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

[pknopp]

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.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place for multiple reasons. One big one was for the people to be able to protect themselves from their government if need be.

That can't be done if one side is stopping the other from being on a level playing field.

Now there are other considerations which will keep the people from having one. The ability to make one. The costs to making one. The government would have the right to make sure it was stored in a safe manner so few if any could own one even though I believe they should be able to.

 

[woodwork201]

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 government can deny a felon the right to possess a gun, please show where in the Constitution they get that power. You said yourself that you believe they get all their power from the Constitution so show where they get the power.

The problem is that you can't. You keep ignoring that.

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.

Show me the Federal law making it illegal to yell fire in a theater. There isn't one. If yelling fire in a theater is such a deadly, suicidal, thing to do, shouldn't there be a law? Why do you suppose there's no such law?

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.

Wrong. I already posted it from the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly allows for the arrest, indictment, and punishment of criminals and explicitly mentions taking their liberty, even their life, as part of the process.

And before you stupidly respond that there's the proof they can take guns because they can take liberty, let me point out that taking the guns is explicitly forbidden. The government can take the life of a criminal but cannot take the criminal's guns. It's explicit.

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.

You keep telling me about what the Constitution allows but you've yet to quote a single bit of the Constitution to back up a thing you have said. It is you that has no grasp of the Constitution. You have your desires and wishes for government control over the population but you you can't back any of it up with knowledge or understanding of the Constitution.

 

[pknopp]

If the government can deny a felon the right to possess a gun, please show where in the Constitution they get that power. You said yourself that you believe they get all their power from the Constitution so show where they get the power.

The problem is that you can't. You keep ignoring that.



Show me the Federal law making it illegal to yell fire in a theater. There isn't one. If yelling fire in a theater is such a deadly, suicidal, thing to do, shouldn't there be a law? Why do you suppose there's no such law?



Wrong. I already posted it from the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly allows for the arrest, indictment, and punishment of criminals and explicitly mentions taking their liberty, even their life, as part of the process.

And before you stupidly respond that there's the proof they can take guns because they can take liberty, let me point out that taking the guns is explicitly forbidden. The government can take the life of a criminal but cannot take the criminal's guns. It's explicit.


You keep telling me about what the Constitution allows but you've yet to quote a single bit of the Constitution to back up a thing you have said. It is you that has no grasp of the Constitution. You have your desires and wishes for government control over the population but you you can't back any of it up with knowledge or understanding of the Constitution.

Do those in prison have a right to own a gun?

 

[woodwork201]

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.

What a great story; thank you for telling it.

What changed is that the schools started to teach children that they are evil because of their skin color. They taught the black and brown children that white children hate them. They taught the white children to hate themselves. The white children who didn't buy in and hate themselves found, though, that all the other kids, white, black, or brown, had been taught to hate them.

Schools teach hate. That's the number one topic.

 

[woodwork201]

. 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

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

Quoting or referencing Miller isn't the same thing as upholding Miller.

By the way, you're quoting from the summary, not the decision written by Scalia. But you'll find the same thing in the decision: they quote it and reference but do not epxlicitly uphold it.

 

[woodwork201]

The 2nd Amendment was put in place for multiple reasons. One big one was for the people to be able to protect themselves from their government if need be.

That can't be done if one side is stopping the other from being on a level playing field.

Now there are other considerations which will keep the people from having one. The ability to make one. The costs to making one. The government would have the right to make sure it was stored in a safe manner so few if any could own one even though I believe they should be able to.

Which is why I have said that Congress should pass an amendment, and submit to the States, making it illegal to possess the specific types of nuclear materials necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which is why I have said that Congress should pass an amendment, and submit to the States, making it illegal to possess the specific types of nuclear materials necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

No need strategic weapons are not allowed. The Constitution specifically outlaws the owning of armed ships the only strategic weapon at the time.

 

[badbob85037]

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.

Look clown your bull shit don't work on me because that is what it is, bull shit. At least try to think up your own bull shit instead of using that old Brady Center crap. It was a lie the first time they said it and it's a lie now when you say it. What's next 'You are 47 times likely to shoot a family member than a bad man. Or 'children dying from guns is skyrocketing'. Why don't you get you a map and all the places with crime topping the charts color it red. Now color all the places restricting their citizens from guns blue. Now you have a purple map. Try pulling your head out and get a clue even if you have to buy it!

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need strategic weapons are not allowed.

No no -- the Scotsman believes there is "no line" as to what weapons the 2nd protects.
That is, he believes you have a right to nukes, and the 2nd protects that right from infringement.
Ask him.
He'll tell you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Quoting or referencing Miller isn't the same thing as upholding Miller.

By the way, you're quoting from the summary, not the decision written by Scalia. But you'll find the same thing in the decision: they quote it and reference but do not epxlicitly uphold it.

Yes it is it's called precedent.

 

[woodwork201]

But if they can own it, gun owners want to own it. Don't forget one of the arguments for why we need guns is to fight off a government that gets to big for it's britches.

You want assault rifles because you know your government is armed with these assault rifles.

Well, I don't want anyone using a nuke against the government or the government against the people. There should be an amendment to prevent it but I'm not worried about it in any case. Highly motivated national governments have spent tens of billions of dollars over decades and haven't been able to get one so I'm not too worried that random Americans are going to get one.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, I don't want anyone using a nuke against the government or the government against the people. There should be an amendment to prevent it but I'm not worried about it in any case. Highly motivated national governments have spent tens of billions of dollars over decades and haven't been able to get one so I'm not too worried that random Americans are going to get one.

I invented a laser I can cut anyone in half with it. I could go to a stadium and kill everyone. But I carry it only for protection. Want one? I sell them for $20.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I don't want anyone using a nuke against the government or the government against the people. There should be an amendment to prevent it but I'm not worried about it in any case. Highly motivated national governments have spent tens of billions of dollars over decades and haven't been able to get one so I'm not too worried that random Americans are going to get one.

And thus, you agree:
The people have the right to own and use nukes; said amendment is protected by the 2nd.
Just like I said.
Good work Scotsman.

 

[woodwork201]

No need strategic weapons are not allowed. The Constitution specifically outlaws the owning of armed ships the only strategic weapon at the time.

Can you quote that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can you quote that?

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

article 1 section 10

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the United States Constitution and its Amendments.

constitution.congress.gov

 

[woodwork201]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

article 1 section 10

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the United States Constitution and its Amendments.

constitution.congress.gov

That is a restriction on the States and not on private individuals.

Private ships of war: An economical solution

Privately owned warships are so deeply at the heart of American maritime tradition that a reference to them is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. With their own contract crews who rushed to the fight for independence during the American Revolution and in defense of the nation during the War of 181

centerforsecuritypolicy.org

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3186&context=mulr;Compacts

There's been very little challenge to any part of the Compact Clause and none at all about warships. Today, current law, constitutional or not, wouldn't allow ownership of a warship because the weapons would all be controlled by the NFA but, at least up to the end of the war of 1812 and beyond, there were most assuredly private warships.