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

[NYcarbineer]

The 14th Amendment doesn't say 'except for gays' either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?

It doesn't.
It mentions the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the second amendment speaks specifically to what is necessary to the security of a free state and it presupposes this necessity as provided by regulation in order to do so...

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

ours is a government by the people for the people and legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without infringing upon individual constitutional rights...

Like free speech and abortion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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
?[/QUOTE]

No, actually it is INTERPRETED to mean that, which is fine.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The OP has it all wrong. The framers took the view that gun restrictions would be handled by the state. That's why they said the federal govt cannot restrict guns in any way. The framers took states rights for granted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP has it all wrong. The framers took the view that gun restrictions would be handled by the state. That's why they said the federal govt cannot restrict guns in any way. The framers took states rights for granted.

Even if true, the 14th amendment nullifies this line of argument.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The OP has it all wrong. The framers took the view that gun restrictions would be handled by the state. That's why they said the federal govt cannot restrict guns in any way. The framers took states rights for granted.

Even if true, the 14th amendment nullifies this line of argument.

How can one amendment nullify another.?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP has it all wrong. The framers took the view that gun restrictions would be handled by the state. That's why they said the federal govt cannot restrict guns in any way. The framers took states rights for granted.

Even if true, the 14th amendment nullifies this line of argument.

How can one amendment nullify another.?

See: Amendment 18 and Amendment 21

Aside from that...
The 14th doesn't nullity any amendment, it applies the protections of the federal constitutions to actions by the states.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The OP has it all wrong. The framers took the view that gun restrictions would be handled by the state. That's why they said the federal govt cannot restrict guns in any way. The framers took states rights for granted.

Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd does not specify which government it is forbidding to infringe the RKBA. So, that means it for bids ALL governments in the US, from infringing. Fed, state, local.

The 1st says "Congress shall make no law respecting..." etc. etc. So when it was ratified, it only restricted the Federal govt. It did this because most states at the time had laws specifying the state's official religion! And the Framers didn't want to mess with that. Those state laws mostly fell into disuse if they hadn't already. And the 14th amendment later changed that to extend the 1st to state and local governments ("incorporation").

But the 2nd started off restricting ALL governments, not just the Fed. The Supremes recently announced in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that it "now" extends to the states and local govts too. But in fact it always did.

If you want to know what the amendment says, read it. Its text overrules any "opinion" from any Court, including the Supremes. Only if the text of an amendment isn't clear, do the courts' "opinions" have any weight... and the 2nd is completely clear.

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not? | Page 37 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ShootSpeeders]

See: Amendment 18 and Amendment 21
.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. Anyway you know what i mean. 21A was specifically written to void 18a. 14A was not written to void 2A. There is really no connection between the two in fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

See: Amendment 18 and Amendment 21
.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. Anyway you know what i mean. 21A was specifically written to void 18a. 14A was not written to void 2A. There is really no connection between the two in fact.

Any amendment can be repealed by... another amendment.
But, again, that's not the issue here as the 14th doesn't nullity any amendment, it applies the protections of the federal constitutions to actions by the states.

 

[bendog]

The OP has it all wrong. The framers took the view that gun restrictions would be handled by the state. That's why they said the federal govt cannot restrict guns in any way. The framers took states rights for granted.

Holy Crap, I actually agreed with the racist shoot speeders about something.

But, the 2nd is fully incorporated to apply equally to states, so the only restrictions allowable are those approved in Heller and McDonald, and basically to be approved the restriction has to be somehow comparable to restrictions applied by states in the 18th century.

And the 14th has no application, because no citizen has a right infringed by a permissible regulation or restriction.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The OP has it all wrong. The framers took the view that gun restrictions would be handled by the state. That's why they said the federal govt cannot restrict guns in any way. The framers took states rights for granted.

Holy Crap, I actually agreed with the racist shoot speeders about something.

Too bad, since what he said has already been refuted multiple times in this thread.

But, the 2nd is fully incorporated to apply equally to states,

And always has been since the day it was ratified in 1791.

so the only restrictions allowable are those approved in Heller and McDonald,

Heller and McDonald didn't approve any restrictions. They said that those cases were not going to address them, and so let them stand for the time being... until a future case did address them.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I don't have a problem with "common sense" regulations and laws,

The Constitution does.

Unlike many other sections that say "Except by due process of law" or "unreasonable search and seizure...", the Framers carefully left out any such exceptions from the 2nd amendment.

Why do you suppose they did wrote the 2nd so differently from the other sections?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But, the 2nd is fully incorporated to apply equally to states, so the only restrictions allowable are those approved in Heller and McDonald,

So.... there are -no- allowable restrictions.

 

[bendog]

But, the 2nd is fully incorporated to apply equally to states, so the only restrictions allowable are those approved in Heller and McDonald,

So.... there are -no- allowable restrictions.

bull pucky.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But, the 2nd is fully incorporated to apply equally to states, so the only restrictions allowable are those approved in Heller and McDonald,

So.... there are -no- allowable restrictions.

bull pucky.

Both Heller and McDonald struck every restriction put before the court; neither case, therefore, approved any restrictions.
Unassailable conclusion: If the only allowable restrictions are those approved by those cases, and those cases struck every restriction put before the court, there are -no- allowable restrictions.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So.... there are -no- allowable restrictions.

bull pucky.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what you said, so I'll call it names instead.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…I can't refute what you said, so I'll call it names instead.

Yes, we can see that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what you said, so I'll call it names instead.

Yes, we can see that.

TRANSLATION: And when I'm caught trying to pretend I didn't understand, I'll double down and try it some more. Anything but admit the truth.