Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[Koios]

Has the second amendment been repealed?

No. Ergo the queries about it.

Your comment is irrelevant to the question I responded too

Even if that was the Founding Fathers' original intension, didn't the Civil War put that argument to rest?

Questions, actually. Or another way of saying them, "queries."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. Ergo the queries about it.

Your comment is irrelevant to the question I responded too

Even if that was the Founding Fathers' original intension, didn't the Civil War put that argument to rest?

Questions, actually. Or another way of saying them, "queries."

Still irrelevant too your quest

Even if that was the Founding Fathers' original intension, didn't the Civil War put that argument to rest?

The answer too this question would be NO unless the second amendment has been repealed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Where is it written that isn't how it is to be understood? What part of "maintaing a free state" doesn't sound like keeping government from usurping freedom to you?

Supreme Court decisions, history, myraid laws contradicting that postulate, etc.

Go look; it's out there.

Miller vs. U.S.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Where is it written that isn't how it is to be understood? What part of "maintaing a free state" doesn't sound like keeping government from usurping freedom to you?

Supreme Court decisions, history, myraid laws contradicting that postulate, etc.

Go look; it's out there.

I'm sorry, but none of those things are the 2nd Amendment. The man asked where in the 2nd Amendment it was written. I mean, I'm looking at the 2nd amendment and don't see any of those words

 

[Koios]

Where is it written that isn't how it is to be understood? What part of "maintaing a free state" doesn't sound like keeping government from usurping freedom to you?

Supreme Court decisions, history, myraid laws contradicting that postulate, etc.

Go look; it's out there.

I'm sorry, but none of those things are the 2nd Amendment. The man asked where in the 2nd Amendment it was written. I mean, I'm looking at the 2nd amendment and don't see any of those words

Yes; that should be obvious to all. But they exist, in keeping with the 2A, which oughta clue you in a bit.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Supreme Court decisions, history, myraid laws contradicting that postulate, etc.

Go look; it's out there.

I'm sorry, but none of those things are the 2nd Amendment. The man asked where in the 2nd Amendment it was written. I mean, I'm looking at the 2nd amendment and don't see any of those words

Yes; that should be obvious to all. But they exist, in keeping with the 2A, which oughta clue you in a bit.

Should I link you to a few Supreme Court decisions upholding slavery and racial/gender discrimination? You act as if they are infallible.

 

[Koios]

I'm sorry, but none of those things are the 2nd Amendment. The man asked where in the 2nd Amendment it was written. I mean, I'm looking at the 2nd amendment and don't see any of those words

Yes; that should be obvious to all. But they exist, in keeping with the 2A, which oughta clue you in a bit.

Should I link you to a few Supreme Court decisions upholding slavery and racial/gender discrimination? You act as if they are infallible.

I'd say you wouldn't need to if slavery were still legal. It'd be pantently ******* obvious it's not unconstitutional, were slavery still common, and in every state, as gun limits and regs are and have been.

That clue you in?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Yes; that should be obvious to all. But they exist, in keeping with the 2A, which oughta clue you in a bit.

Should I link you to a few Supreme Court decisions upholding slavery and racial/gender discrimination? You act as if they are infallible.

I'd say you wouldn't need to if slavery were still legal. It'd be pantently ******* obvious it's not unconstitutional, were slavery still common, and in every state, as gun limits and regs are and have been.

That clue you in?

I'm aware. The court makes errors.

Beyond that, my argument doesn't require the Constitution. A free society shouldn't restrict the freedoms of its inhabitants on a whim. There is no evidence that gun control reduces crime or homicides or violence or anything else. gf?

 

[Koios]

Should I link you to a few Supreme Court decisions upholding slavery and racial/gender discrimination? You act as if they are infallible.

I'd say you wouldn't need to if slavery were still legal. It'd be pantently ******* obvious it's not unconstitutional, were slavery still common, and in every state, as gun limits and regs are and have been.

That clue you in?

I'm aware. The court makes errors.

Beyond that, my argument doesn't require the Constitution. A free society shouldn't restrict the freedoms of its inhabitants on a whim. There is no evidence that gun control reduces crime or homicides or violence or anything else. gf?

They're only thus if a later ruling overturns. They have final say, so right and wrong is as they rule, or at least 5 of them do.

Simply how it's done in America, pursuant to FF's desires and the Con.

 

[Koios]

Should I link you to a few Supreme Court decisions upholding slavery and racial/gender discrimination? You act as if they are infallible.

I'd say you wouldn't need to if slavery were still legal. It'd be pantently ******* obvious it's not unconstitutional, were slavery still common, and in every state, as gun limits and regs are and have been.

That clue you in?

I'm aware. The court makes errors.

Beyond that, my argument doesn't require the Constitution. A free society shouldn't restrict the freedoms of its inhabitants on a whim. There is no evidence that gun control reduces crime or homicides or violence or anything else. gf?

As an aside, whether or not it will should not even be a consideration for SCOTUS. That's the job of the Legislative, pursuant to the Executive's signature or a veto override.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I'd say you wouldn't need to if slavery were still legal. It'd be pantently ******* obvious it's not unconstitutional, were slavery still common, and in every state, as gun limits and regs are and have been.

That clue you in?

I'm aware. The court makes errors.

Beyond that, my argument doesn't require the Constitution. A free society shouldn't restrict the freedoms of its inhabitants on a whim. There is no evidence that gun control reduces crime or homicides or violence or anything else. gf?

They're only thus if a later ruling overturns. They have final say, so right and wrong is as they rule, or at least 5 of them do.

Simply how it's done in America, pursuant to FF's desires and the Con.

I'm glad you think that justifies all the atrocious shit our Government does.

 

[Koios]

I'm aware. The court makes errors.

Beyond that, my argument doesn't require the Constitution. A free society shouldn't restrict the freedoms of its inhabitants on a whim. There is no evidence that gun control reduces crime or homicides or violence or anything else. gf?

They're only thus if a later ruling overturns. They have final say, so right and wrong is as they rule, or at least 5 of them do.

Simply how it's done in America, pursuant to FF's desires and the Con.

I'm glad you think that justifies all the atrocious shit our Government does.

I do not, and am thus grateful for the amendment immediately above the 2nd one.

But the law is what it is, even if I disagree. I separate my opinion from reality, but you needn't do the same.

Party on ...

 

[LibertyLemming]

They're only thus if a later ruling overturns. They have final say, so right and wrong is as they rule, or at least 5 of them do.

Simply how it's done in America, pursuant to FF's desires and the Con.

I'm glad you think that justifies all the atrocious shit our Government does.

I do not, and am thus grateful for the amendment immediately above the 2nd one.

But the law is what it is, even if I disagree. I separate my opinion from reality, but you needn't do the same.

Party on ...

Yeah I'm not aware how the system works, right on.

I might also contend that now that you can invade homes without a warrant, the 3rd amendment has been violated as well. But since you don't care about my opinion on the 2nd because the reality is that the courts ruled the infringements legal, I imagine you applaud them doing the same with your precious 3rd.

 

[Koios]

I'm glad you think that justifies all the atrocious shit our Government does.

I do not, and am thus grateful for the amendment immediately above the 2nd one.

But the law is what it is, even if I disagree. I separate my opinion from reality, but you needn't do the same.

Party on ...

Yeah I'm not aware how the system works, right on.

I might also contend that now that you can invade homes without a warrant, the 3rd amendment has been violated as well. But since you don't care about my opinion on the 2nd because the reality is that the courts ruled the infringements legal, I imagine you applaud them doing the same with your precious 3rd.

The evidence only holds up in court, if and only if, one of four things occur:

1. Your Consent.
2. Plain View.
3. Search Incident to Arrest.
4. Exigent Circumstances.

Now you do know how the system, in fact, works, your opinions on 2nd and 3rd Amendments notwithstanding.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I do not, and am thus grateful for the amendment immediately above the 2nd one.

But the law is what it is, even if I disagree. I separate my opinion from reality, but you needn't do the same.

Party on ...

Yeah I'm not aware how the system works, right on.

I might also contend that now that you can invade homes without a warrant, the 3rd amendment has been violated as well. But since you don't care about my opinion on the 2nd because the reality is that the courts ruled the infringements legal, I imagine you applaud them doing the same with your precious 3rd.

The evidence only holds up in court, if and only if, one of four things occur:

1. Your Consent.
2. Plain View.
3. Search Incident to Arrest.
4. Exigent Circumstances.

Now you do know how the system, in fact, works, your opinions on 2nd and 3rd Amendments notwithstanding.

What does it having to hold up in court have to do with anything if I have to quarter these people in my home without them having a warrant? You do realize the court has upheld that the government can literally arrest you indefinitely, throw you in a cage, indefinitely, without the slightest hint of due process?

 

[Koios]

Yeah I'm not aware how the system works, right on.

I might also contend that now that you can invade homes without a warrant, the 3rd amendment has been violated as well. But since you don't care about my opinion on the 2nd because the reality is that the courts ruled the infringements legal, I imagine you applaud them doing the same with your precious 3rd.

The evidence only holds up in court, if and only if, one of four things occur:

1. Your Consent.
2. Plain View.
3. Search Incident to Arrest.
4. Exigent Circumstances.

Now you do know how the system, in fact, works, your opinions on 2nd and 3rd Amendments notwithstanding.

What does it having to hold up in court have to do with anything if I have to quarter these people in my home without them having a warrant? You do realize the court has upheld that the government can literally arrest you indefinitely, throw you in a cage, indefinitely, without the slightest hint of due process?

It's the very essence of a protected right. Bear in mind, rights will be violated, by police and others. Our laws cannot alter behavior of those willing to violate them.

However, whether or not you have the right (it being protected in a court of law) is whether it was violated as determined in court.

For example, your spouse may consent to a search. But you do not have to, and the police have no right to enter, unless they see something illegal in plain sight, have cause to believe evidence might be destroyed or lives put at risk, or they arrest you and do a search for safety / evidence preservation reasons ... or get a warrant, describing the places to be searched and items to be found (no fishing trip, without cause)

A roommate is a bit different. They can consent to a search of your home, but only common areas and not your private space, such as your bedroom. For that, police need your consent, which you have a right to not give them, sans a warrant.

Does that help?

 

[LibertyLemming]

The evidence only holds up in court, if and only if, one of four things occur:

1. Your Consent.
2. Plain View.
3. Search Incident to Arrest.
4. Exigent Circumstances.

Now you do know how the system, in fact, works, your opinions on 2nd and 3rd Amendments notwithstanding.

What does it having to hold up in court have to do with anything if I have to quarter these people in my home without them having a warrant? You do realize the court has upheld that the government can literally arrest you indefinitely, throw you in a cage, indefinitely, without the slightest hint of due process?

It's the very essence of a protected right. Bear in mind, rights will be violated, by police and others. Our laws cannot alter behavior of those willing to violate them.

However, whether or not you have the right (it being protected in a court of law) is whether it was violated is determined in court.

For example, your spouse may consent to a search. But you do not have to, and the police have no right to enter, unless they see something illegal in plain sight, have cause to believe evidence might be destroyed or lives put at risk, or they arrest you and do a search for safety / evidence preservation reasons ... or get a warrant, describing the places to be searched and items to be found (no fishing trip, without cause)

A roommate is a bit different. They can consent to a search of your home, but only common areas and not your private space, such as your bedroom. For that, police need your consent, which you have a right to not give them, sans a warrant.

Does that help?

Okay you are missing the point. You can be locked up in a cage indefinitely without ever seeing a judge, assuming you were at home when this happened, you will have quartered troops and had your 5th Amendment, among others, violated as well.

The courts haven't ruled this as unconstitutional. Maybe someday they will, but until then, it is what is. Kinda like slavery until enough people wised up.

 

[Koios]

What does it having to hold up in court have to do with anything if I have to quarter these people in my home without them having a warrant? You do realize the court has upheld that the government can literally arrest you indefinitely, throw you in a cage, indefinitely, without the slightest hint of due process?

It's the very essence of a protected right. Bear in mind, rights will be violated, by police and others. Our laws cannot alter behavior of those willing to violate them.

However, whether or not you have the right (it being protected in a court of law) is whether it was violated is determined in court.

For example, your spouse may consent to a search. But you do not have to, and the police have no right to enter, unless they see something illegal in plain sight, have cause to believe evidence might be destroyed or lives put at risk, or they arrest you and do a search for safety / evidence preservation reasons ... or get a warrant, describing the places to be searched and items to be found (no fishing trip, without cause)

A roommate is a bit different. They can consent to a search of your home, but only common areas and not your private space, such as your bedroom. For that, police need your consent, which you have a right to not give them, sans a warrant.

Does that help?

Okay you are missing the point. You can be locked up in a cage indefinitely without ever seeing a judge, assuming you were at home when this happened, you will have quartered troops and had your 5th Amendment, among others, violated as well.

The courts haven't ruled this as unconstitutional. Maybe someday they will, but until then, it is what is. Kinda like slavery until enough people wised up.

No I cannot if I am a citizen and in the US. Habeas Corpus would have me in front of a judge with breakneck speed.

You are missing the point, in fact, which is quite simple. Our rights are as determined by SCOTUS, ultimately. What we think they are is folly. You'll learn what in fact they are, once they're challenged / upheld in court.

Case in point, until a recent SCOTUS ruling, your spouse could consent to a search on your behalf. But not any more. So cops are informed about what is and is not a good search (admissible in court) and know the limits they need to stay within. Not all will, but if you can show in court they broke the rules, YOUR RIGHT will be protected, and the evidence gathered will be thrown out.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Yeah cuz we've never suspended Habeas Corpus before

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Oh my, the liberals are trying to interpret the Constitution away again.

Maybe they should fly their asses to New York and help the Sandy victims.

No, that would be a private endeavor with no government support. My bad. Never mind.