Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

[bripat9643]

, Muslims in the United States are more often the victims of ideological violence than the perpetrators of it.

What the hell is "ideological violence?"

It doesn't matter what Muslims do when they are a tiny minority. The empirical evidence shows that the larger their numbers grow, the more insolent their demands become. Muslims in this country are already quite insolent.

 

[LOki]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

Except background checks fail in preventing felons and crazy people from getting guns, for obvious reasons.

The conclusion that must be drawn from this is that those background checks are really meant for exactly those folks all gun rights supporters agree should not have their rights questioned.

The real question should be, what actual purpose does the requirement for background checks on only those who submit to them serve? Is that purpose in the interest of those folks all gun rights supporters agree should not have their rights questioned?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

Except background checks fail in preventing felons and crazy people from getting guns, for obvious reasons.

The conclusion that must be drawn from this is that those background checks are really meant for exactly those folks all gun rights supporters agree should not have their rights questioned.

The real question should be, what actual purpose does the requirement for background checks on only those who submit to them serve? Is that purpose in the interest of those folks all gun rights supporters agree should not have their rights questioned?

Background checks make it very hard for felons to get guns because it blocks the easiest method, buying it from a store. And I know the idiot axiom says that it's just as easy or easier to get a gun on the streets than it is in a store, it simply isn't true, another reason not to trust what "everyone knows". Getting guns illegally means dealing with the criminal element, police and ATF stings, and various other dangers. Pushing felons into the shadows means they are vulnerable in the shadows. So I don't buy the argument that because background checks don't stop every felon from getting a gun, they aren't any use at all. Everyone knows where the gun store is, but having a connection to get one illegally is much, much harder.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Didn

You just proved my argument!

Also, apparently you've not heard of gun permits, etc.

Jury trial. LOL.

So the existence of gun permits is proof that they're valid? Circular dumbass reasoning.

Jim Crow must have been good because it existed for decades!

Over a century, in fact.

Less than a century, actually. Jim Crow didn't start until after first Civil Rights Act was declared unconstitutional in 1883.

Incorrect, but a lot of people believe that. The original Jim Crow laws were passed long before the Civil war in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio to prevent runaway slaves from settling. Jim Crow, originally called the Black Codes, was a series of laws that prevented negros from finding work, owning property, squatting, malingering, or doing anything except passing right on through. They because so popular that the states neighboring Illinois, Ohio and Indiana passed similar legislation.

The reason this gets lost in history is because new Jim Crow laws were passed after the war during Reconstruction, but instead of calling them the Black Codes, as they were originally called, in 1865 the laws were dubbed "Jim Crow" after a white performer who painted himself black and performed comedy skits in Pennsylvania and New York in 1832. Though the name Jim Crow was around before the Civil War, the name was applied to laws inspired by the pre-war Black Codes all the way until 1933.

I listed this as "Informative", but I wanted to also "Thank you" for this post. Good stuff.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

Except background checks fail in preventing felons and crazy people from getting guns, for obvious reasons.

The conclusion that must be drawn from this is that those background checks are really meant for exactly those folks all gun rights supporters agree should not have their rights questioned.

The real question should be, what actual purpose does the requirement for background checks on only those who submit to them serve? Is that purpose in the interest of those folks all gun rights supporters agree should not have their rights questioned?

Background checks make it very hard for felons to get guns because it blocks the easiest method, buying it from a store.

Doesn't seem to me like criminals have any issue getting guns, especially those criminals who were not criminals until they committed their first crime.
That many people think something is a "good idea" is not sufficient argument to infringe a right.

 

[blackhawk]

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

Except background checks fail in preventing felons and crazy people from getting guns, for obvious reasons.

The conclusion that must be drawn from this is that those background checks are really meant for exactly those folks all gun rights supporters agree should not have their rights questioned.

The real question should be, what actual purpose does the requirement for background checks on only those who submit to them serve? Is that purpose in the interest of those folks all gun rights supporters agree should not have their rights questioned?

Background checks make it very hard for felons to get guns because it blocks the easiest method, buying it from a store.

Doesn't seem to me like criminals have any issue getting guns, especially those criminals who were not criminals until they committed their first crime.
That many people think something is a "good idea" is not sufficient argument to infringe a right.

Then start a political movement to eliminate background checks and you'll see it for yourself, that nearly all Americans oppose it, including and especially law abiding gun owners. I don't feel my rights are being infringed by my government making sure I can get a gun but Felony Frank cannot. I don't think there was ever a period in American history, even at our founding that there existed the absurd notion that anyone should be able to have a gun.

 

[ralfy]

It's exactly the same thing.

No, it's not. For the first, the right is maintained but abridged. The second implies its removal for all citizens.

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

That's my point.

 

[ralfy]

Incorrect. It does both of these things.

No, it doesn't do both, unless you believe that you require government to grant you the right to defend yourself.

To recap, the right to bear arms is a natural right. That means it doesn't require government approval. In fact, it applies whether or not it is mentioned in the Constitution.

However, the need to defend one's country is not a natural right. The Second justifies that by using a natural right. Further proof can be seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

So long as it does not violate the 2nd amendment.

It can abridge the Second for several reasons. For example, the government can deny criminals the right to join regulated militias.

 

[ralfy]

Incorrect.
Felons lose their right to keep and bear arms, and their right to life, under due process.
As they have no right to arms, the protections of the 2nd do not necessarily apply to tewm.

That's my point. The natural right to bear arms may be abridged for one reason or another, and that does not infringe on the right in any way.

Also, the Second doesn't defend the right to bear arms, as that right is natural and does not require government approval. Instead, it uses the right to justify the formation of regulated militias. You need to read the second half of the Second to know that.

Finally, further proof can be seen in the context of the Second, such as Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, all of which explain that second half.

 

[ralfy]

Abridging is not the same as infringing. The first refers to curtailing a right for certain individuals while the second refers to removing the right for everyone.

This is pure opinion; there is nothing to support this distinction.
As such, any argument based on it is unsound.

No, it's not. When a criminal is not allowed to bear arms, then that is not an infringement of the right to bear arms.

 

[ralfy]

Ignorance is one thing. Stupidity is another.

Yes. That's why I qualified your degree of ignorance rather than described you as stupid.

Congress can pass no such law without violating the 2A, per the legal jurisprudence laid out by Heller. If you need a link to the case, please let me know.

Now, Congress could require you to own the things you describe, but cannot limit you to them without violating the constitution.

The only way that the Congress can violate the Second is to disallow the formation of regulated militias.

 

[ralfy]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

I think the term is abridging through law. Infringement implies the removal of that right for everyone.

 

[bripat9643]

Ignorance is one thing. Stupidity is another.

Yes. That's why I qualified your degree of ignorance rather than described you as stupid.

Congress can pass no such law without violating the 2A, per the legal jurisprudence laid out by Heller. If you need a link to the case, please let me know.

Now, Congress could require you to own the things you describe, but cannot limit you to them without violating the constitution.

The only way that the Congress can violate the Second is to disallow the formation of regulated militias.

You are too stupid for words to describe.

 

[ralfy]

The Supreme Court already ruled you're a dumbass.

Why do you automatically support the Supreme Court? Are you not able to question the ruling?

For example, are you implying that without the Second you have no right to defend yourself using weapons? Or that you need the Second to justify the right to defend yourself?

But isn't the right to defend oneself a natural one?

Next, how do you explain Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts in light of the second half of the Second?

 

[ralfy]

So the existence of gun permits is proof that they're valid? Circular dumbass reasoning.

Go ahead and explain to us how gun permits are illegal.

 

[ralfy]

ralfy is actually trying to say that wanting to purchase a firearm is suspicious, and therefore the government can conduct a warantless search on you. Because guns are evil!

No, that's not what I am trying to say.

My argument is that the right to bear arms is a natural one and does not require government approval or the Constitution. It's based on English common law and the right to defend oneself.

Given that, why is the Second being used as justification of a right that is inalienable? Why is the second half of the Second together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts ignored?

Next, a natural right is intrinsic but not absolute. That's why it can be abridged for one reason or another, as in the case of prisoners not allowed to bear arms.

 

[ralfy]

The Second refers to the formation of regulated milita, and uses the natural right of self-defense as justification.

The definition of a "militia" is in the hands of the people, not the government

Exactly, that's why the Second was written. Regulated militias had to be formed to support the small Continental Army. For more details, consider Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

 

[ralfy]

Ignorance is one thing. Stupidity is another.

Yes. That's why I qualified your degree of ignorance rather than described you as stupid.

Congress can pass no such law without violating the 2A, per the legal jurisprudence laid out by Heller. If you need a link to the case, please let me know.

Now, Congress could require you to own the things you describe, but cannot limit you to them without violating the constitution.

The only way that the Congress can violate the Second is to disallow the formation of regulated militias.

You are too stupid for words to describe.

And no relevant counter-argument from you whatsoever. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Exactly, that's why the Second was written. Regulated militias had to be formed to support the small Continental Army. For more details, consider Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

Do you know what "regulated" means (the archaic definition)?