The Right To Bear Arms

[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.

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

Posting websites does not constitute an answer.

 

[Sallow]

Basically..yeah.

For now.

The argument should be that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary since we provide for a permanent military, which includes ground forces.

But adding an amendment that stipulates that citizens may have small arms for defense of the home isn't going to get anywhere.

So right now? While we have a great many judges that are in their seats because of the gun lobby? You are right.

No, that argument wouldn't work at all. It's not just about having a military force in place of a permanent military.

Self defence will be an issue, but the main reason for the 2A is to protect against the maladministration of the government. Ie, the ability to be able to take down the govt.

No it is not.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for that.

 

[Sallow]

This is your brilliant restriction?

How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?

]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

its a definition -

there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

.

Except that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction what arms citizens have a right to keep and bear. Your limitation to bolt or lever actions with 6 round max capacity is an infringement.


in·fringe
verb \in-ˈfrinj\
: 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)

in·fringed in·fring·ing

Full Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

The Constitution has the exact same protocol for voting rights.

Yet you folks seek to limit those rights..

Funny that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, that argument wouldn't work at all. It's not just about having a military force in place of a permanent military.

Self defence will be an issue, but the main reason for the 2A is to protect against the maladministration of the government. Ie, the ability to be able to take down the govt.

No it is not.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for that.[/QUOTE]

Of course there isn't anything in the constitution that allows for that. That's not the point. The founders were stupid.

Taking down the govt is the ultimate line of defence.

But then did the founding fathers have anything in any constitution that allowed them to take down the British in America? No.......

You see where they might have got this idea?

 

[Sallow]

Of course there isn't anything in the constitution that allows for that. That's not the point. The founders were stupid.

Taking down the govt is the ultimate line of defence.

But then did the founding fathers have anything in any constitution that allowed them to take down the British in America? No.......

You see where they might have got this idea?

That's ridiculous.

The Declaration of Independence was the document that outlined the grievance toward the British empire.

And folks "get that idea" because of the several instances of insurrection against the Federal Government, namely by Conservatives..like the Civil war.

And in my humble opinion, the consequences were not severe enough to quell that sentiment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's ridiculous.

The Declaration of Independence was the document that outlined the grievance toward the British empire.

And folks "get that idea" because of the several instances of insurrection against the Federal Government, namely by Conservatives..like the Civil war.

And in my humble opinion, the consequences were not severe enough to quell that sentiment.

Are you suggesting the 2A and the US constitution were written AFTER the civil war?

You have to remember the constitution and the BoR were written in the shadow of the war of independence.

 

[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

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

certainly they do according to perpich

the state guard does not have dual status

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion

“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.

 

[Clementine]

No, liberals don't want to take our guns. They just want to trash the 2nd amendment. And if you say they want to take our guns, they will ridicule you and pretend they don't. Then they turn around and say that's what they should do. It's a vicious cycle, but libs really want us to give up our guns and would rather we didn't object or criticize them for it. How frustrating for them that the majority don't see things their way and continue to fight them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

dont kid yourself they want your guns

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Infringed....? No More like disenfranchised. They, through their own actions or conditions, have shown they no longer deserve certain rights. I am not a felon, nor am I insane. MY right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

Infringed....? No More like disenfranchised. They, through their own actions or conditions, have shown they no longer deserve certain rights. I am not a felon, nor am I insane. MY right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

through due process

 

[frigidweirdo]

certainly they do according to perpich

the state guard does not have dual status

Well I'm not talking about the state guard am I? I'm talking about the National Guard.

You do realise burritos don't have duel militia/army status as well don't you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

certainly they do according to perpich

the state guard does not have dual status

Well I'm not talking about the state guard am I? I'm talking about the National Guard.

You do realise burritos don't have duel militia/army status as well don't you?

the national guard has dual enlistment if you say otherwise you are

simply wrong

 

[frigidweirdo]

Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion

“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.

But what's the point here, that you're allowed a weapon that can be handheld and nothing more? So anything handheld can use used for "traditional lawful purpose" is going to be protected, regardless of whether it's "dangerous" or not. And what is "unusual"?????

So Scalia has his opinion, he's a Supreme Court justice with potentially a bit of bias.... He's certainly not definitive to any argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the national guard has dual enlistment if you say otherwise you are

simply wrong

What are you drinking? Seriously? I've been saying it has dual status all along.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Infringed....? No More like disenfranchised. They, through their own actions or conditions, have shown they no longer deserve certain rights. I am not a felon, nor am I insane. MY right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]

Disenfranchised just means losing the vote.

Yes, through their actions they are having their rights infringed upon. Not taken away, infringed upon.

But it doesn't say the RKBA shall not be infringed for those who haven't committed a felony, it says for all people, right?

 

[jon_berzerk]

the national guard has dual enlistment if you say otherwise you are

simply wrong

What are you drinking? Seriously? I've been saying it has dual status all along.

no what you attempted to say is that the feds could activate everyone into the militia

then strip away their arms which is false

 

[jon_berzerk]

Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion

“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.

But what's the point here, that you're allowed a weapon that can be handheld and nothing more? So anything handheld can use used for "traditional lawful purpose" is going to be protected, regardless of whether it's "dangerous" or not. And what is "unusual"?????

So Scalia has his opinion, he's a Supreme Court justice with potentially a bit of bias.... He's certainly not definitive to any argument.

--LOL

 

[frigidweirdo]

no what you attempted to say is that the feds could activate everyone into the militia

then strip away their arms which is false

They can activate everyone, I didn't say at the same time. They can strip away their arms.

However this isn't the point. It gets very frustrating when someone picks up on a point that doesn't matter and completely ignores the main point that is being made.