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

[Little-Acorn]

The men who wrote the 2nd amendment never applied it as you insist they meant the 2nd amendment to be applied. You are offering us an extreme, absolutist interpretation that the founders never followed. The purpose of an armed public was so they could be ready to serve in the militia. Not so they could reload over the corpses of their victims so they could fire on the local constabulary.

And yet the Framers carefully refrained from putting ANY exceptions into the 2nd... exceptions they were just as careful to include in other amendments.

Why?

(Hint: I've already answered this point in the OP )

 

[bendog]

It does say "the people". It says nothing about an individual "person". The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact. The FFs would have considered it unreasonable for an insane person to be allowed to have a weapon, IMO.

If an insane person is adjudicated, they lose their 2nd amendment rights.

The "people" cannot be defined any other way than saying the individual retains the right to keep and bear arms, unless the person disqualifies themselves from their rights, i.e. convicted of a crime.

Ah, but now you're saying it's not an absolute right that may not have limitations. And that's correct. LOL

But, I'm not so sure an individual "loses" rights. Rather, courts tend to look upon restrictions to any right as how the restrictions affect the entire group restricted from exercising a right, and whether the restriction is reasonable. A person may become free of insanity or have a crime pardoned or a criminal record removed.

 

[Ravi]

The men who wrote the 2nd amendment never applied it as you insist they meant the 2nd amendment to be applied. You are offering us an extreme, absolutist interpretation that the founders never followed. The purpose of an armed public was so they could be ready to serve in the militia. Not so they could reload over the corpses of their victims so they could fire on the local constabulary.

And yet the Framers carefully refrained from putting ANY exceptions into the 2nd... exceptions they were just as careful to include in other amendments.

Why?

(Hint: I've already answered this point in the OP )

Someone advised you to look up the definition of infringe.

Since you can't seem to do it, here you go:



: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

If you take away a felons guns, you are not taking them away wrongly. Quite simple, really.

 

[bendog]

The men who wrote the 2nd amendment never applied it as you insist they meant the 2nd amendment to be applied. You are offering us an extreme, absolutist interpretation that the founders never followed. The purpose of an armed public was so they could be ready to serve in the militia. Not so they could reload over the corpses of their victims so they could fire on the local constabulary.

And yet the Framers carefully refrained from putting ANY exceptions into the 2nd... exceptions they were just as careful to include in other amendments.

Why?

(Hint: I've already answered this point in the OP )

Someone advised you to look up the definition of infringe.

Since you can't seem to do it, here you go:



: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

If you take away a felons guns, you are not taking them away wrongly. Quite simple, really.

That was nice of you to try and help him out. There's also the now obsolete meaning of "to frustrate or defeat."

infringe | to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

But the point is the 2nd amendment has never been without limitations.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

 

[bendog]

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.

Yet, restrictions on ownership have been upheld repeatedly. Scalia even said assault rifles can be banned. Curious that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In your example, the Police would respond and disarm the suspect by whatever means needed. If he lived he'd have a trial and the weapon would be introduced as evidence.

That's called Due Process. That's not Government Weapons Confiscation.

By the way I'm not surprised by the uninformed responses by the resident Liberal/Communists here. Just more proof of how deluded they are.

And, until relatively recently, on being either acquitted of the crime, or else having been given a sentence short of death or of life in prison, on completing that sentence, having “paid his debt to society” and been returned as a free member of society, he'd have been given back his gun.

Of course, back in more reasonable times, a murderer would almost certainly have never been given a sentence that he could ever complete. If he didn't get killed at the scene, on conviction, he'd almost certainly have been put to death; and we'd never even be discussing whether someone with a past murder conviction should ever be given his guns back. I guess if anyone really thought it was an issue, they could bury his guns with him in his coffin.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ah the lengths people will go to, to protect their precious toys.

How cute.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The men who wrote the 2nd amendment never applied it as you insist they meant the 2nd amendment to be applied. You are offering us an extreme, absolutist interpretation that the founders never followed. The purpose of an armed public was so they could be ready to serve in the militia. Not so they could reload over the corpses of their victims so they could fire on the local constabulary.

And yet the Framers carefully refrained from putting ANY exceptions into the 2nd... exceptions they were just as careful to include in other amendments.

Why?

(Hint: I've already answered this point in the OP )

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech WITHOUT an exception for yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of the press WITHOUT an exception for the publication of child pornography.

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion WITHOUT an exception for the religious practice of polygamy.

So, Mr. Know it all,

tell us why those 3 actions do not get 1st Amendment protection even though there are no exceptions related to them in the 1st Amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Based on the OP's genius reasoning,

not a single gangbanger in America illegally possesses a firearm.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yet, restrictions on ownership have been upheld repeatedly. Scalia even said assault rifles can be banned. Curious that.

I've noticed that when people can't make an argument about what the Amendment says, they change the subject and try to talk about what the Courts say instead. Even when the Court statement flatly contradicts what the Amendment says.

When the Courts say one thing and the Constitution says another, which one should prevail?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yet, restrictions on ownership have been upheld repeatedly. Scalia even said assault rifles can be banned. Curious that.

Jefferson warned against the great folly of allowing courts to usurp the authority to interpret the Constitution; and I think we can now clearly see, if we are not blind, how Jefferson's warning has proven true, in the form of courts putting their opinions on what they wish the Constitution meant above what is clearly written therein.

In any event, there is something that strikes me very odd about the whole legal controversy over “assault weapons”; putting aside the absurdity of banning or restricting weapons based on characteristics that are almost exclusively cosmetic, having little or no bearing on the suitability of those weapons for any legitimate or criminal purpose.

One of the first major Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment was U.S. vs. Miller, back in 1939. Jack Miller was convicted, among other things, of transporting across state lines, a shotguns, the barrel of which was shorter than the 18" required by the National Firearms Act of 1934. On appeal, this conviction was overturned, as a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Jack Miller, being a criminal, as soon as he was free, went into hiding, and did not participate in any way when the government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only heard the government's side of the argument, nobody being there to argue for Mr.Miller's side. That considered, I think that as flawed as this ruling was, that it is remarkable that it came out as favorable to the Second Amendment as it did.

The Court ruled that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons that had a military application, which were suitable for use in connection with one's participation in a militia. The Court further found that since it had not been called to its attention that a short-barrelled shotgun had any military application, that the Second Amendment did not apply to such a weapon.

Had someone been there to competently argue for Miller's side, I think there's a very good chance that the Court would have been persuaded against the idea that only militia-suitable weapons were protected. Certainly, it would have been called to the Court's attention that a short-barrelled shotgun was, in fact, a standard arm currently in use by our Army at that time; known as a “trench sweeper”; and on that basis, they would have had to uphold the lower court ruling which threw out Miller's conviction for possessing it.

By the standard set by the Miller ruling, what we should be most allowed today to possess would be a weapon that is suitable for modern military use, which would be weapons comparable to those that we issue to our soldiers, an M-16, M-4, or other true assault rifle.

“Assault weapons” are defined and banned because they bear a cosmetic resemblance and some mechanical similarity to these true military-grade assault rifles. If the Miller ruling was correctly applied to this controversy, it might still uphold bans and restrictions on “assault weapons”, not because of their resemblance to genuine military-grade assault rifles, but because they are not true assault rifles, and therefore not suitable for military use. Instead, we would be recognized as having a right to possess and bear genuine military-grade assault rifles, suitable for use in a militia. As it is, our corrupt government illegally denies us any right to possess these weapons at all.

 

[g5000]

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

If the phrase is not a condition, how would our rights be affected without it being there?

If the answer that question is "not at all", then why is that phrase there?

 

[g5000]

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.

And yet the police actually can take away the murderer's smoking gun without violating the Second Amendment. So there is obviously a big hole in your example.

 

[bendog]

Yet, restrictions on ownership have been upheld repeatedly. Scalia even said assault rifles can be banned. Curious that.

Jefferson warned against the great folly of allowing courts to usurp the authority to interpret the Constitution; and I think we can now clearly see, if we are not blind, how Jefferson's warning has proven true, in the form of courts putting their opinions on what they wish the Constitution meant above what is clearly written therein.

In any event, there is something that strikes me very odd about the whole legal controversy over “assault weapons”; putting aside the absurdity of banning or restricting weapons based on characteristics that are almost exclusively cosmetic, having little or no bearing on the suitability of those weapons for any legitimate or criminal purpose.

One of the first major Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment was U.S. vs. Miller, back in 1939. Jack Miller was convicted, among other things, of transporting across state lines, a shotguns, the barrel of which was shorter than the 18" required by the National Firearms Act of 1934. On appeal, this conviction was overturned, as a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Jack Miller, being a criminal, as soon as he was free, went into hiding, and did not participate in any way when the government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only heard the government's side of the argument, nobody being there to argue for Mr.Miller's side. That considered, I think that as flawed as this ruling was, that it is remarkable that it came out as favorable to the Second Amendment as it did.

The Court ruled that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons that had a military application, which were suitable for use in connection with one's participation in a militia. The Court further found that since it had not been called to its attention that a short-barrelled shotgun had any military application, that the Second Amendment did not apply to such a weapon.

Had someone been there to competently argue for Miller's side, I think there's a very good chance that the Court would have been persuaded against the idea that only militia-suitable weapons were protected. Certainly, it would have been called to the Court's attention that a short-barrelled shotgun was, in fact, a standard arm currently in use by our Army at that time; known as a “trench sweeper”; and on that basis, they would have had to uphold the lower court ruling which threw out Miller's conviction for possessing it.

By the standard set by the Miller ruling, what we should be most allowed today to possess would be a weapon that is suitable for modern military use, which would be weapons comparable to those that we issue to our soldiers, an M-16, M-4, or other true assault rifle.

“Assault weapons” are defined and banned because they bear a cosmetic resemblance and some mechanical similarity to these true military-grade assault rifles. If the Miller ruling was correctly applied to this controversy, it might still uphold bans and restrictions on “assault weapons”, not because of their resemblance to genuine military-grade assault rifles, but because they are not true assault rifles, and therefore not suitable for military use. Instead, we would be recognized as having a right to possess and bear genuine military-grade assault rifles, suitable for use in a militia. As it is, our corrupt government illegally denies us any right to possess these weapons at all.

The courts never usurped. There were restrictions on the use and carry of firearms in colonial times. You are spouting revisionist nonsense. Even the very pro gun right people accept regulation in terms of storage and carry existed.

http://saf.org/journal/16/ColonialFirearmRegulation.pdf

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech WITHOUT an exception for yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of the press WITHOUT an exception for the publication of child pornography.

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion WITHOUT an exception for the religious practice of polygamy.

So, Mr. Know it all,

tell us why those 3 actions do not get 1st Amendment protection even though there are no exceptions related to them in the 1st Amendment.

That's easy, at least in two of the above three examples.

As Will Rogers famously said, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” Any right has an end where it conflicts with some other right of some other person.

A theater patron has a right not to be needlessly and unjustly put into a dangerous situation that could result in his being trampled to death, and the First Amendment does not override this with a right of someone else to say something that serves no other purpose than to create that dangerous situation.

A child has a right not to be sexually-exploited, and the First Amendment doesn't override this, to provide a right to produce pornography that involves such sexual exploitation of children.

There are plenty of other clear examples, as well. Intellectual property rights (actually mentioned in the Constitution; among the powers delegated in Article I section 8 to the federal government, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”.) obviates any right that one might claimed under the First Amendment to exercise freedom of speech or of the press in order to violate these intellectual property rights.


There is no right that anyone has, that is violated simply because someone else is in possession of a weapon; therefore, no similar rationale on which to base any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms comparable to the examples given those of speech crafted to create a dangerous panic, or the use of the press to produce child pornography. Any action that one might take using a weapon, to unjustly cause harm to another, is already legitimately criminalized as assault and/or murder, without any need to restrict the right to possess arms.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I've noticed that when people can't make an argument about what the Amendment says, they change the subject and try to talk about what the Courts say instead. Even when the Court statement flatly contradicts what the Amendment says.

When the Courts say one thing and the Constitution says another, which one should prevail?

You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.—Thomas Jefferson, 1820​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

The men who wrote the 2nd amendment never applied it as you insist they meant the 2nd amendment to be applied. You are offering us an extreme, absolutist interpretation that the founders never followed. The purpose of an armed public was so they could be ready to serve in the militia. Not so they could reload over the corpses of their victims so they could fire on the local constabulary.

And yet the Framers carefully refrained from putting ANY exceptions into the 2nd... exceptions they were just as careful to include in other amendments.

Why?

(Hint: I've already answered this point in the OP )

You haven't answered the point in the OP. You've offered us your opinion. And you're obviously contradicted by the complete lack of any example of your extreme interpretations every being applied our nation. By the founders, or anyone else. When armed insurrections arose the founders disarmed them. Explicitly contradicting your opinion.

Again, any argument taken to a ridiculous extreme is ridiculous.

 

[Skylar]

I've noticed that when people can't make an argument about what the Amendment says, they change the subject and try to talk about what the Courts say instead. Even when the Court statement flatly contradicts what the Amendment says.

When the Courts say one thing and the Constitution says another, which one should prevail?

You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.—Thomas Jefferson, 1820​

Who gives as shit what Jefferson thought on the matter? The man is probably the least relevant founding father as it pertains to the meaning of the constitution. He didn't attend a single session of the constitutional convention, he didn't represent any state, he didn't contribute any text, he wasn't even in the country when it was written.

Meanwhile, the Federalist Papers, around which the new Federal Constitution was framed made it ridiculously clear that the judiciary had the authority to overturn laws that conflicted with the constitution and interpret the constitution.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The judiciary fills the role they were meant to.