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

[BackAgain]

In other words, you can't tell from where the government of the people, by the people, for the people, got the authority and power to act outside of the Constitution. Got it.

How does any of that bleating bullshit make sense even to an utter retard such as you?

Man alive are you stupid.

 

[BackAgain]

It's not what the Constitution demands; it's what the Constitution permits. How does the government get the power to do anything if not from the Constitution?

The authority of our government to do anything comes from the Constitution. The Constitution demands certain things too. Are you so fully retarded that you can’t comprehend that much?

 

[woodwork201]

Still waiting for you to address post #34, Scotsman.
What are you afraid of?

There's nothing to address. You made up a line that doesn't exist and you want me to accept your premise. You made it up in response to my question to you, which you haven't answered. You said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect weapons more dangerous than guns but you won't say what those weapons are that you think the 2nd Amendment does not protect. You're games about a line and your stalking/trolling, don't get the question answered. Either answer it or let it go.

You're just proving that you are the gun controller I've already proven you are and you're diverting by repeatedly, stalking, with the same question, over and over again, in multiple threads, in an attempt to divert from your support of gun control.

 

[woodwork201]

The authority of our government to do anything comes from the Constitution. The Constitution demands certain things too. Are you so fully retarded that you can’t comprehend that much?

We're getting somewhere; you answered the question. Now that you admit that the government only has the authority granted it in the Constitution, please tell us where in the Constitution is the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

It's OK that you want gun control; it's an opinion and we all have opinions. I'm not arguing that you're not entitled to support gun control; the point in this thread, as stated in the title and you chose to participate, is that you think you're pro 2nd Amendment but you are not. Just admit it that you like guns but, to you, they're a privilege that can be reasonably infringed by the Government - not because the Constitution permits it but because you want it.

All I'm looking for is for gun controllers on the right to admit that they're actually gun controllers with more in common with Bloomberg's AnyTown organization than with the Founding Fathers.

 

[night_son]

There's nothing to address. You made up a line that doesn't exist and you want me to accept your premise. You made it up in response to my question to you, which you haven't answered. You said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect weapons more dangerous than guns but you won't say what those weapons are that you think the 2nd Amendment does not protect. You're games about a line and your stalking/trolling, don't get the question answered. Either answer it or let it go.

You're just proving that you are the gun controller I've already proven you are and you're diverting by repeatedly, stalking, with the same question, over and over again, in multiple threads, in an attempt to divert from your support of gun control.

A key and terminal deficit present in the thinking of many so-called American gun guys is their eagerness to show pride in following highly restrictive gun laws, such as NFA tax stamp extortion. These personality types will brag endlessly about their ability to jump through hoops of red tape and Second Amendment infringements as if doing so is some kind of right of passage or badge of honor. Many if not all such FFL holders are true judas goats, leading American gun owners into the clutches of the ATF. One can easily identify them by their oversized t-shirts bearing slogans such as shall not be infringed or Molon labe or some such bullshit, topped off with ball caps and wrap around sunglasses, as they LARP navy seals and green berets over at their nearest grocery store. Those who wish to end or modify the Second Amendment are true believers while the vast majority of those who claim to live it are certainly not.

 

[BackAgain]

We're getting somewhere; you answered the question. Now that you admit that the government only has the authority granted it in the Constitution, please tell us where in the Constitution is the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

It's OK that you want gun control; it's an opinion and we all have opinions. I'm not arguing that you're not entitled to support gun control; the point in this thread, as stated in the title and you chose to participate, is that you think you're pro 2nd Amendment but you are not. Just admit it that you like guns but, to you, they're a privilege that can be reasonably infringed by the Government - not because the Constitution permits it but because you want it.

All I'm looking for is for gun controllers on the right to admit that they're actually gun controllers with more in common with Bloomberg's AnyTown organization than with the Founding Fathers.

I’ve always maintained that our republic’s governmental authority stems from our Constitution. So, we’ve “gotten” to where I always was !

What doors like you fail to comprehend with your shallow thinking and silly rhetoric is that there is a major and real difference between restricting a right (which doesn’t happen) and putting valid and recognized limitations in it. For example

I’m gonna have to guess. But I will assume that even you recognize the authority of the governments (Federal and states’) to deny the right of convicted felons to be armed. Are they not citizens? Are they not “people?”

Or am I wrong? Are you perhaps one of those who claim that even convicted felons have a Constitutional “right” to bear arms that can’t be subjected to any restraints?

Are gun licenses and permits and registrations in your hunks estimation all a violation of the 2d Amendment ?

 

[woodwork201]

No it doesn't and you can say they can't but we can point out where they do all the time. No, that doesn't necessarily make it right but the Constitutions only stipulation is against cruel and unusual.

What does cruel and unusual have to do with this conversation?

So you accept the government's abuses of power as evidence that it's permitted? It's one thing to suffer it because we must, as even Jefferson and the Founders said in the Declaration of Independence, but to say it's OK just because they do it, to ever quit saying it is NOT OK even if they do it, is a level of submission I will not do.

Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams, 1776

For Due Process to allow the government to take or infringe on any right, consider whether the right could be stripped without due process had the due process clauses not been in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

There would be no way for the courts to do so but since they are there, there is.

Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say; do you? Are you suggesting that it's impossible for the Courts to exceed their authority; that if they do it that is proof it's allowed?

Odd, we can completely remove one's Constitutional right to free travel through due process.

The Constitution allows for the arrest and imprisonment of criminals. It's very explicit. The power to do that doesn't come from the Due Process clause; it comes from 5th Amendment Grand Jury clause, not the Due Process Clause.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,​

So, apply the test I told you to this clause. If Due Process was never mentioned, the Grand Jury clause acknowledges the government's power to hold criminals but requires that the government get an indictment by a grand jury.

Then the 6th Amendment acknowledges that the government is able to try a criminal and protects the accused by setting some limits on the government's authority:

​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.​

And then, in the 8th Amendment, the Constitution acknowledges that the government has the authority to punish convicted criminals but protects the convicted from cruel and unusual punishment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted​

So, locking up a prisoner, taking away their freedom to travel as you gamed it, is allowed by the Constitution, whether or not there's a due process clause. Since the government otherwise has the constitutional authority, then the due process clause requires that they follow the law and due process. In a criminal trial, that would include things such as discovery, disclosure, jury selection process, etc., and probably much more.

But Due Process didn't give the Government one iota of power or authority to indict, try, convict, or punish the accused; instead, due process ensured that the government gave the accused, well... due process.

Now that I've educated you on what Due Process actually is, tell how does the government, had due process not been mentioned in the Constitution as amended, get the power or authority to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[woodwork201]

A key and terminal deficit present in the thinking of many so-called American gun guys is their eagerness to show pride in following highly restrictive gun laws, such as NFA tax stamp extortion. These personality types will brag endlessly about their ability to jump through hoops of red tape and Second Amendment infringements as if doing so is some kind of right of passage or badge of honor. Many if not all such FFL holders are true judas goats, leading American gun owners into the clutches of the ATF. One can easily identify them by their oversized t-shirts bearing slogans such as shall not be infringed or Molon labe or some such bullshit, topped off with ball caps and wrap around sunglasses, as they LARP navy seals and green berets over at their nearest grocery store. Those who wish to end or modify the Second Amendment are true believers while the vast majority of those who claim to live it are certainly not.

Another trait is blind and unconditional support for law enforcement, not just for public safety but the cop is always right. And over-the-top support for law and order. If it's the law, it is to be followed because it's the law. Absolute support for the police and law and order and then claim nothing, including the Constitution, is absolute.

I support the cops when they're right. I want them to go home safe every day - even when they're not perfect, human in fact, and maybe yelled at someone and violated someone's rights that day.

I support law and order; it's a key tenet of society. And I obey the law almost always. But not because the law is always right or is right because it's the law. I weigh the risks, the consequences, and the benefits, and I find that, in most things, it's better to go along. But going along isn't acceptance or even submission; it's going along.

Your post, and I think my points in this post about the absolute law and order and back the blue attitudes all go together and describe the chest pounding egotistical gun owners who think that they support the 2nd Amendment but do not.

 

[woodwork201]

I’ve always maintained that our republic’s governmental authority stems from our Constitution. So, we’ve “gotten” to where I always was !

What doors like you fail to comprehend with your shallow thinking and silly rhetoric is that there is a major and real difference between restricting a right (which doesn’t happen) and putting valid and recognized limitations in it. For example

I’m gonna have to guess. But I will assume that even you recognize the authority of the governments (Federal and states’) to deny the right of convicted felons to be armed. Are they not citizens? Are they not “people?”

Or am I wrong? Are you perhaps one of those who claim that even convicted felons have a Constitutional “right” to bear arms that can’t be subjected to any restraints?

Are gun licenses and permits and registrations in your hunks estimation all a violation of the 2d Amendment ?

You assume incorrectly. The government has no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. And, as you've see, the started with violent felons, then all felons, then some misdemeanors.. incrementalism.

Are voting licenses legal? Is it legal to require a permit from the government to speak against the government? A press license?

If the government can take the right to self defense forever from a person because of a past crime, can they take other rights? Like even the right to a trial or an attorney? And if not, why not? What language in the Constitution would make taking their right to keep and bear arms different from taking their right to a jury trial or a lawyer?

 

[toobfreak]

The fact is, most gun owners support gun control. Most gun owners on this site, support gun control. As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.

You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

For the first 149 years in this country, no attempt was made by the Federal Government to restrict anyone not in prison or jail or a mental hospital from keeping and bearing arms. For the next 30 years, only violent felons were banned. Then in 1968, it became felony litterers as well.

What changed? Was it always acceptable under the Constitution?

For the first 202 years, no background checks were required; it wasn't necessary to get the government's permission in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

In Miller, the Supreme Court said that only weapons suited for military use are protected. In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected.

Of course none of these restrictions meet the "shall not be infringed" clause.

So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"? If you don't support "shall not be infringed" then do you really support the 2nd Amendment?

You might actually support a limited right (privilege) for some people to keep and bear some arms but that doesn't meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment requires, "shall not be infringed".

Very many gun owners here, and across the nation, talk about reasonable infringements, calling them reasonable restrictions. Their hearts are in the right place; they're emotional about gun deaths and murdered children - more so than the gun grabbers on the left - so they ignore, or are otherwise willing to accept, reasonable infringements.

Gun owners and advocates of the right to keep and bear arms regularly talk about the emotionally-driven responses on the left while supporting gun control driven by their own emotions. Both are wrong. The Constitution must drive the law, not emotions.

Gun owners regularly point out that only the law-abiding obey the gun laws but then, out of emotion, support all sorts of gun control laws that have been proven to do nothing to reduce crime - but they just don't have the no-compromise commitment to their principles or to the 2nd Amendment to publicly call for the end of every infringement and to say that they're all unconstitutional.

So, I'll just say, as the title of this thread says, realizing this will be a hard pill for you to swallow and admit to yourselves, and other than perhaps one or two others on this site, perhaps one or two percent of other gun owners in the nation, no, you may be pro gun, you may like guns, but you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

All valid points. Put succinctly, the 2nd Am. is dying at the hands of government a death of a thousand cuts. The Constitution is meant to RESTRICT government, not people, and factions within are just sick of that and want to turn it around in a way the general public isn't aware of until too late.

What we really need is not gun restrictions, but tighter restrictions on government and the kind of mewling idiot babies they are cranking out in their government run schools which go out and abuse firearms irresponsibly in senseless violent crime.

 

[BackAgain]

You assume incorrectly. The government has no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. And, as you've see, the started with violent felons, then all felons, then some misdemeanors.. incrementalism.

Are voting licenses legal? Is it legal to require a permit from the government to speak against the government? A press license?

If the government can take the right to self defense forever from a person because of a past crime, can they take other rights? Like even the right to a trial or an attorney? And if not, why not? What language in the Constitution would make taking their right to keep and bear arms different from taking their right to a jury trial or a lawyer?

Your analysis is flawed by your ignorant presumptions.

If you’re actually suggesting that the government can’t deny a felon the “right” to possess a gun, you’re simply ignorant and beyond having any hope of grasping the subject matter here.

If the right of a person to endanger people by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected free speech, then your position is that our Constitution IS some irrational suicide pact. You’re wrong. It isn’t.

And if your contention is that the Constitution means that the government can’t deny a felon the right to possess a gun, because a gun is a “right,” then your argument equally suggests that the government can’t put a felon behind bars because prisons deny people their right to liberty.

You are simply too fully ignorant of how the law works; and your grasp of what our Constitution means is irredeemably flawed. It’s child like but very much incomplete and incorrect.

 

[night_son]

All valid points. Put succinctly, the 2nd Am. is dying at the hands of government a death of a thousand cuts. The Constitution is meant to RESTRICT government, not people, and factions within are just sick of that and want to turn it around in a way the general public isn't aware of until too late.

What we really need is not gun restrictions, but tighter restrictions on government and the kind of mewling idiot babies they are cranking out in their government run schools which go out and abuse firearms irresponsibly in senseless violent crime.

Excellent observations.

As a middle school age kid during the mid-1980's I participated in a hunting and gun club at my rural public school. The teacher who ran the club instructed us to bring our hunting rifles and shotguns to school and store them, along with ammunition, in our lockers. On club days, after school, the teacher would take us out to the edge of the woods, after instructing us on firearm safety in a classroom, where we would target practice against a large grass covered berm.

Can you even imagine such a thing? The rifle I brought to school for use in the club was 7.92x57mm German Mauser bolt action, one of two nearly identical weapons my grandfather had come home with from WWII Europe. Technically, it was a weapon of war used to deadly effect for years against American and Allied forces. I kept it in a leather gun boot in my middle school locker.

Never once did the thought of using that old Mauser to harm other students enter my mind. One of my friends at the time, whose father was a dedicated hunter, brought a semi-auto .308 to school for the same club. Did he ever try to gun down fellow students? Of course not.

Something drastically changed, in both the minds of our youth and the gears of our government, in the intervening forty plus odd years since I participated in that hunting and gun club, of which there probably thousands of similar afterschool activities across America at the time.

My friends and I, back then, were also afforded great trust and freedom by our parents to target shoot and hunt on my grandfather's land—with rifles and handguns of all kinds—without a bit of supervision. Two of the weapons we fooled around with were a Belgian semi-auto pistol and a broom handle Mauser pistol capable of fully automatic fire.

Once again, we never entertained the thought of shooting each other or anyone else—although we did rain hell on squirrels, groundhogs, rabbits and other critters.

Something changed; something unfathomable yet knowable—although knowing it must be the most inconvenient truth of all time.

 

[toobfreak]

Never once did the thought of using that old Mauser to harm other students enter my mind. One of my friends at the time, whose father was a dedicated hunter, brought a semi-auto .308 to school for the same club. Did he ever try to gun down fellow students? Of course not.

Of course not. You weren't crazy. Those guns were used in wartime to kill the enemy because it WAS a war.

Something drastically changed, in both the minds of our youth and the gears of our government

Of course. Government got into the business of social engineering, and their European-socialist fore-bearings make gun ownership a forbidden thing. They took God and morality and family out of the equation, now the government raises kids, and kids now have lost all value for human life much less the resilience to stand up and compete in the world so take it out on others.

Once again, we never entertained the thought of shooting each other or anyone else—

Think about it: an intelligent person kills for personal gain, if possible, they steal a million dollars without anyone noticing! When is the last time you heard of someone killing 17 people to steal a collection of Van Goghs or Michelangelo paintings?

Then look at these kid school shooters who go in and murder a whole classroom-- -- why? What did they gain? Not only do they not get rich or famous or anything out of so horrific an act, they usually end up killing themselves! That is the act of an insane person who hates life, hates living, and just wants to die in a final act of revenge. The question is: what are these schools doing to these kids to so affect them so? The issue is not the guns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can you quote from Heller where they affirmed Miller?

. The majority also found that United States v. Miller supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision. (In Miller, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”) Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts | Britannica

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense...

www.britannica.com

 

[pknopp]

What does cruel and unusual have to do with this conversation?

So you accept the government's abuses of power as evidence that it's permitted? It's one thing to suffer it because we must, as even Jefferson and the Founders said in the Declaration of Independence, but to say it's OK just because they do it, to ever quit saying it is NOT OK even if they do it, is a level of submission I will not do.

Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams, 1776


Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say; do you? Are you suggesting that it's impossible for the Courts to exceed their authority; that if they do it that is proof it's allowed?


The Constitution allows for the arrest and imprisonment of criminals. It's very explicit. The power to do that doesn't come from the Due Process clause; it comes from 5th Amendment Grand Jury clause, not the Due Process Clause.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,​

So, apply the test I told you to this clause. If Due Process was never mentioned, the Grand Jury clause acknowledges the government's power to hold criminals but requires that the government get an indictment by a grand jury.

Then the 6th Amendment acknowledges that the government is able to try a criminal and protects the accused by setting some limits on the government's authority:

​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.​

And then, in the 8th Amendment, the Constitution acknowledges that the government has the authority to punish convicted criminals but protects the convicted from cruel and unusual punishment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted​

So, locking up a prisoner, taking away their freedom to travel as you gamed it, is allowed by the Constitution, whether or not there's a due process clause. Since the government otherwise has the constitutional authority, then the due process clause requires that they follow the law and due process. In a criminal trial, that would include things such as discovery, disclosure, jury selection process, etc., and probably much more.

But Due Process didn't give the Government one iota of power or authority to indict, try, convict, or punish the accused; instead, due process ensured that the government gave the accused, well... due process.

Now that I've educated you on what Due Process actually is, tell how does the government, had due process not been mentioned in the Constitution as amended, get the power or authority to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms.

We will just arm those in prison I suppose.

 

[sealybobo]

Assume that's true. Then, you would appreciate me setting the record straight.

Did you know that Jefferson owned a machine gun?

Puckle gun - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And an "assault weapon"

Girardoni air rifle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You didn't know that did you?

You quoted a guy who would probably deem you a tyrant and a traitor for your anti-gun stances.

Nonsense. What he was saying is times change. So the constitution needs to change with the times. New inventions, discoveries, ways of thinking, could cause our future society to add something to the constitution.

Wasn't this recent Supreme Court decision rare in American history where a right was taken away?

Fact check: Has the Supreme Court ever taken away a constitutional right? :: WRAL.com

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, is one of many Democrats concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark abortion rights decision Roe vs. Wade. In an interview, Baldwin said the court "has never taken away a constitutional right." PolitiFact checks that claim.

www.wral.com

 

[pknopp]

Oh look. The one true Scotsman.
We must be blessed.

Per you:
-There is no line. There's no "dangerous or unusual" clause in the Constitution, gun controller. You're a fucking idiot and completely unwilling, because you know you're unable, to defend your claim that dangerous or unusual arms, or arms not in common use, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
- There is no dangerous and unusual line in the Constitution; the line doesn't exist, gun controller. Tell where the line comes from and what weapons you believe fall into that category, gun controller.
- There's no "except" in there.

Tell us why you believe people have the right to own and use nuclear weapons.
Oh. You don't?
So, there must be a line between the weapons the people have the right to own and the weapons they don't.
And that line must be somewhere between firearms, which you agree we have the right to own and use, and nuclear weapons, which you agree we do not.
Contrary to your claim, and proof of mine.

Just because.........the only roadblock I see is an inability for people to have the ability, funds, etc in owning a nuclear weapon.

So I believe people have the right they don't have a right for someone to give them one or too store it in an unsafe matter and the rest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just because.........the only roadblock I see is an inability for people to have the ability, funds, etc in owning a nuclear weapon.
So I believe people have the right they don't have a right for someone to give them one or too store it in an unsafe matter and the rest.

Um... wut?

 

[pknopp]

Um... wut?

What is "I believe people have the right" don't you understand?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is "I believe people have the right" don't you understand?

You believe people have a right to own a nuclear weapon.
Ok. Why?
And, do you believe the 2nd Amendment protects that right from infringement?
If so, why?


And thank you for being honest -- that puts you at least a full step ahead of the Scotsman.