Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights

[JoeB131]

strategic weapons are barred from private ownership always been that way.

But why not? I want my weapons grade anthrax, dammit!

That's not my primary argument. My primary argument is that the federal government was never given any power to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

Yes, that's a pretty crazy argument.

That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to arms; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to arms is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.

Sure they do. Public safety, for instance. We shouldn't have to wait for this guy

to kill someone before they take away his right to own major firepower.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's not my primary argument. My primary argument is that the federal government was never given any power to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to arms; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to arms is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.



I would point to the principle of conferred powers and retained rights. The interests "We the People" have conferred (granted) to government (warmaking powers, maintaining an army) we can no longer claim any power / right to (to your quesiton, we have no claimable right to possess and use the weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare).

The obverse of that principle is of course, for those interests that "We the People" never granted government any aspect of any power over, the people retain full and complete rights to and government has no claim of authority in those interests (in this case, the right to keep and bear arms).



No doubt it would be undisciplined. It was assumed (by the framers) that the people would always have the state governments on their side and their organization and structure in a dispute with a tyrannical federal government and much ink was used explaining that.

Interestingly, Hamilton discussed in Federalist 28 what would happen if it was the state government that went tyrannical and the obvious deficiencies in order within the citizens fighting against that government. Of course defending Liberty from usurpers remains the priority no matter what the obstacles (and yes, a reason why the RKBA is secured). . . .

"In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."​

​

​

I don't expect a reasoned reply from you but a least you have been presented with the truth. I know it will make no difference to you because all you argue is that the "main reason for people to have weapons" is so they can murder.

.

That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to privacy; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to privacy is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.

The Constitution is also clear that 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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The one keeps flying over your head.

Because I'm a rational, reasoned person, and your "point" is the fartherst thing from that.

 

[2aguy]

But why not? I want my weapons grade anthrax, dammit!



Yes, that's a pretty crazy argument.



Sure they do. Public safety, for instance. We shouldn't have to wait for this guy View attachment 588228 to kill someone before they take away his right to own major firepower.

Yeah, that's on his mental health professional...not on the owners of 600 million guns who didn't shoot anyone that day.....and again.....the theater he attacked was the only gun free zone theater in the area....he targeted it because it was a gun free zone...and surrendered as soon as he was confronted by a cop......had someone in that theater been armed, he could have been stopped at the time....

At the same time, a muslim terrorist in Nice, France, using a rental truck, not a gun, murdered 86 people to his 13, and wounded 435....in 5 minutes of driving..

Of the two, the rental truck was deadlier...

 

[M14 Shooter]

That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to privacy; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to privacy is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.

And yet, you agree with Roe v Wade, which does exactly that.

And, you believe the TX abortion law to be constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution is also clear that 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.

But it -does- protect the right of the people to own and use all bearable arms for traditionally lawful purposes from infringement.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Because I'm a rational, reasoned person, and your "point" is the fartherst thing from that.

Sure, the same shit you played about guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure, the same shit you played about guns.

You and I both you know you have no ability to rationally, reasonably demonstrate anything I have said about guns to be unsound -- that's why you run away from -every- such conversation.
Every. Single. One.

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution is also clear that 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.

You idiots keep saying that....as if the Right being "not unlimited," means you get to ban every gun and magazine as long as you allow us to keep a toy gun....then you will say see....you still have the 2nd Amendment....

What Scalia actually stated.......in the actual Supreme Court opinion...the parts you idiots like to ignore....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Scalia in Friedman v Highland Park....after Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And Alito...in the Caetano Supreme Court Ruling...

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------
As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.


If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You and I both you know you have no ability to rationally, reasonably demonstrate anything I have said about guns to be unsound -- that's why you run away from -every- such conversation.
Every. Single. One.

Yes, everything you said about guns was unsound.
I get tired of arguing with a brick.
Like right now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, everything you said about guns was unsound.

You and I both know you know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

[Abatis]

December 3 2020
<-snip->

Posting this just so you don't think I'm ignoring you.

I don't have time for goofballs; I've written you off as competent to debate this topic.

 

[Abatis]

Yes, that's a pretty crazy argument.

Why, that is the most fundamental principle of the US Constitution; it is the reason why the Federalists argued against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

You suffer from the most common affliction amongst authoritarian anti-gunners. You think going on and on about what the Constitution isn't and what the 2ndA doesn't do, is an actual argument.

You never give us an explanation of what specific powers the Constitution has granted to government (citing Article, Section and clause) and who and what the 2nd Amendment protects, citing actual cases showing the party claiming the immunity being granted standing and the holding of the Court explaining their legal reasoning for sustaining the immunity claimed.

All you have is a collectivist theory with no support in the philosophical, historical or legal history of the nation, stolen from a racist, discriminatory practice in the rebel states, a theory that had no presence in the federal courts before 1942.

Sure they do. Public safety, for instance.

The government has no express power to write or enforce laws on gun possession and use geared towards public safety.

 

[Abatis]

The Constitution is also clear that 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.

No, the Constitution is not "clear" on that point.

As SCOTUS in Heller said, all the 2nd Amendment can be said to "say" is:

1. to implicitly recognize that the right to arms pre-existed the Constitution, thus the RKBA is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution.
2. to expressly and unequivocally say the right to arms shall not be infringed.

That's it . . . everything else you want to divine from Heller is you inventing against the SCOTUS, misrepresenting what the Court said.

That statement / holding you quote is a creation of and derived from many courts assuming the power to discern why the right to arms was forever excepted out of the powers granted to government.

Those courts wanted to discover what the "object" was of the provisions composed to recognize and secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Answering the question of "why" the right was secured, informed the courts (including SCOTUS) as to the types of arms that were protected and by extension, what types of arms could be regulated / restricted (which is of course what you -- being a statist authoritarian, not a constitutionalist, focus on).

One thing I know for sure is you have no real understanding of what you quoted above. Go read Aymettte v Tennessee, the case SCOTUS used to decide Miller and you come back and we can discuss your quote.

That challenge goes for anyone here.

 

[Abatis]

That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to privacy; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to privacy is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.

You are confusing what is expressly stated in the Constitution and what is derived from the Warren Court working their magic.

Actually though, I agree 110% with what you said there; I apply my beliefs across the board.

I am among those who think the penumbral rights theory is an acceptable and necessary workaround (but admittedly constitutionally clunky) to arrive at a legal place where ALL rights, unenumerated and enumerated, are protected. I don't want to give judges any wiggle room to rationalize restrictions where government has no authority to act.

I would prefer to have the Court revisit Slaughterhouse (1873) and reverse it and reinvigorate the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment and have "Liberty" reassume its place in jurisprudence -- and fully enforce what I said earlier and what you turned to apply to the right to privacy . . .

The Court had that opportunity in 2010 with McDonald and many were excited that they might at least entertain the argument but no, the Court fell back on "due process".

With Scalia gone and Thomas' significant philosophical influence on the current Court, perhaps that will happen and the disputes and argument over the constitutional protection of the right to privacy (abortion) will be settled (and a teaching moment will arise for the nation about "conservative" Justices; that they can put aside personal beliefs and truly decide on law applying the Constitution).

.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.

What if it was suspended?

The Constitution cannot legitimately be “suspended”.

It is the highest law in this nation, and it remains so no matter what excuses corrupt politicians might try to use to get around it.

 

[Flash]

It gets around the Constitution because Texas is allowing private citizens to sue when abortions happen. If a the fetus has a heartbeat, it can't be aborted under the law, but it's private citizens who enforce the law through lawsuits.

Justice Kavenaugh is saying the same can be done with guns.

I'm not a Supreme Court scholar so I'm not sure exactly but Justice Kavenaugh is on the Supreme Court.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.

The only connection the right of abortion has is Roe v Wade and that can be redefined.

Bogus argument.

 

[JoeB131]

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.

The only connection the right of abortion has is Roe v Wade and that can be redefined.

Bogus argument.

Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership. The word "Gun" appears nowhere in that amendment.

If you want to include "arms", then why are so many weapons illegal to own, from Weaponized Anthrax to Num-chuks.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.

Guns didnt commit any murders