The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia,

no offense but that is a pretty nutty thing to say

considering that the militia is military

No, the militia isn't the military. You have the unorganised militia which is not part of the military, you have the National Guard which has dual status and you have the military which is professional.

The militia is designed to be apart from the military and the govt.

When I say it's not useful to the military, in the modern context, the militia doesn't get called up. They use the draft if they need to, not the militia and certainly not one with the weapons found at home.

The last time this happened was with a war with Mexico 2 centuries ago.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.

Children have limited rights.

The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. Rights can be infringed upon.

Felons have their right to arms removed by due process - as in, they no longer have the right.
You cannot infringe on a right that someone does not have.

 

[Wildman]

after 1998 posts the liberfools still do not understand this: "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

what i see here is libercommunism in action.

 

[M14 Shooter]

sure if they are in common use and useful to the military

The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.

The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?

 

[jon_berzerk]

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia,

no offense but that is a pretty nutty thing to say

considering that the militia is military

No, the militia isn't the military. You have the unorganised militia which is not part of the military, you have the National Guard which has dual status and you have the military which is professional.

The militia is designed to be apart from the military and the govt.

When I say it's not useful to the military, in the modern context, the militia doesn't get called up. They use the draft if they need to, not the militia and certainly not one with the weapons found at home.

The last time this happened was with a war with Mexico 2 centuries ago.

the national guard is not the militia

for all your hoohay


and the end of the day the militia is military

 

[jon_berzerk]

sure if they are in common use and useful to the military

The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.

The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?

they are not military dontcha know --LOL

 

[frigidweirdo]

As I have stated, the right to arms, like all oither rights has inherent limits.


You have a right to own and use a firearm, protected by the constitution. That doesnt mean laws against murder infringe on your right to own a use firearms because your right to same does not include the rightt to commit murder.


The state cannot infringe on the right -- it cannot place preconditions on the ecercise of the right not inherent to same, unless it can demonstrate that said precoindition is an effective, most narroly tailored and least restrictive means of achieving a demonstrably compelling state interest - primarily, in its role of portecting the rights of others.


And so, i'm not sure of your point here.

Yes, there are inherent limits. However a criminal who has left prison is not part of that inherent limit. In fact even in prison rights are often uninfringed by the govt. The limits to the RKBA are outside what we’ve been talking about.


Yes, the state can’t normally infringe on the right, unless after due process. But you have to remember people are talking about the right not being infringed upon. Clearly it is being infringed upon.
It’s not really much of an issue though.

WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?

Established fact. Not sure why you show surprise here.

Children do not have the right because theu have not reached the age of majority.

Felons do not have the right because it was removed through due process.

(insert numerous other examples here).

Just like the right to vote.

[/quote]


It’s clearly not an “established fact” and you haven’t even backed this claim up. So, you’re wrong. Children do have rights. They have limited rights. Felons clearly do have rights and there are plenty of Supreme Court cases that show that things like torture cannot be carried out against felons, why? Because their rights are still protected.


But, certain rights can be infringed against after due process.

Why do you contiunually and deliberatly refuse to accept the fact that the 2nd protects a right to own and USE a firearm, both in its text - "keep and bear" and in its current jurisprudence - "and to use that arm"?

The fact huh? Have you shown it’s a fact? No……. so…….. you think I should just accept what you say without any evidence, anything to really back you up?

It protects the right to own a firearm. It protects the right to be in the militia.


You go show me where the founding fathers said anything about protecting a right to use the weapon.

Also, why do they need to make a right to use the weapon in an amendment about “the militia”.

Doesn’t make sense. The founding fathers didn’t make clauses that spoke about one thing then went off a complete tangent in one slight part to talk about something completely different.


And the biggest argument against this is that the Bill of Rights, everything that was written down, concerned the govt. Rights were assumed to exist. But the BoR was merely taking powers away from the feds.

Now, ownership of guns, well the feds can ban guns.

Did the founders think that if guns were protected that there would be any need to EXPLICITILY protect self defence? Or did later amendments not just make this the case?

Just those that constitute "arms".

I'm sure that the fact you can kill someone with a papercllip does not bring them under said term.

Why? This makes no sense other than it happens to be very convenient for your own argument and nothing else.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re going to kill with paperclips or not. There are plenty of items that do not come under arms that can be used for self defence. Is this all about just killing? Is that just self defence?
You’re claiming self defence from the 2A without ever having proven that anyone ever spoke about the 2A and self defence in the same sentence during the debates, you’re claiming self defence based on one word and making a massive leap of faith.


“it says arms, you can defend yourself with arms, therefore it protects self defence”


Doesn’t make sense.

No... it is limited when it harms others and/or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

The exact same standard shoud apply to all rights - I'm sure you'd agree.

Yes, I agree. Do gun harm others? Does a man having a SAM missile at home harm anyone? Does someone having enriched uranium being kept safely at home harm others?

You need a permit to have a parade or other significant demonstration that uses public propetry - so, yes

Do you need a permit to not have troops quartered at home? Do you need a permit to ot be tortured? Do you need a permit to not have excessive bail?

A permit for “significant demonstrations” is different to the protections in the constitution. You have the right to peacefully assemble, but it’s such a right where peaceful assembly en masse requires lots of police presence.

Does bearing arms require any foreknowledge to make it workable? Or does it merely stop some people from carrying arms?


Does requiring a permit for protesting stop people protesting? Or does it merely stop them protesting in a certain manner?

Traditionally lawful. Distinct difference, made deliberatly.

As you havent addressed my response, and so I assume my response was acceptable.

So who decides what is “traditionally lawful”?

You haven't read Heller?


The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster


Your response thusly falls flat on its face.

No it doesn’t.

What they’re saying is that the DC law is unconstitutional because it prevents people from keeping arms.

It also talks about self defence. It doesn’t stop people from defending themselves, but it limits this.
I have never, ever said there isn’t a right to self defence protected in the Bill of Rights.


So…….


You’re making a claim that is different from this. You’re saying the 2A protects the right to self defence with a weapon. And yet you’ve got almost nothing.

A handgun isn’t dangerous?

Dangerous AND unusual.

Clearly, handguns do not fall into this category (see above).

Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms does.

[/quote]


So it’s basically unusual then, what’s the point of the term “dangerous” then?

There's no reaon you cannot, with full efficacy, use a machinegun for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Well I’d say there are lots of weapons you could use for “traditionally lawful purposes”, which I’d assume includes hunting. Hand grenades, land mines, I guess I could hunt with a SAM missile too.

Who gets to decide whether I can use a weapon to hunt or not?

No, its not it. It cannot infringe (see above) on the ownership and use.

Prove use. Come on, you’ve said it enough to require some kind of evidence.


As for “can’t infringe on the ownership”, now it can’t, but that doesn’t mean ownership is unlimited. Doesn’t mean you can own any type of handgun, or better said that the US govt can’t ban, for some reason, like safety issues or whatever, a handgun.

You think you could buy handguns from Cuba or North Korea? I mean, you can’t even buy coins or stamps from North Korea.

The limitation on this is quite low.

Please demonstrate this to be true.

Be sure to place this limitation in context with the protections afforded other rights and how they differ from the protections afforded by the 2nd.

The limitation is based on the wording. Ie, the US federal govt cannot stop an individual from keeping arms. Like I’ve said, if they allow certain arms at an affordable price, then what’s the issue? You’re allowed to keep arms.

Bear arms is limited to only the militia mentioned in article 1 of the constitution.


The 3A is limited to troops from the US govt and clearly only in times of peace. What does that mean? They US is never at peace.

The 4A doesn’t go outside of the wording. It prevents the govt doing something and that’s that.

The 8A of excessive bail is merely what the govt decides is excessive, right? I mean it’s the Supreme Court that decides and they’re part of the US govt.

Really. Please explain how Heller allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes. Be sure to cite the relevant parts of the text.

You’re moving to something else. We’re talking about a prohibition on the US govt. Now you’re talking about the power that the US govt has. Why the switch? This isn’t about the 2A.

You’re trying to make an argument out of a void.

Irony alert.

[/quote]


Not at all.

No, it’s just not there. The right is to own a weapon.

Look, at this point, you're just lying.

The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.

Keep AND bear

Own AND use

[/quote]


Yeah, where is “Own AND use” in the 2A. Really, I can’t see those words.

Keep is own, I’ll grant you that. “bear arms” as has been noted, not only usually mean usage within the militia, but the FOUNDING FATHERS in the US HOUSE on the DEBATE of the future SECOND AMENDMENT said that it means “render military service” and “militia duty”.


Which part of render military service means “carry arms around as you like”?

Which part of militia duty means “carry arms around as you like”?


So, you’re going to have to find where the founding fathers spoke about the 2A including a right to keep arms, because IT ISN’T THERE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the national guard is not the militia

for all your hoohay


and the end of the day the militia is military

Jeez.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia (yeah, yeah, wikipedia, but it's more than anyone else posts)

"All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C.§ 311"

10 U.S. Code Part I - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION LII Legal Information Institute

So you can search through here if you actually care about the truth.

So at the end of the day, the National Guard has DUEL STATUS and the militia, the unorganised militia, is not the military, it's citizens.

 

[frigidweirdo]

sure if they are in common use and useful to the military

The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.

The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?

they are not military dontcha know --LOL

And the National Guard doesn't have duel status, dontcha know --LOL

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.

:roll:
Based on what?
And why do you continue to refuse to include "and bear" in the protections afforded by the 2nd?

Based on the fact that the 2A is all about "the militia", seeing as that's what it talks about.
Based on the fact that the founding father spoke about the 2A being about protected in the militia from maladministration from the US govt.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. "

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms."

My last question is this.

Who is religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, and how does this affect the militia and militia duty???

 

[Ernie S.]

Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.

Children have limited rights.

The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. Rights can be infringed upon.

Even the Chinese are considered to have these rights, but they're just being infringed. Non-citizens have rights the same as citizens, it's a matter of whether the right is infringed for non-citizens or not.

Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"

An interesting read:

Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?

 

[Ernie S.]

sure if they are in common use and useful to the military

The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.

The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?

they are not military dontcha know --LOL

And the National Guard doesn't have duel status, dontcha know --LOL

Duel status?

Pistols at 10 paces?

Or maybe dual pistols at 20 paces?

 

[Charles_Main]

I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.

Its keep and Bare arms bro, Not just keep. What do you think it means to bare arms?

 

[Lakhota]

I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.

Its keep and Bare arms bro, Not just keep. What do you think it means to bare arms?

"Bare" arms? What's that about?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I have stated, the right to arms, like all oither rights has inherent limits.

You have a right to own and use a firearm, protected by the constitution. That doesnt mean laws against murder infringe on your right to own a use firearms because your right to same does not include the rightt to commit murder.

The state cannot infringe on the right -- it cannot place preconditions on the ecercise of the right not inherent to same, unless it can demonstrate that said precoindition is an effective, most narroly tailored and least restrictive means of achieving a demonstrably compelling state interest - primarily, in its role of portecting the rights of others.

And so, i'm not sure of your point here.

Yes, there are inherent limits. However a criminal who has left prison is not part of that inherent limit.

Lost the right through due process. Irrelevant to the point.

Yes, the state can’t normally infringe on the right, unless after due process. But you have to remember people are talking about the right not being infringed upon. Clearly it is being infringed upon.
It’s not really much of an issue though.

Still not sure of your point here.

WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?

Established fact. Not sure why you show surprise here.
Children do not have the right because theu have not reached the age of majority.
Felons do not have the right because it was removed through due process.
(insert numerous other examples here).
Just like the right to vote.

It’s clearly not an “established fact” and you haven’t even backed this claim up. So, you’re wrong. Children do have rights. They have limited rights.

The right to arms is not one of them. Established fact.

Felons clearly do have rights...

The right to armms is not one of them. Established fact.

But, certain rights can be infringed against after due process.

When you take awa right thru due process, the right no longer exists and therefore cannot be iunfringed upon.

Why do you contiunually and deliberatly refuse to accept the fact that the 2nd protects a right to own and USE a firearm, both in its text - "keep and bear" and in its current jurisprudence - "and to use that arm"?

The fact huh? Have you shown it’s a fact? No...

I cited the text in the 2nd and the hext in Heller - Keep and bear, own and use.
Established fact.
Why do you continue with the charade?

It protects the right to own a firearm.

Keep AND bear, own AND use. You have not shown otherwise.

It protects the right to be in the militia.

Cite the text to that effect, especially as supported by Heller.

Also, why do they need to make a right to use the weapon in an amendment about “the militia”.

They did not create a right to use a weapon, they protected it.

Prefatory clause:
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do
with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And the biggest argument against this is that the Bill of Rights, everything that was written down, concerned the govt. Rights were assumed to exist. But the BoR was merely taking powers away from the feds.
Now, ownership of guns, well the feds can ban guns.

The Federal government can ban "dangerouns annd unusual weapons" that are not suitable for any of the traditionally legal uses for a firearm.
You have not in any way demonstrated that this means it can ban any class of firearm.

Just those that constitute "arms".
I'm sure that the fact you can kill someone with a papercllip does not bring them under said term.

Why? This makes no sense other than it happens to be very convenient for your own argument and nothing else.

If you want to take the position that the 2nd protects the right to own and use paperclips as a weapon, feel free.

You’re claiming self defence from the 2A without ever having proven that anyone ever spoke about the 2A and self defence in the same sentence during the debates, you’re claiming self defence based on one word and making a massive leap of faith.

Heller explains this quite well. Have a read.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

No... it is limited when it harms others and/or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
The exact same standard shoud apply to all rights - I'm sure you'd agree.

Yes, I agree. Do gun harm others?

Simple ownership and possession of a firearm by those who have the right to do so hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

If restrctions for all rights should be considered as they are for the 1st, as you said, do you not then disagree with restrictions on the simple ownership and possession on firearms by those who have the right to do so?.

You need a permit to have a parade or other significant demonstration that uses public propetry - so, yes

Do you need a permit to not have troops quartered at home? Do you need a permit to ot be tortured? Do you need a permit to not have excessive bail?

You asked for an exampleof needing a permit to exercise the right to free speech. You got one.
dunno:

Traditionally lawful. Distinct difference, made deliberatly.
As you havent addressed my response, and so I assume my response was acceptable.

So who decides what is “traditionally lawful”?

Doesn'tt matter - there's a difference between what you said - "Lawful" - and what the law says - "traditionally lawful".

You haven't read Heller?
The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster
Your response thusly falls flat on its face.

No it doesn’t.
What they’re saying is that the DC law is unconstitutional because it prevents people from keeping arms.

The point, of course is that there's no way to argue that handguns are "dangerousn and unusual weapons" which can be banned when the court states expolicty that banning them vuiolates the constitution under ANY level of scrutiny.

Note too that the court stated that the DC law also violates the constitution because the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

You’re making a claim that is different from this. You’re saying the 2A protects the right to self defence with a weapon. And yet you’ve got almost nothing.

Current jurisprudence is hardly nothing.

A handgun isn’t dangerous?

Dangerous AND unusual.
Clearly, handguns do not fall into this category (see above).
Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms does.

So it’s basically unusual then, what’s the point of the term “dangerous” then?

All weapons are "dangerous" and so the inclusion of the term must mean someting other than firearms.
So, again: Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms falls into those categories.

Personally? I think the court refers to weapons that present a clear present and imminent danger to others simply by their presence -- VX gas, for isntance.

There's no reaon you cannot, with full efficacy, use a machinegun for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Well I’d say there are lots of weapons you could use for “traditionally lawful purposes”, which I’d assume includes hunting. Hand grenades, land mines, I guess I could hunt with a SAM missile too.

So, you can NOT demonstrate that machinegus are unsuitable for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
Thank you.

No, its not it. It cannot infringe (see above) on the ownership and use.

Prove use. Come on, you’ve said it enough to require some kind of evidence.

I have repeatedly cited the text of the 2nd and Heller, which clearly, by the inclusion of the "and" conjunction, both cover the USE of firearms.

The limitation on this is quite low.

Please demonstrate this to be true.
Be sure to place this limitation in context with the protections afforded other rights and how they differ from the protections afforded by the 2nd.

The limitation is based on the wording. Ie, the US federal govt cannot stop an individual from keeping arms. Like I’ve said, if they allow certain arms at an affordable price, then what’s the issue? You’re allowed to keep arms.
Bear arms is limited to only the militia mentioned in article 1 of the constitution.

Like I said -- at this point, its clear you're lying.

Really. Please explain how Heller allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes. Be sure to cite the relevant parts of the text.

You’re moving to something else. We’re talking about a prohibition on the US govt. Now you’re talking about the power that the US govt has. Why the switch? This isn’t about the 2A.

OK, so you cannot explain how Heller allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes.
Thank you.

Look, at this point, you're just lying.
The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.
Keep AND bear
Own AND use

Yeah, where is “Own AND use” in the 2A. Really, I can’t see those words.

I'm sorry - if you're going to contine to lie about this, there's no reason to continue.
Too bad, really.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.

:roll:
Based on what?
And why do you continue to refuse to include "and bear" in the protections afforded by the 2nd?

Based on the fact that the 2A is all about "the militia", seeing as that's what it talks about.

Prefatory clause.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
"Right of the people"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[frigidweirdo]

Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"

An interesting read:

Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?

So criminals, the insane etc don't have the right infringed then?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Duel status?

Pistols at 10 paces?

Or maybe dual pistols at 20 paces?

Dual status as in they're in both the militia and military.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.

Its keep and Bare arms bro, Not just keep. What do you think it means to bare arms?

I don't know? Naked arms?

Are you being serious? I'll take this as either you were blind drunk when you wrote this or you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

"bare" doesn't appear in the 2A, I doubt it appears anywhere in the constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lost the right through due process. Irrelevant to the point.

More than 200 years of the rights theory, and then you turn up and change it in an instant. Well done. Or maybe you should learn about human rights.


We’ll use Wikipedia for some basics

Human rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


“They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamentalrights"to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.[3] They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of beinguniversal,[1] and they areegalitarianin the sense of being the same for everyone.”


Okay, do you see that there are these rights which cannot just be taken away? The theory of rights has this is a fundamental aspect. You can’t just take human rights away, a prisoner doesn’t lose their rights, they just have them infringed upon.

Yes, the state can’t normally infringe on the right, unless after due process. But you have to remember people are talking about the right not being infringed upon. Clearly it is being infringed upon.

It’s not really much of an issue though.

Still not sure of your point here.

The point is that the 2A says “shall not be infringed” yet the 2A is being infringed and not only that, people actually support this infringement.
It’s not much of an issue, I’m worried more about the fact that hardly anyone has a clue about rights, hardly anyone’s willing to look at the historical facts either.

The right to arms is not one of them. Established fact.

What’s your point here? You’re still trying to claim that rights can be taken away? If a child doesn’t have the right, it doesn’t help you at all.

When you take awa right thru due process, the right no longer exists and therefore cannot be iunfringed upon.

Except you CAN’T TAKE AWAY a right. You can only infringe on this right. Unless of course you can prove that a single person has had their right taken away from them in the US. Can you? Bet you can’t.

I cited the text in the 2nd and the hext in Heller - Keep and bear, own and use.

Established fact.

Why do you continue with the charade?

Oh wow, you used one source, which is quite dodgy because it doesn’t explicitly say what you want it to say. Well done. Why do I continue to not believe you? Maybe because you have not reached a level at which I should believe you. This is a debate, not a “I’ll believe everything you say” thing.

Keep AND bear, own AND use. You have not shown otherwise.

It’s YOUR argument. Jeez, am I supposed to be making your arguments for you?

It protects the right to be in the militia.

Cite the text to that effect, especially as supported by Heller.

Why especially to Heller? Are we to ignore 200 years of history and just use Heller for everything now? Are you joking?


Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution


“Mr.Jacksonwas willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."”


This is what Mr Jackson wanted the 2A to say. Why would he say this if the founding fathers weren’t looking at protecting the right to be in the militia.

He uses “militia service” in connection with “bearing arms”. Why? If bearing arms meant carry arms around and has nothing to do with the militia?


“Mr.Bensonmoved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.”


Mr Benson clearly talks about the bearing of arms in respect to “the organization of the milita”, why?


And there’s plenty more where this came from which shows the founding fathers were looking at protecting the right to be in the militia.

Also, why do they need to make a right to use the weapon in an amendment about “the militia”.

They did not create a right to use a weapon, they protected it.

Well at least you’re learning. Yes, I made a slip in language, nothing more.
So I ask the question again. Why make protections of carrying weapons around that has nothing to do with the militia in an amendment which talks about the militia?

Makes no sense.


Can you provide ANY evidence that suggests the 2A deals with anything other than the militia? (I’m not talking about the individual protections of arms, for example, which are protected even if the person isn’t in the militia, this still allows for a ready supply of weapons for the militia, ie, it protects the militia).

The Federal government can ban "dangerouns annd unusual weapons" that are not suitable for any of the traditionally legal uses for a firearm.

You have not in any way demonstrated that this means it can ban any class of firearm.

That’s because I’m not debating whether it can ban any class of firearm. We’ve done this before. I’m talking about the 2A, not about whether the feds have the power to do this, I’m talking the theoretical “the power has been limited or not”

If you want to take the position that the 2nd protects the right to own and use paperclips as a weapon, feel free.

What does this have to do with any of our debate? It’s just moving away from the debate.

Heller explains this quite well. Have a read.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I know what Heller says, and you know what I’ve said in reply to this. Also, is this your argument or the Supreme Court’s argument?


[/quote]

Simple ownership and possession of a firearm by those who have the right to do so hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.


If restrctions for all rights should be considered as they are for the 1st, as you said, do you not then disagree with restrictions on the simple ownership and possession on firearms by those who have the right to do so?.


[/quote]


When does “simple ownership and possession” of any weapon harm anyone? It doesn’t, other than nukes that can leak.


The point being, I don’t think there is a right to carry arms. It has never existed. Historically it never existed, even from the English Bill of Rights when carrying on horseback was prohibited.

You asked for an exampleof needing a permit to exercise the right to free speech. You got one.

dunno:

Is it actually a permit to exercise the right to free speech? (I’d say it’s the right to protest, but it doesn’t actually matter). You can say what you like on this forum, right? And everywhere else as long as it doesn’t harm others.

Now, a large group of people together that is UNCONTROLLED has shown to be quite dangerous. So, it’s actually a limit of the right based on the same limits which prevent treason and libel.

In some places you CANNOT carry arms without a permit. No permit, no carrying.

This is totally different to a limit on a right due to danger.

Doesn'tt matter - there's a difference between what you said - "Lawful" - and what the law says - "traditionally lawful".

Well of course it matters. Unless of course you’re making a point that has no relevance to anything. What’s your point?

The point, of course is that there's no way to argue that handguns are "dangerousn and unusual weapons" which can be banned when the court states expolicty that banning them vuiolates the constitution under ANY level of scrutiny.


Note too that the court stated that the DC law also violates the constitution because the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Well I’m not denying that there isn’t a right to self defence, am I?

You’re making a claim that is different from this. You’re saying the 2A protects the right to self defence with a weapon. And yet you’ve got almost nothing.

Current jurisprudence is hardly nothing.

Only you haven’t proven that it is current jurisprudence. You’re making a claim about two separate things and putting them together.

So, you can NOT demonstrate that machinegus are unsuitable for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.

Thank you.

I can’t prove that SAM missles are “unsuitable” for traditionally lawful purposes either, can you? Well they’re banned. Or do you think they shouldn’t be banned? Even an ICBM could be used for target practice, don’t you think?
This is MY point, that you say traditional lawful purposes, and yet I could include so much that all weapons would be included. So there’s clearly something wrong with your argument, UNLESS you’re claiming SAMs and other such weapons are protected. But I doubt you’ll find many who’ll back you up.

[

The limitation is based on the wording. Ie, the US federal govt cannot stop an individual from keeping arms. Like I’ve said, if they allow certain arms at an affordable price, then what’s the issue? You’re allowed to keep arms.

Bear arms is limited to only the militia mentioned in article 1 of the constitution.

Like I said -- at this point, its clear you're lying.

So if I disagree with you I’m clearly lying? Er……


I’m not lying.

The 2A is a limit on the power of the federal govt.

What is the federal govt not allowed to do?

It’s not allowed to prevent people from owning weapons for one.

So if an individual has a legal weapon, is the govt acting unconstitutionally? No, clearly not.


Where am I lying here?

Look, at this point, you're just lying.

The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.

Keep AND bear

Own AND use

Yeah, where is “Own AND use” in the 2A. Really, I can’t see those words.

I'm sorry - if you're going to contine to lie about this, there's no reason to continue.

Too bad, really.[/QUOTE]


Oh stop playing the little child who had his toy taken from him.


You have used Heller and NOTHING more, your argument is flimsy, reliant on a leap of faith which I just don’t get.


You don’t want to answer the question, fine, but why can’t you? You need to figure that one out for yourself.