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

[Rigby5]

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

Debunked my ass. Apparently there is no one side n this forum that knows the history of the 2nd. The original intent was for the security provided by a state militia if need be. The word state was edited in the original language by request of Patrick Henry of Virginia for the express purpose to arm slave patrols. The history of the 2nd does not mean what people think it means. And for the OP, the founders were for a strong central government which is why Article 3 of the Constitution exists, and why the Constitution was adopted, and the Articles of Confederation were scrapped. There was no intent by the founders after the Philadelphia convention for the colonies to remain separate entities. The power of the Constitution rests solely with the people through their representative form of government, and at anytime by majority the he people can require restrictions through their representatives by law, to impose restrictions on the possession and use of firearms.

Totally wrong.
It is true the Articles of the Confederation were too weak, but no but Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong federal government.
The proof of that IS the Bill of Rights, which clearly was only intended to keep the federal government small and restricted.
In fact, the Bill of Rights clearly says there is to be ZERO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all.
The 10 amendment clearly says that the federal government can not legally pass any law that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. So federal laws like over weapons, drugs, etc., are totally and completely illegal. Those are completely under state and local jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can acquire jurisdiction is through the amendment process, with state approval.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Except there already are exceptions and reasonable restrictions. Your assertion that it "pemits none" is flawed from the beginning.

The fact the federal government has already been breaking the law, does not mean it is ok for them to keep doing it.
Clearly the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal abuse, and we should go back to basics.
That is the whole point of the Rule of Law.
You let them get away with a little abuse at a time, and eventually you have nothing left at all.

 

[Rigby5]

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

That seems absolute enough to me, especially when you ponder the meaning ofthe word “infringed”, and the choice of that word for this use in the Second Amendment. It's related to the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something. To “infringe” a thing is to touch that barest edge of it. By prohibiting government from infringing the right that it asserts, the Second Amendment is saying that government is not to even touch the barest edges of this right. It is the clearest, strongest, and most absolute language found anywhere in the Constitution. This right is stated as belonging to the people, and not to government, not even to the states (as one might otherwise try to suppose from the Tenth Amendment), and government is forbidden from even touching the barest edges of this right.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Restricting or even an outright ban of a particular class of arms does not infringe on that right. That is already the case. Your ability and freedom to bear arms remains intact.

There is no language that defines what "arms" must be.

You do not at all need any language to define what arms must be.
All you have to know is that the 2nd Amendment prohibited any and all federal jurisdiction over any weapons at all.
It is a state or local matter entirely.
And that is obviously the only way it could be, since clearly weapons laws should be different between Alaska and New York.
And it is state governors who grant amnesty to convicted felons so that they can possess weapons again, not the federal government.
Clearly any federal weapons law is totally illegal and without jurisdiction.

 

[Rigby5]

Back to the subject:

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

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

100% CORRECT.

1. A well-regulated Militia being necessary to (or for) the security of a free State, and having said that,
2. the right of the people, the universal human right
3. to keep and bear Arms, to possess and carry firearms,
4. shall not be infringed: shall not be limited or restricted in any way, shape or form.

The people have expressed their will through the political process and their lawfully elected representatives that felons shall not take possession of firearms, a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment right, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The people are likewise at liberty to repeal such a prohibition through the political process, or challenge the law authorizing the prohibition in Federal court.

100% BULLSHIT. We the people have been thoroughly disenfranchised and barred from Federal courts and all other Federal buildings, parks and facilities with respect to gun rights.

And what if some criminal is out of prison, armed & dangerous? Leave him the fuck alone. Our lovely city slicker police officers are so well armed & organized they can follow military rules of engagement. But no, the damned cops don't do that. They treat unarmed civilians as armed enemy combatants at war and shoot at us with reckless abandon and murderous disregard for our lives and supreme protectiveness for their own.

"A well-regulated Militia …"

You can drive several tractor trailers through that phrase, dude.

1. Guns are not just for dudes.
2. “Well-regulated” refers in some sense to an “official” militia that may be called up on duty, but that is not a restrictive clause and it does not call for a haircut.
3. The masters of the barbershop & the whorehouse, (i.e., the entire so-called “mental health” industry,) cannot be allowed to have any say whatsoever in regards to gun rights or gun ownership.

Yes, Well Regulated

A formal structure, organization, training, logistics

No, the meaning of "well regulated" means regular or well practiced.
As in a well regulated clock or regular digestion.
When the constitution authorized the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, it did not mean to block it but instead to keep it regular and flowing.
And clearly it is the states that were to regulate weapons possession, access, training, and providing troops.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Sure does. And I bet 10 bucks you have no idea what well regulated meant back then.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Except there already are exceptions and reasonable restrictions. Your assertion that it "pemits none" is flawed from the beginning.

The fact the federal government has already been breaking the law, does not mean it is ok for them to keep doing it.
Clearly the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal abuse, and we should go back to basics.
That is the whole point of the Rule of Law.
You let them get away with a little abuse at a time, and eventually you have nothing left at all.

There's only one authority to appeal to when deciding constitutionality. They don't agree with you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

That seems absolute enough to me, especially when you ponder the meaning ofthe word “infringed”, and the choice of that word for this use in the Second Amendment. It's related to the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something. To “infringe” a thing is to touch that barest edge of it. By prohibiting government from infringing the right that it asserts, the Second Amendment is saying that government is not to even touch the barest edges of this right. It is the clearest, strongest, and most absolute language found anywhere in the Constitution. This right is stated as belonging to the people, and not to government, not even to the states (as one might otherwise try to suppose from the Tenth Amendment), and government is forbidden from even touching the barest edges of this right.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Restricting or even an outright ban of a particular class of arms does not infringe on that right. That is already the case. Your ability and freedom to bear arms remains intact.

There is no language that defines what "arms" must be.

You do not at all need any language to define what arms must be.
All you have to know is that the 2nd Amendment prohibited any and all federal jurisdiction over any weapons at all.
It is a state or local matter entirely.
And that is obviously the only way it could be, since clearly weapons laws should be different between Alaska and New York.
And it is state governors who grant amnesty to convicted felons so that they can possess weapons again, not the federal government.
Clearly any federal weapons law is totally illegal and without jurisdiction.

Clearly. Per SCOTUS.

 

[justinacolmena]

All you have to know

That doesn't sound like the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

is that the 2nd Amendment prohibited any and all federal jurisdiction over any weapons at all.
It is a state or local matter entirely.

No. The Second Amendment does not allow states or localities to infringe upon gun rights on their own initiative beyond U.S. law.

And that is obviously the only way it could be, since clearly weapons laws should be different between Alaska and New York.

That is not at all clear. It is the United States Constitution that guarantees the the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[basquebromance]

"If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own and operate a gun. I’ll get this done as president" - Cory Booker


How about a “license” to vote? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Fartacus.

 

[Ernie S.]

Felons are typically …

Do you know how easy it is to become a “felon” on some bullshit city-hall trumped-up charge? When you have political enemies?

Court-appointed attorney plea-bargain or else? Defense oh-so-graciously assumes the defendant’s guilt + good faith on the part of the prosecutor who drinks & practices law at the same local bar?

Point being, you’d live a lot longer if you did not stereotype “felons.”

I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

I didn't ask if felons should be disenfranchised.

So is anyone who owns a gun a murderer, then?

Maybe you should read for comprehension... I own a friggin arsenal here and so far, I haven't needed to kill anyone. Came close once but the dude saw the stupidity of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I asked a specific question that called for no moral assessment of me or my opinion of the second amendment.

I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Debunked my ass. Apparently there is no one side n this forum that knows the history of the 2nd. The original intent was for the security provided by a state militia if need be. The word state was edited in the original language by request of Patrick Henry of Virginia for the express purpose to arm slave patrols. The history of the 2nd does not mean what people think it means. And for the OP, the founders were for a strong central government which is why Article 3 of the Constitution exists, and why the Constitution was adopted, and the Articles of Confederation were scrapped. There was no intent by the founders after the Philadelphia convention for the colonies to remain separate entities. The power of the Constitution rests solely with the people through their representative form of government, and at anytime by majority the he people can require restrictions through their representatives by law, to impose restrictions on the possession and use of firearms.

Totally wrong.
It is true the Articles of the Confederation were too weak, but no but Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong federal government.
The proof of that IS the Bill of Rights, which clearly was only intended to keep the federal government small and restricted.
In fact, the Bill of Rights clearly says there is to be ZERO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all.
The 10 amendment clearly says that the federal government can not legally pass any law that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. So federal laws like over weapons, drugs, etc., are totally and completely illegal. Those are completely under state and local jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can acquire jurisdiction is through the amendment process, with state approval.

They apply the Commerce Clause to just about everything these days. They claim they can write gun laws because guns are routinely sold across state lines.
If you accept that, they are within their bloated rights to enact restrictions on the purchase of weapons accepting those that are bought in the state of manufacture.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The mere fact that we are required to defend the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as intending to protect individual rights is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that all gun control is intended to end in BAN AND CONFISCATION.

You cannot vote for these people. EVER.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Debunked my ass. Apparently there is no one side n this forum that knows the history of the 2nd. The original intent was for the security provided by a state militia if need be. The word state was edited in the original language by request of Patrick Henry of Virginia for the express purpose to arm slave patrols. The history of the 2nd does not mean what people think it means. And for the OP, the founders were for a strong central government which is why Article 3 of the Constitution exists, and why the Constitution was adopted, and the Articles of Confederation were scrapped. There was no intent by the founders after the Philadelphia convention for the colonies to remain separate entities. The power of the Constitution rests solely with the people through their representative form of government, and at anytime by majority the he people can require restrictions through their representatives by law, to impose restrictions on the possession and use of firearms.

Totally wrong.
It is true the Articles of the Confederation were too weak, but no but Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong federal government.
The proof of that IS the Bill of Rights, which clearly was only intended to keep the federal government small and restricted.
In fact, the Bill of Rights clearly says there is to be ZERO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all.
The 10 amendment clearly says that the federal government can not legally pass any law that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. So federal laws like over weapons, drugs, etc., are totally and completely illegal. Those are completely under state and local jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can acquire jurisdiction is through the amendment process, with state approval.

They apply the Commerce Clause to just about everything these days. They claim they can write gun laws because guns are routinely sold across state lines.
If you accept that, they are within their bloated rights to enact restrictions on the purchase of weapons accepting those that are bought in the state of manufacture.

They have so grossly over-expanded the Commerce Clause that the FedGov can regulate intrastate commerce that MIGHT have an affect on interstate commerce. That's anything.

It's a free-for-all on FedGov power that should have been reigned in years ago.

It's time for this Union to end.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They apply the Commerce Clause to just about everything these days. They claim they can write gun laws because guns are routinely sold across state lines.

However true that may be, said power is modified by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Taz]

The mere fact that we are required to defend the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as intending to protect individual rights is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that all gun control is intended to end in BAN AND CONFISCATION.

You cannot vote for these people. EVER.

.

There are plenty of weapon that citizens aren't allowed to own, cruise missiles, nukes, WMD... Did controlling these arms end in a total ban? No. Maybe you need training wheels for this subject.

 

[justinacolmena]

free-for-all on FedGov power … time for this Union to end.

That government employees’ union doesn’t exactly make them any friends among taxpayers, now, does it?

The word “federal,” by definition, is in reference to an oath of secrecy undertaken in a plot or conspiracy, i.e., a confederacy.

A synonym to “federal” is “feudal;” of or relating to a fiefdom or enfeoffment of private property for public use, without just compensation.

I own a friggin arsenal here and so far, I haven't needed to kill anyone. … dude

Law dude with a badge.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Except there already are exceptions and reasonable restrictions. Your assertion that it "pemits none" is flawed from the beginning.

The fact the federal government has already been breaking the law, does not mean it is ok for them to keep doing it.
Clearly the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal abuse, and we should go back to basics.
That is the whole point of the Rule of Law.
You let them get away with a little abuse at a time, and eventually you have nothing left at all.

There's only one authority to appeal to when deciding constitutionality. They don't agree with you.

No, the SCOTUS not only has been wrong before, such as the Dred Scott Decision, but the SCOTUS is no more the last word than the king of England was in 1776.
It is absolutely clear the founders wanted and intended absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction over weapons.
"Reasonable restrictions" has nothing to do with it.
Clearly ONLY states and municipalities were to have jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is not altered by whether or not restrictions are reasonable. Clearly any federal weapons legislation is criminal.

 

[Rigby5]

All you have to know

That doesn't sound like the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

is that the 2nd Amendment prohibited any and all federal jurisdiction over any weapons at all.
It is a state or local matter entirely.

No. The Second Amendment does not allow states or localities to infringe upon gun rights on their own initiative beyond U.S. law.

And that is obviously the only way it could be, since clearly weapons laws should be different between Alaska and New York.

That is not at all clear. It is the United States Constitution that guarantees the the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The whole truth is that the 2nd amendment prohibits any federal weapons jurisdiction.
The opening phrase suggest why, but that is open for interpretation and does not matter.
It does not matter why something is illegal, because all that matters is that it is illegal.

All of the Bill of Rights is only restrictions on the federal government originally.
It is only after the 14th amendment, after the Civil War, when the SCOTUS started trying to incorporate the Bill of Rights to protect individual rights from abuse by states or municipalities as well.

All rights have limits, depending on what is necessary in order to protect other rights that one right may conflict with.
For example, one might be able to decide that background checks or registration by states was not illegal.
But it would still be illegal for the federal government to pass such legislation in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

Felons are typically …

Do you know how easy it is to become a “felon” on some bullshit city-hall trumped-up charge? When you have political enemies?

Court-appointed attorney plea-bargain or else? Defense oh-so-graciously assumes the defendant’s guilt + good faith on the part of the prosecutor who drinks & practices law at the same local bar?

Point being, you’d live a lot longer if you did not stereotype “felons.”

I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

I didn't ask if felons should be disenfranchised.

So is anyone who owns a gun a murderer, then?

Maybe you should read for comprehension... I own a friggin arsenal here and so far, I haven't needed to kill anyone. Came close once but the dude saw the stupidity of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I asked a specific question that called for no moral assessment of me or my opinion of the second amendment.

I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

And I think the answer is that while in jail before trial or after sentencing, I think not.
But after they have finished their sentence, then yes, most definitely.
Otherwise you can not make him pay taxes without committing the crime of taxation without representation.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

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.

Great post man, very smart. I don't know, I can say I have a problem with crazies having guns. But I recognize the inherent problem. Who defines crazy, when is it redefined and at what point doe it become an intrusion?

Our founding fathers were smart MFers man, they truly blow my mind. Especially considering how dumbed-down we've become, and dumb is progressive.