Shall not be infringed.

[M14 Shooter]

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary..."
When I only quote part of it, sounds a lot different then when you only quote part of it, huh?
Maybe that's why there's a debate.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

So, no.

 

[Yurt]

Logic, in this case, is to present an argument and backing it up with citations or fact.

You've done neither.

The OP presented an argument that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well

Fact number one - That's a third of the amendment.
Fact number two - All other parts of the bill of rights have been "infringed" in one way or another by legislation or case law.

You interrupt that argument by stating my arguments are rooted in "emotionalism" and then fail to illustrate, how.

Additionally you fail to cite any clause or amendment in the Constitution that supports the OP's argument. And I even gave you the parameters the OP set up.

Thus..you are lacking in any substance here. And you further dilute any substance by continuing with the ridiculous insults.

Which, is fine in my book.

Because you wind up looking silly.

holy crap dude. i cited scotus TWICE in defense of the argument. do you need the actual cases? i thought both cases were well known.

shall not be infringed.....what the **** do you think that means? you're the one who has not presented a single argument. all you've done is whine and moan and ***** about the supposed lack of argument from someone else. you have yet to present one fact, one argument or anything other than your whiny opinion.

fact no. 1: scotus says you're wrong and that the clause is independent. so again, it is actually YOU who is not citing anything.

fact no. 2: only the second amendment says infringed. again, you're not citing facts or anything. you're making things up and trying to pass it off as coherent argument.

please try and actually come up with cites and something containing facts along with a coherent argument instead of just whining like a baby. thanks.

Not making any thing up. I am arguing from a constitutional view point..which differs from Heller..which I find to be a reprehensible decision. And from the very people that argue for "State's" rights.

And even that decision, which is terrible in my book, argues the right is not without limits.

sallow:

you complain i did not give citations to my arguments, and then when i explain to you that actually i did, TWICE, here you are not citing your arguments. you're doing the exact opposite.

what is your problem?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you kidding? What part of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." do you not get?

Article 1 Section 8 of the drafted Constitution gave the federal Congress the power to "raise and support an army". But many colonists considered a permanent standing army as a symbol of the British tyranny they had just defeated. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to reduce the perceived threats of liberty that were created by the fed's power to establish a national military.

Please feel free to understand American history before Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

Apparently the connection between the militia and their right to have guns doesn't resignate with well with him. To him, the are utterly unconnected. I think he must have slept through American History.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

Fact:

As is the case with other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Apparently the connection between the militia and their right to have guns doesn't resignate with well with him. To him, the are utterly unconnected. I think he must have slept through American History.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

Fact:

As is the case with other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

Fact:

As is the case with other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

And?

That’s not at issue.

At issue is the OP’s false claim that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment may not be subject to any limitations at all; when in fact it’s perfectly Constitutional to require firearms to be licensed, registered, and prospective owners subject to waiting periods.

We as gun owners may disapprove of such measures, perceiving them burdensome and ineffective, but we have no legal grounds upon which to base such objections.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Fact:

As is the case with other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

And?

That’s not at issue.

At issue is the OP’s false claim that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment may not be subject to any limitations at all; when in fact it’s perfectly Constitutional to require firearms to be licensed, registered, and prospective owners subject to waiting periods.

We as gun owners may disapprove of such measures, perceiving them burdensome and ineffective, but we have no legal grounds upon which to base such objections.

The courts have ruled that some reasonable limitations are Constitutional. Where have they ruled that licensing, registration, or waiting periods are in fact "reasonable limitations" in all cases and at all levels of government?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

And?

That’s not at issue.

At issue is the OP’s false claim that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment may not be subject to any limitations at all; when in fact it’s perfectly Constitutional to require firearms to be licensed, registered, and prospective owners subject to waiting periods.

We as gun owners may disapprove of such measures, perceiving them burdensome and ineffective, but we have no legal grounds upon which to base such objections.

The courts have ruled that some reasonable limitations are Constitutional. Where have they ruled that licensing, registration, or waiting periods are in fact "reasonable limitations" in all cases and at all levels of government?

Here are but a few examples:

Hightower v. City of Boston, 11-2281: licensing requirements upheld as Constitutional.

nder Heller, the government may regulate the carrying of concealed weapons outside of the home; 3) plaintiff's facial attack fails because she has not shown that the statute lacks any plainly legitimate sweep; 4) the license survives rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons given as to why plaintiff's as-applied claim fails; and 5) plaintiff's claim that the revocation scheme violates procedural due process is without merit.

Hightower v. City of Boston, 08/30/2012, 11-2281 - US 1st Circuit Case Summary | FindLaw

Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011): registration and waiting periods upheld as Constitutional.

The record supports the view that basic registration of handguns is deeply enough rooted in our history to support the presumption that a registration requirement is constitutional.

HELLER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA*-*Argued November 15, 2010.

People v. Arizmendi, 2011 Cal. App. Ban on assault weapons upheld as Constitutional.

“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” (Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 624-625.) Rather, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not . . . a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (Id. at p. 626.) It is the right to possess and carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as self-defense. The Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in one’s home because handguns are a “class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society” for the lawful purpose of self-defense. (Heller, supra, at p. 628.) Assault weapons are not. (James, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 676.)
Accordingly, we agree with the James court and conclude that Penal Code section 12280, subdivision (b) [banning assault weapons], does not prohibit conduct protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Legal Source Directory - Because We Know Legal: P. v. Arizmendi

Indeed, state and Federal courts have been so overwhelming consistent in their rulings considering various forms of Second Amendment regulation, few will ultimately be reviewed by the High Court.

 

[PaulS1950]

The federal government (including the supreme court) was not granted the power to determine constitutionality of laws - especially those involing individual rights - by the constitution.
All of the listed rights in the bill of rights limit the actions that can be taken against them. No part of the government can go beyond those limits lawfully. The collective population is our government and even with a 99% vote the second amendment cannot be revoked lawfully.

But who enforces that if the Supreme Court had no power to rule laws unconstitutional?

The city of Chicago banned handguns. The SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional and effectively lifted the ban.

According to you, the SCOTUS had no right to rule on that law, let alone void it.

According to the nineth and tenth amendment it is left to "the people" which is commonly referred to as the individual citizens of the states. The supreme court can strike down an action taken by a government that infringes on the rights that are protected by the constitution but they do not have the power to determine the meaning of the constitution as it pertains to a law.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The federal government (including the supreme court) was not granted the power to determine constitutionality of laws - especially those involing individual rights - by the constitution.
All of the listed rights in the bill of rights limit the actions that can be taken against them. No part of the government can go beyond those limits lawfully. The collective population is our government and even with a 99% vote the second amendment cannot be revoked lawfully.

But who enforces that if the Supreme Court had no power to rule laws unconstitutional?

The city of Chicago banned handguns. The SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional and effectively lifted the ban.

According to you, the SCOTUS had no right to rule on that law, let alone void it.

According to the nineth and tenth amendment it is left to "the people" which is commonly referred to as the individual citizens of the states. The supreme court can strike down an action taken by a government that infringes on the rights that are protected by the constitution but they do not have the power to determine the meaning of the constitution as it pertains to a law.

"the people"

just like the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms

imagine that

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently the connection between the militia and their right to have guns doesn't resignate with well with him. To him, the are utterly unconnected. I think he must have slept through American History.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

Fact:

As is the case with other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

Fact:
Your post does nothing to negate mine.
Thank you for playing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fact:

As is the case with other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

And?
That’s not at issue.
At issue is the OP’s false claim that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment may not be subject to any limitations at all

Oooohhhhh.
Poor reading comprehension on your part.

when in fact it’s perfectly Constitutional to require firearms to be licensed, registered, and prospective owners subject to waiting periods.

The above statement is a lie.
Disagree?
Cite the SCotUS decision that considers these restrictions and then so rules in its holding

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011): registration and waiting periods upheld as Constitutional.

The record supports the view that basic registration of handguns is deeply enough rooted in our history to support the presumption that a registration requirement is constitutional.

HELLER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA*-*Argued November 15, 2010.

Interestring that you cited the appeals court ruling and not the SCotUS ruling.
Why didn't you cite DC v Heller here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

No response? None?

 

[jon_berzerk]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

No response? None?

oddly of all the rights only one says

"shall not be infringed"

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

No response? None?

oddly of all the rights only one says

"shall not be infringed"

Kinda funny how that works, isn't it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

No response? None?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

No response? None?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

No response? None?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No response? None?

 

[jon_berzerk]

No response? None?

nope