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

[bendog]

No regulation is constitutional?

1. Then no background checks,
2. children could legally buy guns
3. no mandated gun free zones

Children are subject to their parents' authority and responsibility, and not free as adults are. A few generations ago, it wasn't uncommon for children to own guns, and be allowed to use them while under adult supervision. I think I was six or seven when my dad first taught me to shoot a rifle. Obviously, at that age, my father wouldn't have let me just take the rifle and go off unsupervised. This falls entirely under the responsibility that parents have over their own children, and not under any legitimate authority of government.

Richard Henry Lee wrote, in 1788, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”.

Background checks are blatantly unconstitutional. Government has no authority to require a citizen prove that he meets any government-established criteria as a condition of being allowed to exercise a right. That's the definition of a right, that you are allowed to do it without first seeking any approval or permission from government.

Gun-free zones, as the concept is often applied, are also blatantly unconstitutional.

At least 6 of the current Justices would disagree with you on background checks. You can't get married without proving your potential spouse isn't a cousin and you both don't have STD (-:

 

[Little-Acorn]

Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.

On April 18, 1938, the Arkansas and Oklahoma state police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). Surprisingly, the district court dismissed the charges, holding the NFA violates the Second Amendment. ~~ http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf ~~

So what I said was correct on all counts. Glad we got that out of the way.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I don't know how you gun nuts expect to get all gun regulation repealed unless you think we're going to abandon democratic government.

That's right. You don't know.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

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 exceptions. As written, it allows NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

 

[frigidweirdo]

We all know that rights are limited, even the 2A.

I always laugh when I hear the Soviet-Pravda standard excuse ("everybody knows that...."). It occurs most often when the perpetrator knows his statements are false, that he can't defend them, and that people who believe them are in the minority.

You want me to back this up?

First Amendment exceptions.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, known as the "clear and present danger" ruling from Schenck v. US (1919)
False statement of facts from the ruling in Gertz v. Robert Welch, inc (1974)
Obscenity from Miller v. California (1973)
Child pornography from New York v. Ferber (1982)
Offensive speech from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Speech owned by others from Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
Religious practices that are crimes from Reynolds v. US (1879)
Limitations on the press during war time from Schenck v. US (1919) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Espionage in relation to Bradley Manning (and I would assume people like Assange if he ever makes it out of the Ecuadorian embassy.)

The Third Amendment has never been part of a Supreme Court case.

Fourth Amendment exceptions.
Open fields etc may be searched without a warrant from Hester v. US (1924)
Where obtaining a warrant is dangerous or impractical
Searching people arrested without a warrant from Weeks v. US (1914)
Searching vehicles the police suspect of having contraband without a warrant from Carroll v. US (1925)
Searches at borders without a warrant

Oh, I could go on all day. There are exceptions for all rights.

 

[frigidweirdo]

you can't commit a crime with a gun.

You also can't commit one without a gun.

But owning and carrying a gun is not a crime. Despite the wishful thinking of big-govt gun-rights-haters.

Carrying a gun in various circumstances is a crime though.

In the Presser case, the Supreme Court ruled that marching through town like a militia (but not being the militia) was not protected by the 2A, and not only that Heller backed this up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

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 exceptions. As written, it allows NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, yet you can be jailed for treason, slander, endangerment and so on. It also says you have the freedom of religion, yet you can't perform the sun dance or have two wives.

Doesn't say anything about exceptions. Why? Because they're assumed, because anyone who knows anything about rights knows they always have exceptions.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.

On April 18, 1938, the Arkansas and Oklahoma state police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). Surprisingly, the district court dismissed the charges, holding the NFA violates the Second Amendment. ~~ http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf ~~

So what I said was correct on all counts. Glad we got that out of the way.

You're a real dishonest piece of shit. You're welcome to that bed of slime you exist within!

 

[Contumacious]

I don't know how you gun nuts expect to get all gun regulation repealed unless you think we're going to abandon democratic government.

We do not expect to get all gun regulation repealed.

Actually , we believe it will worsen when President Clinton appoints another fascist to SCOTUS.

The new majority will conclude that Heller was wrongly decided, that Americans do not have a right to carry sling shots , let alone firearms.


Our only hope are the Mexican drug Cartels - the blackmarket.

 

[Contumacious]

quit stonewalling and answer the fucking question



You are such a stupid fuck


What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?

I'm not a coward nor paranoid, so defending my life is about exercise and eating well. I don't feel the need to carry a gun to the grocery store, why do you?

OK then, was it so hard to admit that you are an ignorant fuck?

Continue eating well and exercising.

I do not interfere with your approach to longevity - why the fuck do you interfere with mine?


.

I don't. I didn't write the law, in my career I enforced the laws. You don't like the law where you live, get your ass of the coach and seek elected office, make speeches and stop whining.

I have heard the " I was following Orders" bullshit excuse a million times. If you are an American then you know that the Supremacy clause states that the CONSTITUTION (1787) is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Consequently, statutes and case "law" that transgress upon our rights are VOID.

If it is true that you are in LAW enforcement then the SUPREMACY CLAUSE applies to you. Stop using stupid pretexts to harass our people.


.

Well then, are you another who believes Marbury v. Madison usurped COTUS?

BTW, I retired over ten years ago.

Yes, indeed. Marbury vs Madison is bullshit case law

The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

In his most famous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the constitutionality of both statutory law and the behavior of the executive branch. "[T]his means that the Supreme Court granted itself the authority to declare the will of the people . . . null and void . . ." This of course has caused endless mischief and tyranny. This principle of a monopoly in reviewing constitutionality was not widely accepted, however, until after Lincoln’s war of 1861—1865 destroyed state sovereignty once and for all. Until that point, many Americans believed that the citizens of the states, as well as the president and Congress, should have equally legitimate claims on interpreting the Constitution. As President Andrew Jackson famously said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it if he can."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

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 exceptions. As written, it allows NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, yet you can be jailed for treason, slander, endangerment and so on. It also says you have the freedom of religion, yet you can't perform the sun dance or have two wives.

Doesn't say anything about exceptions. Why? Because they're assumed, because anyone who knows anything about rights knows they always have exceptions.

Correct.

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.

Not comparable.

You cannot exercise a right, in order to unjustly cause harm to others. The examples that you give of “free speech” are abuses of speech, in order to cause harm.

Merely possessing and carrying a weapon does not cause harm to anyone, nor does it violate anyone's rights. It is not comparable to abusing “free speech” in a manner as to cause harm. If someone handles or uses a weapon carelessly or with malicious intent, so as to cause harm, danger, or threat to others, then that is comparable to your “free speech” examples. And I don't think you'll find anyone who claims that the right to keep and bear arms includes a right to abuse those arms in a manner that unjustly harms, threatens, or endangers others; any more than the right to free speech includes the right to abuse that speech in a manner that causes harm to others.

 

[Little-Acorn]

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun,

This does not portend "imminent lawlessness and violence".

bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings,

This does not portend "imminent lawlessness and violence".

and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant

These do not portend "imminent lawlessness and violence".

There is no reason not to extend the Constitution's protection of the RKBA to those people. (Well, you can arrest the illegal alien and kick him over the border, but that's a different "offense").

Nice try, but no cigar.

Liberal fanatics are still 0-for-everything in their desperate quest to take normal people's guns away.

 

[Contumacious]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

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 exceptions. As written, it allows NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, yet you can be jailed for treason, slander, endangerment and so on. It also says you have the freedom of religion, yet you can't perform the sun dance or have two wives.

Doesn't say anything about exceptions. Why? Because they're assumed, because anyone who knows anything about rights knows they always have exceptions.

Correct.

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.

Incorrect.

It's is a lot better to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater than to err on the side of censorship. There is no such thing as obscenity , although the majority of SCOTUS case law certainly would qualify beginning with Marbury vs Madison. Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are definitely entitled to First Amendment protections, they do manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same . Possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are entitled to Constitutional (1787) protections, .

Do not confused the Constitutional provisos with UNCONSTITUTIONAL case law.


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.

Not comparable.

You cannot exercise a right, in order to unjustly cause harm to others. The examples that you give of “free speech” are abuses of speech, in order to cause harm.

Merely possessing and carrying a weapon does not cause harm to anyone, nor does it violate anyone's rights. It is not comparable to abusing “free speech” in a manner as to cause harm. If someone handles or uses a weapon carelessly or with malicious intent, so as to cause harm, danger, or threat to others, then that is comparable to your “free speech” examples. And I don't think you'll find anyone who claims that the right to keep and bear arms includes a right to abuse those arms in a manner that unjustly harms, threatens, or endangers others; any more than the right to free speech includes the right to abuse that speech in a manner that causes harm to others.

The point being made was that rights are limited. You have accepted that rights are limited.

 

[Contumacious]

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.

Not comparable.

You cannot exercise a right, in order to unjustly cause harm to others. The examples that you give of “free speech” are abuses of speech, in order to cause harm.

Merely possessing and carrying a weapon does not cause harm to anyone, nor does it violate anyone's rights. It is not comparable to abusing “free speech” in a manner as to cause harm. If someone handles or uses a weapon carelessly or with malicious intent, so as to cause harm, danger, or threat to others, then that is comparable to your “free speech” examples. And I don't think you'll find anyone who claims that the right to keep and bear arms includes a right to abuse those arms in a manner that unjustly harms, threatens, or endangers others; any more than the right to free speech includes the right to abuse that speech in a manner that causes harm to others.

The point being made was that rights are limited. You have accepted that rights are limited.

WHO limits rights?

Was Adolf correct in limiting the rights of the Jews?


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

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 exceptions. As written, it allows NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, yet you can be jailed for treason, slander, endangerment and so on. It also says you have the freedom of religion, yet you can't perform the sun dance or have two wives.

Doesn't say anything about exceptions. Why? Because they're assumed, because anyone who knows anything about rights knows they always have exceptions.

Correct.

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.

Incorrect.

It's is a lot better to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater than to err on the side of censorship. There is no such thing as obscenity , although the majority of SCOTUS case law certainly would qualify beginning with Marbury vs Madison. Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are definitely entitled to First Amendment protections, they do manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same . Possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are entitled to Constitutional (1787) protections, .

Do not confused the Constitutional provisos with UNCONSTITUTIONAL case law.


.

Rights are man made, and men determine what they are. Who do we believe? You, or Supreme Court justices?

 

[frigidweirdo]

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.

Not comparable.

You cannot exercise a right, in order to unjustly cause harm to others. The examples that you give of “free speech” are abuses of speech, in order to cause harm.

Merely possessing and carrying a weapon does not cause harm to anyone, nor does it violate anyone's rights. It is not comparable to abusing “free speech” in a manner as to cause harm. If someone handles or uses a weapon carelessly or with malicious intent, so as to cause harm, danger, or threat to others, then that is comparable to your “free speech” examples. And I don't think you'll find anyone who claims that the right to keep and bear arms includes a right to abuse those arms in a manner that unjustly harms, threatens, or endangers others; any more than the right to free speech includes the right to abuse that speech in a manner that causes harm to others.

The point being made was that rights are limited. You have accepted that rights are limited.

WHO limits rights?

Was Adolf correct in limiting the rights of the Jews?


.

All governments limit rights. Human Rights were designed as limits on government power over people (well rich people at the time), however the theory of Human Rights has evolved. It is now accepted, among those who know what rights are, that all rights are limited, that you can basically do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm people.

If you commit a crime, you can have your rights infringed upon, such as the 2A right to own weapons.

 

[Contumacious]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

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 exceptions. As written, it allows NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, yet you can be jailed for treason, slander, endangerment and so on. It also says you have the freedom of religion, yet you can't perform the sun dance or have two wives.

Doesn't say anything about exceptions. Why? Because they're assumed, because anyone who knows anything about rights knows they always have exceptions.

Correct.

One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.

Incorrect.

It's is a lot better to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater than to err on the side of censorship. There is no such thing as obscenity , although the majority of SCOTUS case law certainly would qualify beginning with Marbury vs Madison. Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are definitely entitled to First Amendment protections, they do manifest as free speech.

The exact same thing is true for our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same . Possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are entitled to Constitutional (1787) protections, .

Do not confused the Constitutional provisos with UNCONSTITUTIONAL case law.


.

Rights are man made, and men determine what they are. Who do we believe? You, or Supreme Court justices?

Me.

I don't give a shit about the guys at my country club or church or the liberal media loving me

I am not an elitist, fascist or socialist.

I am not interested in perpetrating a fraud for $175,000.00 a year.

I am not interested in federal blue cross blue shield

I am not interested in perpetrating a fraud in order to enjoy the prestige of being a SCOTUS justice.

The FBI can not coerce me to rule in their favor otherwise they will disclose derogatory information in my dossier.

 

[Little-Acorn]

All governments limit rights.

TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.

the theory of Human Rights has evolved.

TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.