on your 4th rights by stopping everyone on the road to see their license. Some people will be issued misdemeanor citations for not having one. But the cops can't search cars without probable cause of specific crimes.

Similarly, the gummit can require anyone passing through the commerce road to guns to undergo a background check to make sure they aren't a felon. If they don't pass, they aren't arrested for the crime of a felon attempting to buy a gun (which is a crime, btw) Instead, they don't get the gun.

FOUR TIMES you've avoided saying what's the difference. But up or FO.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It certainly isn't illegal for a cop to approach you and strike up a conversation , even if he is trying to find out if you committed a crime, I'm not sure why you think it is.

It is, however, unconstitutional for him to, absent any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, stop you from walking down the street, detain you, force your ID from you and hold you until he determines you are not breaking the law by simply walking down the street.

Of course, even states with strict stop and identify laws require some measure of reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Not necessarily that YOU committed a crime though. For example, if you were walking down the street and a police officer saw you and imagined you say matched the description of a man who stole cigars from a convenience store, he doesn't have to suspect YOU did it to stop you and question you. You match a description, that's good enough, even if later on the description turned out to be wrong. Still good enough.

All of this goes to reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.
I speak of a situation were reasonable suspicion/probable cause does not exist.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It certainly isn't illegal for a cop to approach you and strike up a conversation , even if he is trying to find out if you committed a crime, I'm not sure why you think it is.

It is, however, unconstitutional for him to, absent any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, stop you from walking down the street, detain you, force your ID from you and hold you until he determines you are not breaking the law by simply walking down the street.

Of course, even states with strict stop and identify laws require some measure of reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Not necessarily that YOU committed a crime though. For example, if you were walking down the street and a police officer saw you and imagined you say matched the description of a man who stole cigars from a convenience store, he doesn't have to suspect YOU did it to stop you and question you. You match a description, that's good enough, even if later on the description turned out to be wrong. Still good enough.

All of this goes to reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.
I speak of a situation were reasonable suspicion/probable cause does not exist.

And I'm saying the reasonable suspicion or cause does not have to be about or aimed at you.

Take a situation where cars are stopped and searched in an area where a prison escape has occurred. Certainly it isn't reasonable to assume every such car contains an escaped inmate, but the searches are legal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is the last time I'm going to put up with your bs, which you're well known for.

What you didn't get first off is that cops can see you on the street ... loitering ... and ask for your ID. You refuse and they can take you to the cop shop to talk further. No rights violation. But that's not really analogous to back ground checks. So, I'm putting up with your bs about that.

Have to move the goalposts again, eh? No matter.

You AGREED that a policeman - that is, the state - cannot constitutionally stop you while walking down the street, absent cause or suspicion, and hold you there while he determines if are are felling felon, have outstanding warrants, etc.
You AGREED this violates the constitution.

-You have yet to show any difference between the mechanism noted above and that of a background check.
-You have yet to explain how you can agree that the non-cause/suspicion walking stop is unconstitutional, but the background check, with the same mechanism, is not.

To try and give your lack of experience on the issue a break, I put up the traffic license check point analogy.

You did; as they are not the same thing, your doing so is meaningless; there's no need for me to address a question irrelevant to the position I've taken.

 

[2aguy]

I don't really care about Haynes as this is about the 2nd. So felons can't buy guns but background checks are unconstitutional because ANY inconvenience, no matter how trivial, to your buying firearms is unconstitutional? Is that correct?

Technically, it isn't an inconvenience...it is a violation of your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination in order to exercise another right......

I myself am alright with current federally mandated background checks for licensed gun dealers...I will compromise that far...but that is it....we have more than enough laws to deal with criminals.

You have no 5th amend right to prevent disclosure of any public record. If I have your name, I can get a background check on you today if I'm willing to pay with my credit card.

Stick with the thread. You're saying your rights to firearms cannot be even infringed with a national or state mandated background check?

it is the thread.....forcing someone to prove they are not a criminal before they exercise a right is Unconstitutional...even when it applies to the 2nd Amendment.......

 

[bendog]

This is the last time I'm going to put up with your bs, which you're well known for.

What you didn't get first off is that cops can see you on the street ... loitering ... and ask for your ID. You refuse and they can take you to the cop shop to talk further. No rights violation. But that's not really analogous to back ground checks. So, I'm putting up with your bs about that.

Have to move the goalposts again, eh? No matter.

You AGREED that a policeman - that is, the state - cannot constitutionally stop you while walking down the street, absent cause or suspicion, and hold you there while he determines if are are felling felon, have outstanding warrants, etc.
You AGREED this violates the constitution.

-You have yet to show any difference between the mechanism noted above and that of a background check.
-You have yet to explain how you can agree that the non-cause/suspicion walking stop is unconstitutional, but the background check, with the same mechanism, is not.

To try and give your lack of experience on the issue a break, I put up the traffic license check point analogy.

You did; as they are not the same thing, your doing so is meaningless; there's no need for me to address a question irrelevant to the position I've taken.

I never moved the goalposts. I just tried to show you the field.

Hasta la vista you disingenuous POS

 

[2aguy]

I don't really care about Haynes as this is about the 2nd. So felons can't buy guns but background checks are unconstitutional because ANY inconvenience, no matter how trivial, to your buying firearms is unconstitutional? Is that correct?

Technically, it isn't an inconvenience...it is a violation of your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination in order to exercise another right......

I myself am alright with current federally mandated background checks for licensed gun dealers...I will compromise that far...but that is it....we have more than enough laws to deal with criminals.

You have no 5th amend right to prevent disclosure of any public record. If I have your name, I can get a background check on you today if I'm willing to pay with my credit card.

Stick with the thread. You're saying your rights to firearms cannot be even infringed with a national or state mandated background check?

Against self incrimination you do....and a background check to exercise a right does just that......

Look at Haynes v. United States...

 

[M14 Shooter]

It certainly isn't illegal for a cop to approach you and strike up a conversation , even if he is trying to find out if you committed a crime, I'm not sure why you think it is.

It is, however, unconstitutional for him to, absent any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, stop you from walking down the street, detain you, force your ID from you and hold you until he determines you are not breaking the law by simply walking down the street.

Of course, even states with strict stop and identify laws require some measure of reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Not necessarily that YOU committed a crime though. For example, if you were walking down the street and a police officer saw you and imagined you say matched the description of a man who stole cigars from a convenience store, he doesn't have to suspect YOU did it to stop you and question you. You match a description, that's good enough, even if later on the description turned out to be wrong. Still good enough.

All of this goes to reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.
I speak of a situation were reasonable suspicion/probable cause does not exist.

And I'm saying the reasonable suspicion or cause does not have to be about or aimed at you.

It has to be 'aimed' in such a manner that I fall under it.
If the police has reason to look for a rabid dog, they cannot constitutionally detain me and see if I am a felling felon.
And, for example, as we all, know the police cannot stop me just because I am black and in a white neighborhood.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never moved the goalposts

Sue you did; we both know i can prove it.

Hasta la vista you disingenuous POS

I happily accept your concession of the points made.

 

[bendog]

I don't really care about Haynes as this is about the 2nd. So felons can't buy guns but background checks are unconstitutional because ANY inconvenience, no matter how trivial, to your buying firearms is unconstitutional? Is that correct?

Technically, it isn't an inconvenience...it is a violation of your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination in order to exercise another right......

I myself am alright with current federally mandated background checks for licensed gun dealers...I will compromise that far...but that is it....we have more than enough laws to deal with criminals.

You have no 5th amend right to prevent disclosure of any public record. If I have your name, I can get a background check on you today if I'm willing to pay with my credit card.

Stick with the thread. You're saying your rights to firearms cannot be even infringed with a national or state mandated background check?

it is the thread.....forcing someone to prove they are not a criminal before they exercise a right is Unconstitutional...even when it applies to the 2nd Amendment.......

Well, that's an honest answer. I appreciate that.

And regardless of courts saying background checks are const, I think it's at least debatable.

I just don't see the distinction of it being legal for the cops to stop everyone on a road to check to see if they have licenses and stop to check on all gun sales. The first infringes on the Fourth, the latter on the Second.

 

[2aguy]

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So does everyone else.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

The same way we keep him from walking into Bass Pro and killing someone - we don't.
Like all other laws, we enforce them after they are broken.

Ah, but a felon breaks the law when he attempts to buy a gun at bass pro. The crime occurs when the felon hands over the credit card, not when he takes possession.

What I think you are saying is this: although the second says the right to arms cannot be infringed and does not limit that just to non-felons, you find it can be infringed for them, and while federal background checks would disclose at least some attempted purchases by felons, background checks are unconstitutional because they infringe on your rights ... even though you still get to buy whatever firearm you want.

Apply that to voting.......a Poll Tax does not keep you from voting...if you pay the tax....a Literacy Test does not keep you from voting...if you pass the test....democrats are very familiar with how to keep people from exercising their rights....and they are trying to do the same thing with the 2nd Amendment....