You think you're pro-2nd but you're not

[bigrebnc1775]

Originalist hogwash.

There is no such thing as ‘too much’ interpretation of the Constitution.

No right is absolute or unlimited, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with the will of the people and Constitutional case law.

The courts determine when government has acted in accordance with the Constitution based on that case law; when government oversteps its authority, the courts invalidate the unlawful acts.

So you believe the 13th amendment did not end slavery?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet for the first 147 years there was no historic ban on any felon owning a gun outside of the prison environment. For the first 177 years there was no historic ban on any non-violent felon owning a gun outside the prison environment. But you insist that banning felons is acceptable. You can't have it both ways.

Prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is Constitutional – whether its acceptable or not is irrelevant; it’s another political, not legal, argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The court stated that weapons in common use were protected meaning those military style weapons

This is a lie.

The Court has made no such determination.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Military style? Like M-16s? Or like AR-15s?

It’s doesn’t matter – he’s lying; the Court has made no such ruling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Totally false, every word, every punctuation.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment means supporting the Constitution, not the Court.

And unconstitutional laws are not perfectly lawful - even if enforced at the end of a government barrel. The Supremacy Clause clearly states that only those laws that follow the Constitution are the law of the land.

But I'm glad we won't be hearing any more about Roe from you since case law says it's back in the States.

Totally false, every word, every punctuation.

Again, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The courts determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment – not message board posters.

 

[Vastator]

Machine guns aren't for marksmanship. They're for fun.

Some guns were just meant to be that way. Like the Hi-Point carbine: There really no practical purpose for those, other than having fun plinking at things.

Wrong. Suppressive fire is the primary purpose of full auto fire. Which makes it next to useless for a lone actor...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is a lie.

The Court has made no such determination.

No it's not a lie. Yes in common use those are the exact words used in Miller Heller Buren

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It’s doesn’t matter – he’s lying; the Court has made no such ruling.

Nope but you have a history of lying just like you are right now.

 

[Vastator]

Again, the ban can be a part of the sentence. Just the same as sexual offenders must register anywhere they move to. They may have served the jail part of the sentence but that doesn't mean that's it.

Yeah. Actually it does. Until you can actually control a person out of your custody...

 

[BackAgain]

Rules of war aren't in the Constitution, they're included by common law. It's treason to share troop movements with the enemy and treason is in t he Constitution.

And there's no room for interpretation of the explicit limitations in the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment, for instance, protects from unreasonable search and seizures but it defines neither reasonable nor unreasonable. But the use of the word unreasonable proves that the Founders were aware of the concept of reasonable and able to specify it when it was their intent. The result is that the 4th must be interpreted but must be interpreted based on original intent but applied to modern technology.

The 8th Amendment doesn't define excessive bail so it has to be interpreted. We don't apply the same dollar amounts to bail that they did in 1791 but we still apply the level of consideration for what's excessive. For instance 500,000 for the bodega owner in NYC was excessive and it was lowered to 50K.

On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment has no such vagueness. It says "Shall not be infringed". You can interpret that all day long, for 231 years, and it still means "Shall not be infringed". As I proved to you, the Founders understood the concept of reasonable exceptions, as they used it in the 4th Amendment. Had they meant to except reasonable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, they would have included the same thing in the 2nd Amendment, such as, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed." Had they said that, then you might be right but that's not what they said.

The Framers actually weren't attempting to create a republic of limited power and authority; they actually DID create a republic of limited power and authority.

And though they didn't explicitly authorize yelling fire in a theater, they did explicitly forbid Congress from making it illegal, thus, to this very day, there is no Federal law forbidding yelling fire in a theater, is there?

Are you suggesting that the Founders would have agreed to getting government permission and paying a fee in order to vote? Or getting government permission to speak out against the government?

Maybe you believe that the Founders would have accepted a court fee to have your attorney with you in a trial? Or perhaps a fee in order to have a trial in the first place? If you choose not to pay the fee then the judge makes the ruling of guilt or innocence.

If the right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to felons, then wouldn't that apply to all rights? There's no specific exception in the 2nd Amendment about felons so it must be inferred so wouldn't it be inferred for all rights? If you're a convicted felon then the next time you're charged with a crime, no lawyer, no jury. If you're a convicted felon, you can be held in chains and beaten daily for 10 years sentence because cruel and inhuman no longer applies to you. So no trial, no jury, and daily beatings for once-convicted felons. Got it.

Wrong.

Not a single rational person accepts your silly view on Constitutional law. If the 1st Amendment isn’t absolute (it isn’t) then there is no reason to assume that the 2d Amendment is either.

 

[woodwork201]

Banning their right to own a gun can indeed be a part of the sentence. 8 years in prison and a ban on owning a gun. There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop that as long as it was done through due process.

Whether we should is a seperate question.

Wrong. You completely miss the intent of the due process clauses - both of them.

The due process clauses grants no power to the government; it protects us from the government. It requires that, when the Constitution already allows the Government to take something from you, such as life, liberty, property, then they must provide due process before doing it.

By your flawed definition, the government could strip your right to due process using due process and then could take any right they wanted without due process, without trial, without any constitutional protections at all.



Although the phrase “due process of law” first appeared in the fourteenth century with a very narrow and technical meaning involving the service of appropriate writs, the American Founding generation likely identified the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause with the clauses, prevalent in state constitutions in 1791, that required governmental deprivations of life, liberty, or property to conform to “the law of the land,” as well as appropriate notice and ability to defend oneself in court.There are certain respects in which “due process of law,” understood as equivalent to “the law of the land,” uncontroversially regulates the substance of governmental action. Most obviously, the core meaning of “law of the land” provisions, dating back to the Magna Carta, is to secure the principle of legality by ensuring that executive and judicial deprivations are grounded in valid legal authority. In this respect, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause limits the substance of executive or judicial action by requiring it to be grounded in law.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

What Did The Founders Mean by 'Due Process of Law?'

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution each have a Due Process Clause. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibited the federal government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law...

www.americanthinker.com

History of the Due Process Clause, Sample of Essays

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes a clause called Due Process Clause and it is stated in the passage “no person… shall be

educheer.com

5th Amendment Due Process Clause

The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees that the government must obey written laws. It promises that your life, liberty and property will be protected, but what does that mean exactly?

www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com

 

[pknopp]

Wrong. You completely miss the intent of the due process clauses - both of them.

The due process clauses grants no power to the government; it protects us from the government. It requires that, when the Constitution already allows the Government to take something from you, such as life, liberty, property, then they must provide due process before doing it.

By your flawed definition, the government could strip your right to due process using due process and then could take any right they wanted without due process, without trial, without any constitutional protections at all.

Nothing I said has anything to do with what you said. To strip our right to due process would take a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Vastator]

Nothing I said has anything to do with what you said. To strip our right to due process would take a Constitutional Amendment.

There goes your felony clause which was implemented to strip uppity blacks of the ability to buy guns after the Black Panthers brandished theirs on the courthouse steps in Commiefornia...
You're just suffering from normalcy bias. This is exactly the thing our founders wanted to protect us from. Being unpersoned, by the state.

 

[pknopp]

There goes your felony clause which was implemented to strip uppity blacks of the ability to buy guns after the Black Panthers brandished theirs on the courthouse steps in Commiefornia...
You're just suffering from normalcy bias. This is exactly the thing our founders wanted to protect us from. Being unpersoned, by the state.

Nothing I've stated has anything to do with any sort of bias. I'm simply stating simple facts. Facts have no bias.

 

[Vastator]

Nothing I've stated has anything to do with any sort of bias. I'm simply stating simple facts. Facts have no bias.

It actually does. "Normalcy" bias.

 

[woodwork201]

Wrong.

Not a single rational person accepts your silly view on Constitutional law. If the 1st Amendment isn’t absolute (it isn’t) then there is no reason to assume that the 2d Amendment is either.

The Constitution must be taken as absolute. It created the government and both empowered and restricted government. If the Government can operate beyond the power that was given in the Constitution, from where do they get that power or authority? Blue blood? Birth? Deep State? Some natural power or authority to govern based on a natural state of people to be governed?

While you pretend to be a small-government libertarian, you insist that it is the natural right of government to rule. You fail to understand the most fundamental nature of our government: the people surrendered a explicit and limited set of liberties for a limited and explicit set of small government functions. Only by tyranny can those in government claim to have more authority than what the people allowed. And from where do we determine what they allowed? By the very literal and original interpretation of the Constitution.

You understand only being governed and nothing at all about being free.

 

[BackAgain]

The Constitution must be taken as absolute. It created the government and both empowered and restricted government. If the Government can operate beyond the power that was given in the Constitution, from where do they get that power or authority? Blue blood? Birth? Deep State? Some natural power or authority to govern based on a natural state of people to be governed?

While you pretend to be a small-government libertarian, you insist that it is the natural right of government to rule. You fail to understand the most fundamental nature of our government: the people surrendered a explicit and limited set of liberties for a limited and explicit set of small government functions. Only by tyranny can those in government claim to have more authority than what the people allowed. And from where do we determine what they allowed? By the very literal and original interpretation of the Constitution.

You understand only being governed and nothing at all about being free.

Nope. Nothing is absolute.

You understand nothing.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes military style weapons are protected. Oh and fyi no law prevents you from buying an M16

If it's taxed and requires special permission it is infringed. Infringed does not require banned.

 

[Vastator]

The Constitution must be taken as absolute. It created the government and both empowered and restricted government. If the Government can operate beyond the power that was given in the Constitution, from where do they get that power or authority? Blue blood? Birth? Deep State? Some natural power or authority to govern based on a natural state of people to be governed?

While you pretend to be a small-government libertarian, you insist that it is the natural right of government to rule. You fail to understand the most fundamental nature of our government: the people surrendered a explicit and limited set of liberties for a limited and explicit set of small government functions. Only by tyranny can those in government claim to have more authority than what the people allowed. And from where do we determine what they allowed? By the very literal and original interpretation of the Constitution.

You understand only being governed and nothing at all about being free.

BAM!!!

 

[Vastator]

Nope. Nothing is absolute.

You understand nothing.

Death is absolute... And what is "government" boiled down to its essence? It is the the implied, or explicicit use of force, to coerce the behavior of a given mass of people.
So it really just comes down to "who, is more deadly"? Some things never change..