Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[Dr Grump]

No one said it did.

President Biden is correct that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ as affirmed by Scalia in Heller.

Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one said it did.

President Biden is correct that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ as affirmed by Scalia in Heller.

it's absolute for one reason it's the only right that ends with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.

Yes it can be amended but try it and find out just how hard that will be. and FYI that right tell the government they have no right from taking that right away. gun owners will keep their guns no matter how you whine

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Idiot those were his words

You truly are an ignoramus.

No right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’ – including the Second Amendment; Scalia affirmed that fact in Heller, and President Biden is likewise correct.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You truly are an ignoramus.

No right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’ – including the Second Amendment; Scalia affirmed that fact in Heller, and President Biden is likewise correct.

You used a snippet of his words I posted what you left out.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.

Not exactly.

Amendments can’t be changed per se, but they can be repealed via Constitutional amendment, such as the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Other than repealing an Amendment by amending the Constitution, the courts interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to determine their meaning – in this case the Heller Court affirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ that no right is ‘unlimited.’

That Scalia affirmed the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited is the fundamental reason why American conservatives have come to loathe the Heller decision, that Scalia ‘betrayed’ conservatives:

“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” ibid

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You used a snippet of his words I posted what you left out.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the settled, accepted fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute’ and that President Biden was correct to acknowledge that fact.

 

[Abatis]

That's not what the second says....

Do you believe a doctrine or determination exists in law that the right to keep and bear arms of the citizen is created and thus dependent upon, or qualified by, the words of the 2nd Amendment?

Do you have anything like a citation to a SCOTUS decision or any other authority to point to for support, or are you just spouting bald opinion from your imagination?

Without you citing an actual authority for your statement, it has all the weight of sharing you think Chevy makes the best truck . . .

 

[Open Bolt]

Oh, so you don't have any links,

That is incorrect. I gave you a link to Encyclopedia Britannica. Are they not reputable enough for you?

just a blurb from the EB explaining life in the UK 1000 years ago.

Entries from Encyclopedia Britannica establishing that the right to keep and bear arms existed 1400 years ago.

Thanks...Yeah, didn't think there was any pre existing right written down in law.

You were wrong. It's been written down for the past 1400 years.

Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.

The American people are not going to abolish our civil liberties. Sorry.

 

[Open Bolt]

No one said it did.

Lots of progressives use the phrase that it isn't absolute as cover for their efforts to violate the Second Amendment.

That Scalia affirmed the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited is the fundamental reason why American conservatives have come to loathe the Heller decision, that Scalia ‘betrayed’ conservatives:

I'm an American conservative, and I remain delighted with the Heller decision.

Is it perfect? No. But it's a great first step.

 

[Open Bolt]

no firearm was banned because of the NFA 1934 that act only placed a stamp act on short-barrel shotguns.

That stamp made it impossible for most people to acquire such guns.

Making something impossible to acquire is an awful lot like banning it.

 

[Abatis]

What preexisting right? Link please...

Oh, so you don't have any links, just a blurb from the EB explaining life in the UK 1000 years ago. Thanks...Yeah, didn't think there was any pre existing right written down in law.

Damn, I should have read ahead, you went and proved you are oblivious / ignorant / clueless to what the law is . . .

The right to arms is NOT granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment.

That fundamental, foundational principle of the Constitution forces the legal fact that the right can not be argued to be in any manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution) for its existence.

The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent re-affirming this principle for going on 150 years:

​

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

Just a follow up, just in case you feel the need to regale us further with your expertise in analysis of the meaning of terms and constructions contained in the Bill of Rights . . . Please tell us what the word "retained" means in the 9th Amendment; what condition does that word presume regarding the source and nature of our rights?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

​

.

 

[LilOlLady]

You people must know that banning guns is impossible because first, you have to know I have a gun, come and take it away and in 30mins I will have another one or two. Guns do not kill people anyway, it is crazy people who kill.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Agreed.



That is incorrect. The National Guard is part of the United States Army, which is very much a standing army.



Its status as part of the US Army means that it is not the militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.



Agreed.

The National Guard is militia based, it's based around the Militia. When called up into federal service it is a part of the US military. But then the militia has been like this for 200+ years.

No, you're wrong about it's status in the US military making it not the militia.

Read the Dick Act.

Dubuque Telegraph-Herald - Google News Archive Search

news.google.com

Here's an article from 1903. Says: "an enactment which reorganizes the militia"

It has the "organized militia" and "unorganized militia". You might disagree with this, but it is what it is.

National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions."

Frequently Asked Questions - Army National Guard

www.nationalguard.mil

" How is the Army National Guard different from the Army Reserve
Our National Guard mission makes us different. Unlike the Army Reserve, we have a dual mission, meaning we answer to both state and federal governments. So Guard Soldiers can be deployed by either the governor of their resident state or the president of the United States, depending on where they are needed most."

How We Began - About the Guard - The National Guard

"We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts."

 

[frigidweirdo]

The whole point of law abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms is for self defense.

What do you mean by "self defense"?

Read the first amendment clauses of the RBA in state constitutions.

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

"defence of the State"

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

"defence of themselves and the state"

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

"common defence"

These are essentially the three types of clauses up to 1795.

Defence of the state is kind of easy to understand. "common defence" and "defence of themselves" I'd say is the same thing. Why?

Because of what started to happen after 1817.

"1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."

So, instead of "defence of themselves" it became "defence of himself", clearly a difference here. Clearly the plural "themselves" is "common" and "himself" is "individual".

So, it is pretty clear that in 1792 and before, the RBA acts were about the defense of the common unit, rather than individual self defense.

Note, many things were not protected. They didn't protect hunting. Why? What was the point of protecting hunting? The US Constitution is about the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They saw a problem with the English crown taking away the ability of colonists to defend themselves, so they took this power away from the government. They didn't need to take the power to prevent individual self defense because it wasn't an issue in those days.

 

[Abatis]

President Biden is correct.

And Scalia agrees with him:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

That the RKBA is not absolute, does not mean that government's powers to restrict the RKBA are absolute.

Since you are such a fan of Scalia, I remember him warning modern judges and legislators against constant reassessing of the value of the right to arms in modern society;

"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."​

And I remember Scalia doubling down on that theme . . . and this can only be taken as him speaking directly to "the legislature" and its power to dictate to the people what arms they are allowed to possess and use:

"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."​

So while the RKBA isn't absolute, the government does not possess malleable, subjective, ever evolving powers to restrict the right.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You people must know that banning guns is impossible because first, you have to know I have a gun, come and take it away and in 30mins I will have another one or two. Guns do not kill people anyway, it is crazy people who kill.

Crazy people with guns are far more effective killers than crazy people without guns.

 

[Abatis]

Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.

Just because the process is set-out to amend / modify the Constitution doesn't mean the changes you want to see occur are possible.

There are huge obstacles to jump, the first and not the least is the impossibility of the math. The thought that there are 38 states that would vote to ratify a new federal amendment, is hilarious; there is no hunger for gun control in the states, quite the opposite.

There's an even bigger problem, the question if the state governments can even consider such an amendment under the powers granted to them under their own constitutions.

I know you have this denial of the principle of pre-existing / inherent rights, but under the state constitutions that principle is a structural component. State constitutions call out the inherent rights of their people as an initial act and declare those rights are forever excepted out of the powers of government and shall remain inviolate (that's how it is worded in my state, Pennsylvania).

That is done before a single power is granted / conferred. That is a very strong statement about the relationship between rights and powers and the sovereignty of the citizen.

So, back to the question, how can a state consider a federal amendment that surrenders rights of the state's citizens to the feds, if that right is forever locked away from their consideration?

I argue that before an amendment rescinding or modifying the federal 2nd Amendment can be considered by the states, most, if not all states would each need to convene their own constitutional conventions, just to grant their government new power to allow them to give away a right that the state recognizes and promises to protect and declares forever outside of their power.

I'd be glad to hear your oppositional argument to those points . . .

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you believe a doctrine or determination exists in law that the right to keep and bear arms of the citizen is created and thus dependent upon, or qualified by, the words of the 2nd Amendment?

Do you have anything like a citation to a SCOTUS decision or any other authority to point to for support, or are you just spouting bald opinion from your imagination?

Without you citing an actual authority for your statement, it has all the weight of sharing you think Chevy makes the best truck . . .

Why do I have to cite the SCOTUS? It's a group of men and women with an opinion. The only difference is they get to put it into law, I don't. And no I don't. I think the right to form a militia that can bear arms is the point of the 2nd. Otherwise, why mention militia at all. Why not just say "Hey, guys, this amendment says you can carry your peashooter anywhere you want, any time of day and have it on your persons all the time if you want"?

 

[Dr Grump]

That is incorrect. I gave you a link to Encyclopedia Britannica. Are they not reputable enough for you?



Entries from Encyclopedia Britannica establishing that the right to keep and bear arms existed 1400 years ago.



You were wrong. It's been written down for the past 1400 years.



The American people are not going to abolish our civil liberties. Sorry.

It's not a civil liberty. And pre 1400 years ago? Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?