The Right To Bear Arms

[Rustic]

When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.

And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.

The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.

A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.

If you can't refute, ignore.

No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.

Now it applies to all levels of govt in the US.

Okay, a "typical liberal response", your response is "typical don't pay attention to the facts or reality response".

Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?

The answer is YES, the NRA SUPPORTS this, and MOST gun owners support this too. In fact most right wing gun owners often talk about people who "shouldn't have guns". It's GUN CONTROL.

Progressives do not get to determine firearm ownership, they have no credibility…

 

[sakinago]

Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.

So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.

That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.

That is what I mean by there being a bias.

C. Let me describe it another way:

The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"

Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.

So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"

The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.

The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.

If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.

So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.

They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"

Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.

I know this analogy isn't perfect.

But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.

The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.

So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.

But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.

Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.

The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.

Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.

This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.

Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.

Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.

 

[Rustic]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.

The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.

So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.

But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.

Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.

The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.

Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.

This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.

Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.

Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.

That is why progressives do not get to determine firearm ownership, they absolutely have no credibility on the matter

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.

The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.

So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.

But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.

Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.

The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.

Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.

This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.

Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.

Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.

Well that's the point isn't it?

I don't know how, I just know it is so.

The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?

The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".

Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.

You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd amendment does not say "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 language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[sakinago]

Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.

So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.

That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.

That is what I mean by there being a bias.

C. Let me describe it another way:

The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"

Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.

So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"

The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.

The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.

If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.

So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.

They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"

Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.

I know this analogy isn't perfect.

But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.

The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.

So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.

But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....

The Heller case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..

They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated". Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?

Dear Flash
As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
under religious freedom,
I argue that
* the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
on right to marriage and right to health care
* neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.

If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.

What we should learn by this is to allow
individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.

It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.


It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.

They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.

We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.

So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
or that's equally unconstitutional.

not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others

You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.

The problem is your belief doesn't match reality.

The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".

arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments."

Arms are more than just guns.

arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary

"weapons, for example guns or bombs"

So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms.

Do you have the right to own all of these?

Oh Jesus if you want to take it to that extreme, yes I do. But in very obvious reality a f15 or any other ridiculous scenario is not an arm. A vehicle with arms yes. But not an armament. The whole point of the 2nd was so the state did not have a monopoly of force. That the people if need be could oust the stats if they needed to. The definition of arms even specifies “especially firearms”. However if you still want to keep twirling around with this, yes if that’s the only option, yes. The crime is not keeping and bearing it. The crime would be if you used whatever you want to insert to infringe upon another’s life liberty or property. And I happen to know a guy who owns tanks that have appeared in many movies and shows like saving private Ryan, BoB, etc, with the photos with the actors to prove it. Obviously he’s not going on killing sprees with them. It’s a hobby for him that also makes him some money every once in a while (I doubt enough money to cover the costs of the damn things). He even had a WWII era German mobile anti air tank that can still shoot, or so he claimed.

If you’re going to these extremes, clearly you are just throwing spaghetti up against the wall. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to break down the meaning of the 2nd. But for some reason the left has to create a bijjillion hoops to jump through so they can attempt to make a point.

If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd amendment does not say "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 language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

I'd agree with most of this.

The Second Amendment cannot be infringed upon frivolously. Hence "shall not be infringed".

After due process isn't "frivolous", that's the point.

All rights can be infringed upon after due process except those designed for prisoners, like torture.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.

The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.

So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.

But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....

The Heller case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..

They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated". Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?

Dear Flash
As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
under religious freedom,
I argue that
* the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
on right to marriage and right to health care
* neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.

If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.

What we should learn by this is to allow
individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.

It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.


It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.

They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.

We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.

So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
or that's equally unconstitutional.

not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others

You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.

The problem is your belief doesn't match reality.

The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".

arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments."

Arms are more than just guns.

arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary

"weapons, for example guns or bombs"

So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms.

Do you have the right to own all of these?

Oh Jesus if you want to take it to that extreme, yes I do. But in very obvious reality a f15 or any other ridiculous scenario is not an arm. A vehicle with arms yes. But not an armament. The whole point of the 2nd was so the state did not have a monopoly of force. That the people if need be could oust the stats if they needed to. The definition of arms even specifies “especially firearms”. However if you still want to keep twirling around with this, yes if that’s the only option, yes. The crime is not keeping and bearing it. The crime would be if you used whatever you want to insert to infringe upon another’s life liberty or property. And I happen to know a guy who owns tanks that have appeared in many movies and shows like saving private Ryan, BoB, etc, with the photos with the actors to prove it. Obviously he’s not going on killing sprees with them. It’s a hobby for him that also makes him some money every once in a while (I doubt enough money to cover the costs of the damn things). He even had a WWII era German mobile anti air tank that can still shoot, or so he claimed.

If you’re going to these extremes, clearly you are just throwing spaghetti up against the wall. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to break down the meaning of the 2nd. But for some reason the left has to create a bijjillion hoops to jump through so they can attempt to make a point.

If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Yes, I know why the 2A is there. Now, the question here is, would the militia benefit from having criminals or the insane in the militia? The answer is no. So AFTER due process many rights can be infringed upon.

 

[sakinago]

But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.

Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.

The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.

Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.

This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.

Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.

Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.

Well that's the point isn't it?

I don't know how, I just know it is so.

The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?

The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".

Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.

You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.

Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.

When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.

 

[sakinago]

But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

The Heller case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..

They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated". Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?

Dear Flash
As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
under religious freedom,
I argue that
* the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
on right to marriage and right to health care
* neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.

If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.

What we should learn by this is to allow
individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.

It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.


It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.

They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.

We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.

So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
or that's equally unconstitutional.

not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others

You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.

The problem is your belief doesn't match reality.

The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".

arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments."

Arms are more than just guns.

arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary

"weapons, for example guns or bombs"

So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms.

Do you have the right to own all of these?

Oh Jesus if you want to take it to that extreme, yes I do. But in very obvious reality a f15 or any other ridiculous scenario is not an arm. A vehicle with arms yes. But not an armament. The whole point of the 2nd was so the state did not have a monopoly of force. That the people if need be could oust the stats if they needed to. The definition of arms even specifies “especially firearms”. However if you still want to keep twirling around with this, yes if that’s the only option, yes. The crime is not keeping and bearing it. The crime would be if you used whatever you want to insert to infringe upon another’s life liberty or property. And I happen to know a guy who owns tanks that have appeared in many movies and shows like saving private Ryan, BoB, etc, with the photos with the actors to prove it. Obviously he’s not going on killing sprees with them. It’s a hobby for him that also makes him some money every once in a while (I doubt enough money to cover the costs of the damn things). He even had a WWII era German mobile anti air tank that can still shoot, or so he claimed.

If you’re going to these extremes, clearly you are just throwing spaghetti up against the wall. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to break down the meaning of the 2nd. But for some reason the left has to create a bijjillion hoops to jump through so they can attempt to make a point.

If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Yes, I know why the 2A is there. Now, the question here is, would the militia benefit from having criminals or the insane in the militia? The answer is no. So AFTER due process many rights can be infringed upon.

And there’s the moved goal post, and the question isn’t the milita. The mention of the militia was a qualifier, “the militia being necessary to the free state,” to the following statement of “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And once again that Militia was never intended to be under control of the state, but rather the people, which is why the state was told not to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear. After all, what use is a civilian controlled militia if the government could disarm it?

It’s not about what use the militia would have, it’s about government not overstepping it’s bounds.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm not.

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.

Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.

The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.

Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.

This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.

Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.

Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.

Well that's the point isn't it?

I don't know how, I just know it is so.

The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?

The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".

Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.

You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.

Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.

When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.

They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Second Amendment cannot be infringed upon frivolously.

You get one point deducted for including an extra word that is not in the 2nd amendment, and which would change its meaning if it were included.

"Due process" IS in the 5th amendment, and was deliberately included in it, so that it gave government the authority to make exceptions. Just as it was deliberately excluded from the 2nd, so that it would deliberately forbid government from making exceptions to that one.

Hence "shall not be infringed", with no exceptions..

This has been explained to frigidweirdo several time in this thread alone, and probably in other places. He continues to ignore it, and pretends there is some legal way for government to take away people's guns.

 

[Little-Acorn]

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

Nope. But they can have their guns taken away, by the method I described a few posts ago.

Can you remember what that was?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Second Amendment cannot be infringed upon frivolously.

You get one point deducted for including an extra word that is not in the 2nd amendment, and which would change its meaning if it were included.

"Due process" IS in the 5th amendment, and was deliberately included in it, so that it gave government the authority to make exceptions. Just as it was deliberately excluded from the 2nd, so that it would deliberately forbid government from making exceptions to that one.

Hence "shall not be infringed", with no exceptions..

This has been explained to frigidweirdo several time in this thread alone, and probably in other places. He continues to ignore it, and pretends there is some legal way for government to take away people's guns.

No, I clearly don't get any points taken away.

When, since 1791, have prisoners had their guns in prison? When have those who have been found insane after due process had guns?

Come on, seeing as you think you can deduct points for this, you need the EVIDENCE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

Nope. But they can have their guns taken away, by the method I described a few posts ago.

Can you remember what that was?

Er... so they can't have their guns infringed upon but they can have their guns infringed upon. Oh, great argument.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You get one point deducted for including an extra word that is not in the 2nd amendment, and which would change its meaning if it were included.

No, I clearly don't get any points taken away.

It's also typical of a liberal that he thinks he can simply change a law he doesn't like by fiat, inserting words that change its meaning, to conform to what he wishes it said instead of what it actually says.

Not much point in arguing with someone who thinks that.

Back to the subject:
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, which forbids all governments in the U.S. from infringing. Without exception.

The only entity in the country that can decide not to enforce a law (including a law in the Constitution) is a JURY. And it must do so on a case by case basis, deciding whether the particular law is appropriate for the particular case. I gave an example earlier, which (unsurprisingly) this liberal has carefully avoided discussing, since it refutes his personal agenda to give government the power to take away the citizens' guns in a few cases. (Which will doubtlessly expand to a few more, and then a few more etc.).

The 2nd amendment was placed in the Constitution precisely to protect us from people like this liberal, who believes that he can change a law to read whatever he wants, and then enforce his new version upon people who had no say in the process.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You get one point deducted for including an extra word that is not in the 2nd amendment, and which would change its meaning if it were included.

No, I clearly don't get any points taken away.

It's also typical of a liberal that he thinks he can simply change a law he doesn't like by fiat, inserting words that change its meaning, to conform to what he wishes it said instead of what it actually says.

Not much point in arguing with someone who thinks that.

Back to the subject:
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, which forbids all governments in the U.S. from infringing. Without exception.

The only entity in the country that can decide not to enforce a law (including a law in the Constitution) is a JURY. And it must do so on a case by case basis, deciding whether the particular law is appropriate for the particular case. I gave an example earlier, which (unsurprisingly) this liberal has carefully avoided discussing, since it refutes his personal agenda to give government the power to take away the citizens' guns in a few cases. (Which will doubtlessly expand to a few more, and then a few more etc.).

The 2nd amendment was placed in the Constitution precisely to protect us from people like this liberal, who believes that he can change a law to read whatever he wants, and then enforce his new version upon people who had no say in the process.

The problem is you haven't provided any evidence that in the US since 1791, that criminals in prison haven't had their guns infringed upon.

What you have done is conveniently come up with something that isn't true that they don't have their right to guns infringed upon, but something else happens. However the theory of rights says everyone has these rights and they can't be taken away, only infringed upon. Oh.

But hey, if you want to stop talking with someone because you don't agree with them, then what's the point of being on a forum like this?

No, a jury is not the only one who can decide to ignore laws. The Supreme Court and Federal courts and State courts can also do this. They might get slapped down by those higher than them, except the Supreme Court of course, but they can ignore and DO ignore all the time.

It's not just me that believes that criminals shouldn't have guns in prison, or that the insane shouldn't have guns. The NRA would be another body of people who believe what I believe.

So you're basically saying the NRA is wrong on this too?

 

[danielpalos]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Only well regulated militia of the People, shall not be infringed.

 

[sakinago]

For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.

Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.

The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.

Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.

This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.

Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.

Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.

Well that's the point isn't it?

I don't know how, I just know it is so.

The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?

The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".

Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.

You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.

Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.

When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.

They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.

The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.

Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.

This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.

Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.

Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.

Well that's the point isn't it?

I don't know how, I just know it is so.

The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?

The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".

Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.

You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.

Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.

When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.

They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?

No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.


OHCHR | What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.