Does the 2nd amendment allow for "reasonable restrictions"? HOW?

[Little-Acorn]

Another poster here might have touched on a vital 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." As you indicate here, it 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, 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?

I don't know.

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 the "Forgive and forget" principle to apply here. 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? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 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. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

[midcan5]

Who TF cares about the second amendment you jackass. Guns are the least important issue this election season. They are only mentioned by complete fools like yourself who don't have single working brain cell.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[Little-Acorn]

That takes care of the usual attempt by leftists to keep us from discussing certain subjects, complete with the obligatory lies and namecalling.

Back to the subject: Other parts of the Constitution say things like "except by due process of law", or stipulate the need for a warrant for certain government acts. Why does the 2nd amendment make no such exceptions?

[Mr. P]

Who TF cares about the second amendment you jackass. Guns are the least important issue this election season. They are only mentioned by complete fools like yourself who don't have single working brain cell.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

:rolleyes: I have no idea why you even made a post on this thread..You damn sure didn't address the OP.

[hjmick]

I was making a similar argument elsewhere earlier today. If I may quote myself:

"I am no legal expert, not even close, but much of my reading on the subject of the 2nd amendment I have come to believe that at least a portion of the intent was to serve as a reminder to the government about whom they serve. In a manner of speaking, it was meant, among other things, as a way for American citizens to prevent the rise of the type of tyranny they had just thrown off."

This is, of course, nothing but my opinion.

[April15]

That takes care of the usual attempt by leftists to keep us from discussing certain subjects, complete with the obligatory lies and namecalling.

Back to the subject: Other parts of the Constitution say things like "except by due process of law", or stipulate the need for a warrant for certain government acts. Why does the 2nd amendment make no such exceptions?The framers did not want the ability to fend off attacks taken from the citizenry as they knew an armed citizenry is what overthrew the Brits.
Now an amendment can be passed and ratified to change the 2nd amendment but is highly unlikely.

[theHawk]

Who TF cares about the second amendment you jackass. Guns are the least important issue this election season. They are only mentioned by complete fools like yourself who don't have single working brain cell.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Not everything has to revolve around the election you jackass.

[theHawk]

Another poster here might have touched on a vital 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." As you indicate here, it 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, 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?

I don't know.

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 the "Forgive and forget" principle to apply here. 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? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 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. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.


Think of it this way, a "right" in the constitution really means an immunity from government persecution. So the "right" to own and bear arms means the government cannot fine you, or throw you in jail for owning a weapon. When you start talking about someone blowing people away at a mall, obviously the state has a authority to detain that person. They won't persecute the person for owning a weapon, they'll persecute him for murder.

[Psychoblues]

The 2nd amendment provides for the RTBA for organized militias and that pretty much rules out the nut cases like you and the rest of your ilk that intend only to wreak havoc on the freedoms that most Americans enjoy and for which I have gone to war to protect. Dig it?

Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[diuretic]

Let me think.

Constitution.

US Supreme Court.,

US Supreme Court gets authority of judicial review.

US Supreme Court can check out a law against the Constitution and decide if the law is or is not constitutional.

So if a state passes a law that restricts the use/possession etc of firearms and it's ruled by the Supreme Court as being constitutional then it's valid law.

There you go. Solved.

Next? :laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

Leave it to the leftists to keep trying desperately to change the subject, and/or tell flat lies about what the 2nd clearly says despite being corrected innumerable times. What else can they do when they lose?

Back to the subject:
Despite how it's often applied, the 2nd amendment contains no language restricting its action to only the Federal government (unlike the 1st amendment, which does have such language). And it also contains no language making ANY exception to its ban on govt agencies taking away people's guns. Technically, it even bans taking away the gun of the mass murderer at the scene of his crime. Though it's obviously impossible that the people who wrote it, could have intended that to be the result.

I believe this apparent impossibility was deliberately put in place, with the knowledge that no judge or jury would convict (or even bother to try) the cop who took the mass murderer's gun, and would nullify the effect of the 2nd IN THAT CASE. And the reason they relied on such nullification, was so that they could present a SOLID wall of denial to any government that tried to disarm its citizens legislatively. Opponents could point to the 2nd and say, See, no exceptions! Not "except by due process", no "except for felons", no nothing! You CANNOT make a law taking away anyone's weapons, PERIOD!

We have gone far from that state, of course. We need to get back to it, relying on the good sense of the people (something leftists never rely on, except for themselves) to properly apply the 2nd amendment as it was intended: a flat ban on ANY government restricting or taking away the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

[manu1959]

i think since the 2nd amendment is silent, it can be argued either way .....

as you said, the writters were smart men....they knew that if they put language in there weighting the amendment either way, it could benifit one party one way or another.....

with it silent it allows each side to make reasonable arguments as to what the right to keep and bear arms means .....

one can argue as to the definition of arms....a pistol, a rifle, a rocket launcher, a cannon, a tank.....

then the argument will turn to infringed .....

[retiredman]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Perhaps, in order to well regulate that militia, some restrictions are necessary, n'est ce pas?:laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

i think since the 2nd amendment is silent, it can be argued either way .....


The 2nd amendment is hardly "silent".

It says that the right shall not be infringed. And that's a pretty loud-and-clear proclamation. And it's talking to someone.

If your city government makes a law saying no one can have a gun in that city, is "shall not be infringed" still being upheld?

Not hardly.

People can argue over what the Framers might have wanted. And they can argue over what judges etc. usually lecture us it means, and rule that it means.

But I can see no way to argue that it doesn't SAY that the RKBA cannot be infringed... period. The plain language of the amendment cannot possibly say anything else.

[LOki]

Other parts of the Constitution say things like "except by due process of law", or stipulate the need for a warrant for certain government acts. Why does the 2nd amendment make no such exceptions?I don't think that confiscating the arms of those individuals who are demonstrably incompetent, or criminally violent, is a violation of the broader right of The People to keep and bear arms--and the right t okeep and bear arms is in no way the right to use arms in an indiscriminant manner.


The 2nd amendment provides for the RTBA for organized militias...The right belongs to The People, not well regulated militias. Sorry about your luck.


Despite how it's often applied, the 2nd amendment contains no language restricting its action to only the Federal government (unlike the 1st amendment, which does have such language).Eh? Unless you're getting into 14th Amendment territory, the US Constitution is very much about limiting the powers of the Federal Government, and not so much those of The States.


And it also contains no language making ANY exception to its ban on govt agencies taking away people's guns. More precisely, no language making any exception to its ban on infringing the right of The People to keep and bear arms. There's a distinction worth noting.


Technically, it even bans taking away the gun of the mass murderer at the scene of his crime. Though it's obviously impossible that the people who wrote it, could have intended that to be the result.Technically, taking weapons away from a criminally violent individual does not infringe upon the People's right to keep and bear arms.


I believe this apparent impossibility was deliberately put in place, with the knowledge that no judge or jury would convict (or even bother to try) the cop who took the mass murderer's gun, and would nullify the effect of the 2nd IN THAT CASE. And the reason they relied on such nullification, was so that they could present a SOLID wall of denial to any government that tried to disarm its citizens legislatively. Opponents could point to the 2nd and say, See, no exceptions! Not "except by due process", no "except for felons", no nothing! You CANNOT make a law taking away anyone's weapons, PERIOD!Jury nullification? COOL!


We have gone far from that state, of course. We need to get back to it, relying on the good sense of the people (something leftists never rely on, except for themselves) to properly apply the 2nd amendment as it was intended: a flat ban on ANY government restricting or taking away the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons.I think this is imminently sensible, and it is just as sensible that this notion is no way conflicting with the notion that the government is empowered to protect The People, by disarming those who are demonstrably incompetent and/or criminally violent.

[Rick OShea]

Another poster here might have touched on a vital 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." As you indicate here, it 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.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to be applied to the states and the federal constitution has zero authority over the internal order of the states (other than enforcing the "republican form of government" promise) so stipulating as to criminal behavior and the subsequent disabilities attached is beyond the 2nd's scope.

It is a fundamental principle that the individual RKBA is not created, established, conferred, given or granted by the 2nd so zero authority exists to permit the federal government to outwardly qualify and / or condition the right. At the federal level (which is all the 2nd speaks to) the constitutionally permissible federal actions to "infringe" on the right to arms is a short list indeed, limited to openly traitorous, seditious or rebellious acts.

The states however have much wider reign and until SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd in the 14th's protections, states are only limited by their state constitutions and state court interpretations of state citizen's RKBA.

[diuretic]

Leave it to the leftists to keep trying desperately to change the subject, and/or tell flat lies about what the 2nd clearly says despite being corrected innumerable times. What else can they do when they lose?

Back to the subject:
Despite how it's often applied, the 2nd amendment contains no language restricting its action to only the Federal government (unlike the 1st amendment, which does have such language). And it also contains no language making ANY exception to its ban on govt agencies taking away people's guns. Technically, it even bans taking away the gun of the mass murderer at the scene of his crime. Though it's obviously impossible that the people who wrote it, could have intended that to be the result.

I believe this apparent impossibility was deliberately put in place, with the knowledge that no judge or jury would convict (or even bother to try) the cop who took the mass murderer's gun, and would nullify the effect of the 2nd IN THAT CASE. And the reason they relied on such nullification, was so that they could present a SOLID wall of denial to any government that tried to disarm its citizens legislatively. Opponents could point to the 2nd and say, See, no exceptions! Not "except by due process", no "except for felons", no nothing! You CANNOT make a law taking away anyone's weapons, PERIOD!

We have gone far from that state, of course. We need to get back to it, relying on the good sense of the people (something leftists never rely on, except for themselves) to properly apply the 2nd amendment as it was intended: a flat ban on ANY government restricting or taking away the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

Face it Acorn, you can blather on all you like but the reality is that your bone dry interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is just wishful thinking. And that is the reality.

[Rick OShea]

The 2nd amendment provides for the RTBA for organized militias and that pretty much rules out the nut cases like you and the rest of your ilk that intend only to wreak havoc on the freedoms that most Americans enjoy and for which I have gone to war to protect. Dig it?

The interpretation you promote is a dead issue. Yes, it was the primary interpretation for years in some of the lower federal court circuits but the theory has been abandoned . . . In Heller, no briefs were filed for DC arguing such a theory and no argument was made before SCOTUS reserving the RKBA for organized militias.

The Supreme Court was unanimous on the fundamental nature of the RKBA as being an individual right.

The dissents' disagreement with the majority is that modern circumstance and the endeavor to limit criminal use of firearms has changed the status of rights protection . . . And these circumstances should force the courts to utilize a lower, subjective, "interest-balancing inquiry" standard of scrutiny to judge the constitutionality of a challenged law.

This is of course the typical unprincipled, everything is subject to molding and massaging, there are no rules leftist garbage.

[Rick OShea]

i think since the 2nd amendment is silent, it can be argued either way .....

as you said, the writters were smart men....they knew that if they put language in there weighting the amendment either way, it could benifit one party one way or another.....

with it silent it allows each side to make reasonable arguments as to what the right to keep and bear arms means .....

one can argue as to the definition of arms....a pistol, a rifle, a rocket launcher, a cannon, a tank.....

then the argument will turn to infringed .....

Wow, what completely backwards thought process . . .

The right to arms is not granted by the 2nd; it is a pre-existing right and since no power was ever granted to the government to impact the private arms of the citizen none exists.

The right to arms would exist if there were no 2nd Amendment; the provision should not be read as a qualified, conditioned permission slip outlining the exact parameters of the "right" therein secured. You are perfectly and completely backwards! That's how the words defining the legitimate powers of government in the CONSTITUTION should be read!!!

The words of the 2nd Amendment are of no consequence . . . You want to talk about silence? The absolute silence in the Constitution regarding federal power to impact in any fashion the private arms of th citizen is the important point!

Our rights are everything that is not specifically granted to government in the Constitution.

All the 2nd Amendment does is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess!

[Rick OShea]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Perhaps, in order to well regulate that militia, some restrictions are necessary, n'est ce pas?:laugh2:

The term "well regulated" has nothing to do with being under "regulations" enacted by a legislative body.

The term "well regulated" has a precise definition when used to describe military corps. It means properly functioning and in operational order and condition.

While "regulations" issued from Congress could establish the training and organization of the militia, so that they could eventually be described as "well regulated," simply having a long list of laws governing them does not make the militia, "well regulated."

[retiredman]

The term "well regulated" has nothing to do with being under "regulations" enacted by a legislative body.

The term "well regulated" has a precise definition when used to describe military corps. It means properly functioning and in operational order and condition.

While "regulations" issued from Congress could establish the training and organization of the militia, so that they could eventually be described as "well regulated," simply having a long list of laws governing them does not make the militia, "well regulated."

so you claim to know the framer's intent?

isn't that a bit presumptuous?

[manu1959]

The 2nd amendment is hardly "silent".

It says that the right shall not be infringed. And that's a pretty loud-and-clear proclamation. And it's talking to someone.

If your city government makes a law saying no one can have a gun in that city, is "shall not be infringed" still being upheld?

Not hardly.

People can argue over what the Framers might have wanted. And they can argue over what judges etc. usually lecture us it means, and rule that it means.

But I can see no way to argue that it doesn't SAY that the RKBA cannot be infringed... period. The plain language of the amendment cannot possibly say anything else.

what is an "arm" define "infringed"....

if i let you keep a pistol then you are armed and i have not infringed on your right to keep and bear arms....

[Immanuel]

And yet 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 nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.


I think you can argue this point and you have quite well, but I don't think I agree with it completely. I don't think (and I am not a Constitutional expert) that the 2nd Amendment rules out restrictions.

I would view licensing and registration or the requirement that one pass a gun safety course to be restrictions on the right to bear arms, but I also think that for the protection of the general public these kinds of restrictions are important.

That doesn't mean that I don't realize that with licensing and registration that a government would not at some time in the future decided that guns are dangerous to their power and attempt to take our guns, but at least here in America it would be illegal for the government to attempt to do so.

Immie

[Rick OShea]

so you claim to know the framer's intent?

isn't that a bit presumptuous?

On this issue, yes.

And no, that statement is not the least bit presumptuous.

The Constitution does not exist in a vacuum; the philosophical underpinnings of the 2nd are well explained. The present confusion over its "ambiguity" is a product of modern ignorance of fundamental principles, not any action of the founders.

The term was not invented by the framers nor was it cobbled together and wedged into the 2nd Amendment; it (and its antonym "ill-regulated") were both in use defining the character, readiness and performance of troops long before the 2nd was written . . .

The framers' use of the term conforms to the then well known and universally understood meaning of "well regulated."

Want an example from a founder?

From the Federalist #29 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm):

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

"Well regulated," as used to describe militia, does not mean controlled by any legislative body. Well regulated is merely an accolade; it describes a quality; "the character of" the unit and the men. That description is earned by the men, not forced upon them. It is earned only after demonstrating expertness in military readiness and order ("acquire the degree of perfection"). It is a description that is bestowed ("entitle them to"), not a condition that is created merely by having laws emanate from Washington or a statehouse.

[retiredman]

On this issue, yes.

And no, that statement is not the least bit presumptuous.

The Constitution does not exist in a vacuum; the philosophical underpinnings of the 2nd are well explained. The present confusion over its "ambiguity" is a product of modern ignorance of fundamental principles, not any action of the founders.

The term was not invented by the framers nor was it cobbled together and wedged into the 2nd Amendment; it (and its antonym "ill-regulated") were both in use defining the character, readiness and performance of troops long before the 2nd was written . . .

The framers' use of the term conforms to the then well known and universally understood meaning of "well regulated."

Want an example from a founder?

From the Federalist #29 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm):

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

"Well regulated," as used to describe militia, does not mean controlled by any legislative body. Well regulated is merely an accolade; it describes a quality; "the character of" the unit and the men. That description is earned by the men, not forced upon them. It is earned only after demonstrating expertness in military readiness and order ("acquire the degree of perfection"). It is a description that is bestowed ("entitle them to"), not a condition that is created merely by having laws emanate from Washington or a statehouse.

among my many tours at sea, was one spent as the weapons officer of a fast frigate homeported in Hawaii. My department was very "well regulated" in the sense that you describe above. Regardless, my small arms armory had a lock on it. ;)

Regardless of your protestations to the contrary, the right to keep and bear arms is not unconditional. Courts have ruled many times that the government has a right to regulate the ownership of firearms. sorry.

[Rick OShea]

Regardless of your protestations to the contrary, the right to keep and bear arms is not unconditional. Courts have ruled many times that the government has a right to regulate the ownership of firearms. sorry.

Is the condescending apology for you not addressing the points I argued?

Governments have powers, citizens have rights.

All those lower federal court decisions and many, many state decisions are all suspect now. The fundamental premise of all of them has been completely destroyed by Heller.


Where in my "protestations" did I argue that the right to arms is unconditional?

My argument is a simple one focused narrowly on the definition of one term, "well regulated." I'm not saying that there is no legitimate power to regulate guns, only that the term "well regulated," as used in the 2nd Amendment does not refer to "regulations" issued from a legislative body nor does it speak to the degree that the militia shall be "under regulations" or to the extent of those "regulations" on the private citizens from whom the militia is drawn.

If you have philosophical, historical or legal evidence that "well regulated," when used to describe troops or other military corps means "confined and restricted by law" then please, by all means present it.

Besides, as I said in a previous post (#19 above), the words chosen by the founders to merely recognize and secure the citizen's right to arms can not be read to impact the right. SCOTUS has said that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and the right exists without any reference to the 2nd. Scalia made a huge mistake in Heller entertaining an analysis of the words and definitions used in the 2nd. The issue could have been dealt with simply by reaffirming Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd and the RKBA.

[Little-Acorn]

Another poster here might have touched on a vital 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." As you indicate here, it 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?

I don't know.

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 the "Forgive and forget" principle to apply here. 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? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 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. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

[Robert A Whit]

Another poster here might have touched on a vital characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications.

The rest of your post still stands.

I want to offer some history on the Second Amendment and why it is worded as it is.

Fortunately I have at least 3 outstanding books on the constitution.

We must go back to the English Kings. King Charles went to war with Parliament and it cost him his head.

Naturally since they had a war with the Government, they were very serious about a right to keep and bear arms.

It was vital to freedom.

Naturally when our founders also went to war, with the then legal government, they made their own intentions also known in the second amendment. The issue of rights took the form of wars.

So, there you go. We have the right to keep and bear arms but not a right to take the life of innocents.

If you wish to check, Page Smith wrote a fine book called A Documentary and Narrative History. See page 27 for the entire explanation.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Another poster here might have touched on a vital 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." As you indicate here, it 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?

I don't know.

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 the "Forgive and forget" principle to apply here. 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? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 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. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

The framers expected the "people" to not allow any government to whittle away at the 2nd Amendment. They had no way of knowing the Federal government -- would take over the schools, dumb the people down enough that the people would applaud its attempt to completely disarm them..
Which proves Although brilliant men they could not foresee everything.
Either we 1. hold onto the 2nd Amendment or 2. we let it go to be abolished. If we go with number 2 we will be enslaved and perhaps even rightly so. For why should such foolish , dishonorable and dumb ass people be allowed to enjoy any longer that which was bought at such a terrible and high price by honorable and sane men and women????
I ask, why should such damn fooooools get to effortlessly enjoy the fruits of generations of brave and ruggedly valiant pioneers??? --Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

The Bill of Rights was not intended to be applied to the states and the federal constitution has zero authority over the internal order of the states

Actually, some of the first ten amendments were intended to apply to only the Federal government, but some were intended to apply to ALL governments - Federal, state, and local.

The 1st amendment, for example, starts, "Congress shall make no law...". It was to protect freedom of speech, religion etc. from only FEDERAL infringements... but states could (and did) make all the laws they wanted concerning them. In fact, when the BOR was passed and ratified, most states had official religions... and the 1st amendment was carefully written to NOT interfere with that. (Later passage of the 14th amendment changed this.)

But the 4th amendment, which does not restrict itself to only Congress, was clearly designed to prevent ANY government from searching and seizing anything it wanted: Federal, state, and local governments alike, were required to get warrants, and searches by ALL of them were required to be "reasonable".

And does anyone think that the 5th amendment meant that only the Fed was forbidden to beat a confession out of a prisoner, but state and local governments could do it all they wanted?

Sorry. Amendments that were meant to apply only to the Federal government, said so plainly in their text (as the 1st amendment does). Amendments meant to apply to ALL governments, carefully omitted any such restriction (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc.) from their text. And this wasn't a "mistake".

And a restriction on what governments it applied to, wasn't the only thing left out of the 2nd amendment in particular.

The Framers did not put any language such as "except as provided by law", etc. into the 2nd amendment for a clear and obvious reason: They intended to ban government from having even the slightest say in who could or couldn't own and carry a gun.

And they made another intention in the Constitution, just as clear and obvious: That in any significant trial, they intended final judgement to be rendered, not by any government agent (such as a judge), but by civilians with no affiliation to government: A jury of the accused man's peers.

And as has been demonstrated over and over (even in George Washington's day and earlier), that jury has full power to find a man "not guilty", even if fifty witnesses swear up and down that "he did it". Jury nullification has long been the last bastion of the people's defense against an overbearing or tyrannical government. IF a jury feels there is good reason to not convict a man, even under a duly passed and enacted law, they can refuse to convict. And no one, but no one, can overrule them. Period.

So, the copy who cracks the murderer in the restaurant over the head and takes his gun away, despite clear language of the 2nd amendment that forbids any govt or its agents (including that cop) from infringing on ANY man's right to own and carry (including that murderer with bodies bleeding at his feet), has unquestionably violated the Constitution by doing so.

And, as I said in the OP, there isn't a jury in the world who would convict him for it. And that's a good thing. If the murderer brings charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the cop will walk away a free man, and probably get a tickertape parade down the main street of his town, and hopefully a promotion. While the murderer goes to the chair he richly deserves.

The Framers put together the best possible system for ensuring that citizens remain sovereign. The 2nd amendment bans ANY government or govt agent from making any law that infringes on our right to own or carry a gun or other such weapon. No exceptions, no "reasonable restrictions", nothing. Which means that the only way any govt agents (legislator or cop or etc.) can possibly do it, is if they are quite sure that a jury would let them off.

The cop confronting a murderer at the scene of the crime, can be as sure of that as he can of anything.

And nobody else can. So the legislators had better be very careful when they are contemplating yet another so-called "gun control" laws.

Because that's how the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, wanted it to be.

The paranoid gun-hater, of course, are rushing around like headless chickens over this fact. They are calling the Framers "stupid", "careless", "behind the times", etc. etc., in their frantic efforts to pretend the Framers didn't mean exactly what they said. Because this total ban on any govt agent restricting guns, with power to do so left SOLELY in the hands of ordinary citizens on juries, frustrates the gun-haters' desires to have control over everyone around them.

And the fact that the Framers, and all the other people in America back in those days, saw the gun-haters coming a mile away and prepared for them, tells the gun-haters things about themselves they really don't want to know. To wit: The gun-haters silly fears of ordinary people being too irresponsible to handle guns, are nothing new. And their desire to take over and impose their own fears and desires on law-abiding people when it's none of the gun-haters' business, is a plague as old as time, and something that sensible people for centures saw a need to forbid.... and they did.

[gabosaurus]

Whatever happened to manu1959? I remember him more than the others.

I am guessing the Second Amendment can include a lot of restrictions. It gives people the right to own guns. It doesn't says how many or what kind. I believe the government has a right to restrict those.

[Robert A Whit]

Actually, some of the first ten amendments were intended to apply to only the Federal government, but some were intended to apply to ALL governments - Federal, state, and local.

The 1st amendment, for example, starts, "Congress shall make no law...". It was to protect freedom of speech, religion etc. from only FEDERAL infringements... but states could (and did) make all the laws they wanted concerning them. In fact, when the BOR was passed and ratified, most states had official religions... and the 1st amendment was carefully written to NOT interfere with that. (Later passage of the 14th amendment changed this.)

But the 4th amendment, which does not restrict itself to only Congress, was clearly designed to prevent ANY government from searching and seizing anything it wanted: Federal, state, and local governments alike, were required to get warrants, and searches by ALL of them were required to be "reasonable".

And does anyone think that the 5th amendment meant that only the Fed was forbidden to beat a confession out of a prisoner, but state and local governments could do it all they wanted?

Sorry. Amendments that were meant to apply only to the Federal government, said so plainly in their text (as the 1st amendment does). Amendments meant to apply to ALL governments, carefully omitted any such restriction (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc.) from their text. And this wasn't a "mistake".

And a restriction on what governments it applied to, wasn't the only thing left out of the 2nd amendment in particular.

The Framers did not put any language such as "except as provided by law", etc. into the 2nd amendment for a clear and obvious reason: They intended to ban government from having even the slightest say in who could or couldn't own and carry a gun.

And they made another intention in the Constitution, just as clear and obvious: That in any significant trial, they intended final judgement to be rendered, not by any government agent (such as a judge), but by civilians with no affiliation to government: A jury of the accused man's peers.

And as has been demonstrated over and over (even in George Washington's day and earlier), that jury has full power to find a man "not guilty", even if fifty witnesses swear up and down that "he did it". Jury nullification has long been the last bastion of the people's defense against an overbearing or tyrannical government. IF a jury feels there is good reason to not convict a man, even under a duly passed and enacted law, they can refuse to convict. And no one, but no one, can overrule them. Period.

So, the copy who cracks the murderer in the restaurant over the head and takes his gun away, despite clear language of the 2nd amendment that forbids any govt or its agents (including that cop) from infringing on ANY man's right to own and carry (including that murderer with bodies bleeding at his feet), has unquestionably violated the Constitution by doing so.

And, as I said in the OP, there isn't a jury in the world who would convict him for it. And that's a good thing. If the murderer brings charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the cop will walk away a free man, and probably get a tickertape parade down the main street of his town, and hopefully a promotion. While the murderer goes to the chair he richly deserves.

The Framers put together the best possible system for ensuring that citizens remain sovereign. The 2nd amendment bans ANY government or govt agent from making any law that infringes on our right to own or carry a gun or other such weapon. No exceptions, no "reasonable restrictions", nothing. Which means that the only way any govt agents (legislator or cop or etc.) can possibly do it, is if they are quite sure that a jury would let them off.

The cop confronting a murderer at the scene of the crime, can be as sure of that as he can of anything.

And nobody else can. So the legislators had better be very careful when they are contemplating yet another so-called "gun control" laws.

Because that's how the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, wanted it to be.

The paranoid gun-hater, of course, are rushing around like headless chickens over this fact. They are calling the Framers "stupid", "careless", "behind the times", etc. etc., in their frantic efforts to pretend the Framers didn't mean exactly what they said. Because this total ban on any govt agent restricting guns, with power to do so left SOLELY in the hands of ordinary citizens on juries, frustrates the gun-haters' desires to have control over everyone around them.

And the fact that the Framers, and all the other people in America back in those days, saw the gun-haters coming a mile away and prepared for them, tells the gun-haters things about themselves they really don't want to know. To wit: The gun-haters silly fears of ordinary people being too irresponsible to handle guns, are nothing new. And their desire to take over and impose their own fears and desires on law-abiding people when it's none of the gun-haters' business, is a plague as old as time, and something that sensible people for centures saw a need to forbid.... and they did.

Can you show any of us where it says in the constitution by a man's peers?

I have argued this point too many times to expect that you can find such words.

You explain your ideas very well.

In the SF Bay Area, a cop was put into prison for his shooting a guy to death during a number of cops trying to arrest this guy.

He told the court he thought he got his taser but he got his gun. He also got prison.

[Little-Acorn]

I am guessing the Second Amendment can include a lot of restrictions.
You guess wrong, as usual. For the reasons I described above.


It gives people the right to own guns.
Strike two.


It doesn't says how many or what kind.
There's a reason for that, that I outlined above.


I believe the government has a right to restrict those.
Strike three.

(yawn)

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by gabosaurus http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=615275#post615275)
I am guessing the Second Amendment can include a lot of restrictions.






Acorn to her: You guess wrong, as usual. For the reasons I described above.



How can she discuss an amendment that she acts like she never read? It is so short in number of words. Maybe she did not notice the words, may not be infringed? It is very clear as to what it means.

[Missileman]

Whatever happened to manu1959? I remember him more than the others.

I am guessing the Second Amendment can include a lot of restrictions. It gives people the right to own guns. It doesn't says how many or what kind. I believe the government has a right to restrict those.

I'm of the opinion that the right can only be restricted if someone does something illegal and they therefore forfeit some of their rights in part or in whole.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm of the opinion that the right can only be restricted if someone does something illegal and they therefore forfeit some of their rights in part or in whole.

Well, the 5th amendment does say, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This agrees with what you say, Missileman. So, clearly, the Framers intended, just as you do, that only when someone commits some pretty serious crimes, might he lose the things all citizens normally have- life, liberty, property.

Similarly, the 2nd amendment says, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, without due process of law."

Or does it?

Oops, I made a mistake. Unlike the 5th amendment, he 2nd amendment DOES NOT include that last bit, about "without due process of law".

Were the Framers merely careless? Did they leave that phrase off, just by accident, because they weren't really paying attention?

Or did they do it deliberately, and for an important reason?

What do you think?

[bingster]

Can you show any of us where it says in the constitution by a man's peers?

I have argued this point too many times to expect that you can find such words.

You explain your ideas very well.

In the SF Bay Area, a cop was put into prison for his shooting a guy to death during a number of cops trying to arrest this guy.

He told the court he thought he got his taser but he got his gun. He also got prison.



Sixth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Trial by jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury) and rights of the accused (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_the_accused); Confrontation Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause), speedy trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_trial), public trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trial), right to counsel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel)

<dl><dd>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.
</dd></dl>

Seventh Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutio n) – Civil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28common_law%29) trial by jury.

<dl><dd>In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
</dd></dl>Just like "separation of church and state", "jury of a man's peers" does not exist. But the meaning of this lives in the 6th amendment.

[bingster]

You guess wrong, as usual. For the reasons I described above.


Strike two.


There's a reason for that, that I outlined above.


Strike three.

(yawn)
As posted before, Justice Scalia disagrees. Although, to your point, the Justice is relying on former legal precedent and doesn't claim that the Constitution affords room for "abridging".

(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided

(http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided)

[Missileman]

Well, the 5th amendment does say, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This agrees with what you say, Missileman. So, clearly, the Framers intended, just as you do, that only when someone commits some pretty serious crimes, might he lose the things all citizens normally have- life, liberty, property.

Similarly, the 2nd amendment says, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, without due process of law."

Or does it?

Oops, I made a mistake. Unlike the 5th amendment, he 2nd amendment DOES NOT include that last bit, about "without due process of law".

Were the Framers merely careless? Did they leave that phrase off, just by accident, because they weren't really paying attention?

Or did they do it deliberately, and for an important reason?

What do you think?

Due process could include legally passed legislation.

I think people can forfeit some of their rights by violating the law, including 2nd Amendment rights, the lack of "without due process" notwithstanding.

[Little-Acorn]

Due process could include legally passed legislation.
Yup. In fact, I believe it not only "could", but "must". That's what "due process of law" means.


I think people can forfeit some of their rights by violating the law, including 2nd Amendment rights, the lack of "without due process" notwithstanding.
And your reason for thinking that is......??

Especially in light of the fact that the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights, specifically allowed for such a thing in some of the amendments, but pointedly left it out of others?

As I asked earlier, do you think the Framers were merely careless, and left such a phrase out of the 2nd amendment by accident? Or did they do it deliberately, for an important reason?

.

[Robert A Whit]

Well, the 5th amendment does say, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This agrees with what you say, Missileman. So, clearly, the Framers intended, just as you do, that only when someone commits some pretty serious crimes, might he lose the things all citizens normally have- life, liberty, property.

Similarly, the 2nd amendment says, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, without due process of law."

Or does it?

Oops, I made a mistake. Unlike the 5th amendment, he 2nd amendment DOES NOT include that last bit, about "without due process of law".

Were the Framers merely careless? Did they leave that phrase off, just by accident, because they weren't really paying attention?

Or did they do it deliberately, and for an important reason?

What do you think?

If you carefully look at all arguments, you may not realize that arguments often totally ignore the conditions the Framers were living with.

They don't realize the basis of the second amendment at all.

The second amendment was constructed on the foundation of English law. If you go back to January of 1689, King James II aroused the public to the point plots to remove him and replace him with William of Orange were hatched. Anyway, the point was that no taxes unless with representation was affirmed (James tried to get around this) and the absolute right to keep and bear arms was affirmed.

Naturally since much of this country was raised under English law, they kept those same rights.

Our founders did not dream up those amendments, they were caried here from England.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, the 5th amendment does say, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This agrees with what you say, Missileman. So, clearly, the Framers intended, just as you do, that only when someone commits some pretty serious crimes, might he lose the things all citizens normally have- life, liberty, property.

Similarly, the 2nd amendment says, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, without due process of law."

Or does it?

Oops, I made a mistake. Unlike the 5th amendment, he 2nd amendment DOES NOT include that last bit, about "without due process of law".

Were the Framers merely careless? Did they leave that phrase off, just by accident, because they weren't really paying attention?

Or did they do it deliberately, and for an important reason?

What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
\
Second Amendment to the United States ConstitutionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Padlock-silver.svg/20px-Padlock-silver.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi)

<tbody>























</tbody>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.jpg/220px-SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.j pg)
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf8/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.j pg)
Close up image of the Second Amendment



<tbody>






Second Amendment to the Constitution
Straw purchase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase)
Sullivan Act (New York) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act)
Violent Crime Control Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act)






v (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:USgunlegalbox)
t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:USgunlegalbox)
e (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:USgunlegalbox&action=edit)




</tbody>
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms). It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-scotus1-1)
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) issued two landmark decisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_Sta tes) officially establishing this interpretation. InDistrict of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-scotus1-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-scotus2-2) and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-3) In McDonald v. Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago), 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-nytimes.com-4)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Amendment was written and worded so that its interpretation presented the fixed idea that it was never to be weakened by a multitude of laws that would abridge its authority by degrees. The framers understood well the method of destruction that uses small cuts spread out over time! The 2nd was meant to be never touched..And it should have neve been but too late for that part now. Now we have to stop the ramrodding of llimitations so designed to eventually void it entirely!-Tyr

[Missileman]

Yup. In fact, I believe it not only "could", but "must". That's what "due process of law" means.

Except that it will take more than mere legislation, it will take another Amendment that repeals the 2nd.



And your reason for thinking that is......??
.

The all too uncommon commodity called common sense.

[Little-Acorn]

The all too uncommon commodity called common sense.

So, do you believe that the Framers were merely careless? Did they omit any phrase such as, "without due process of law" from the 2nd amendment, just by accident, because they weren't really paying attention?

Or did they do it deliberately, and for an important reason?

[Missileman]

So, do you believe that the Framers were merely careless? Did they omit any phrase such as, "without due process of law" from the 2nd amendment, just by accident, because they weren't really paying attention?

Or did they do it deliberately, and for an important reason?

I'd say none of the above. The 2nd functions perfectly as written. Your scenarios aren't realistic. You might as well argue that prisoners should be allowed to carry while they are serving their sentence. Now, that said, I think they need to address how convicted felons are treated with respect to their constitutional rights once they've paid their debt to society. If someone has just one strike against them, IMO, they should get a clean slate once they've served their sentence and regain full rights, including gun ownership. A second strike would nullify that, of course.

Temporary suspension of rights, like while under arrest for example, isn't the same thing as infringing on one's right to keep and bear arms, IMO.

[Robert A Whit]

As posted before, Justice Scalia disagrees. Although, to your point, the Justice is relying on former legal precedent and doesn't claim that the Constitution affords room for "abridging".

(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided

(http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided)


I am not clear, what you assume Scalia means or is trying to say, means what you assume it means.

The second amendment came to this country via England. Back in the days of the second amendment, they were clear on why they needed to keep and bear arms. They created this law in the event of a rogue goverment.

Not so some snotty kid could kill kids in a school and the rest of us got to pay for his crimes.

We retain our rights to deal with a rogue goverment.

[Kathianne]

US Bill of Rights and English Common Law are not a perfect 'fit.' All are useful, it just depends on how deep one wishes to go. First are related to higher order; the later to knowledge:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/timothy_hall/bofr/comparison.htm

However, if one wishes to teach to younger students, those below high school, that may have difficulty understanding original documents without much explanation, it seems more direct than it really is:

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/roots-chart.html

http://kids.laws.com/bill-of-rights

[Robert A Whit]

We were speaking of the second amendment and details on same. Avalon Yale Law, it pleases me to tell you backs up my source. I thank Kathianne for her useful links.

[bingster]

I am not clear, what you assume Scalia means or is trying to say, means what you assume it means.

The second amendment came to this country via England. Back in the days of the second amendment, they were clear on why they needed to keep and bear arms. They created this law in the event of a rogue goverment.

Not so some snotty kid could kill kids in a school and the rest of us got to pay for his crimes.

We retain our rights to deal with a rogue goverment.

Justice Scalia has come out and said that according to legal precedents the 2nd amendment can be limited to ban "unusual weapons" including "assault weapons". Again, don't get mad at me, I just want the background checks.

[bingster]

US Bill of Rights and English Common Law are not a perfect 'fit.' All are useful, it just depends on how deep one wishes to go. First are related to higher order; the later to knowledge:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/timothy_hall/bofr/comparison.htm

However, if one wishes to teach to younger students, those below high school, that may have difficulty understanding original documents without much explanation, it seems more direct than it really is:

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/roots-chart.html

http://kids.laws.com/bill-of-rights

not to mention, England doesn't even have a constitution.

[Kathianne]

not to mention, England doesn't even have a constitution.

Certainly not as we do, but a cite better than most of Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

[Missileman]

Justice Scalia has come out and said that according to legal precedents the 2nd amendment can be limited to ban "unusual weapons" including "assault weapons". Again, don't get mad at me, I just want the background checks.

He said no such thing. He said there was some old tort about "frightening" weapons that might be considered. You'd have to prove that a plastic stock and pistol grip are somehow more terrifying than a regular hunting rifle for that shit to gain any traction though. He even allowed that a hand held rocket launcher might actually turn out to be protected by the 2nd.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He said no such thing. He said there was some old tort about "frightening" weapons that might be considered. You'd have to prove that a plastic stock and pistol grip are somehow more terrifying than a regular hunting rifle for that shit to gain any traction though. He even allowed that a hand held rocket launcher might actually turn out to be protected by the 2nd.

That is true, Gabby just reworded it to meet her criteria. A bad habit that she very often indulges in... She
just can not help it.....-Tyr

[Missileman]

That is true, Gabby just reworded it to meet her criteria. A bad habit that she very often indulges in... She
just can not help it.....-Tyr

It wasn't Gabby...it was Bingster.

[Little-Acorn]

It seems that everbody wants to talk about what this or that figure says about the second amendment, or how this or that judge interpreted the second amendment, or how this or that foreign country treats the subject of the 2nd amendment.

And nobody wants to talk about the topic of the thread, which is what the second amendment itself says, and why it was written and ratified that way.

Once again, some amendments have phrases such as "without due process of law", etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from other amendments including the 2nd.

Were the Framers, while writing one of the most important docments in their (or anybody's) lifetime, merely careless in leaving out such a phrase from the 2nd amendment while including it in others? Did they miss it by accident here? Or did they deliberately leave out any such wiggle room from the 2nd, for an important reason?

I've suggested a very important reason, though I don't pretend it's the only possible one. Nobody has addressed that, except to call it names and/or wander off into discussions of what they wished the 2nd said.

Would anyone like to talk about what the 2nd amendment actually DOES say, and why?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It wasn't Gabby...it was Bingster.

What's the difference??--;)--Tyr

[Kathianne]

It seems that everbody wants to talk about what this or that figure says about the second amendment, or how this or that judge interpreted the second amendment, or how this or that foreign country treats the subject of the 2nd amendment.

And nobody wants to talk about the topic of the thread, which is what the second amendment itself says, and why it was written and ratified that way.

Once again, some amendments have phrases such as "without due process of law", etc. But such phrasing is conspicuously absent from other amendments including the 2nd.

Were the Framers, while writing one of the most important docments in their (or anybody's) lifetime, merely careless in leaving out such a phrase from the 2nd amendment while including it in others? Did they miss it by accident here? Or did they deliberately leave out any such wiggle room from the 2nd, for an important reason?

I've suggested a very important reason, though I don't pretend it's the only possible one. Nobody has addressed that, except to call it names and/or wander off into discussions of what they wished the 2nd said.

Would anyone like to talk about what the 2nd amendment actually DOES say, and why?

What do you want others to say about this? Spit it out.


II - Right to keep and bear arms A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What do you want others to say about this? Spit it out.

My take is that he wants to discuss the meaning of "shall not be infringed." and not so much about hunting or the current government agenda..
As I posted previously the 2nd was worded clearly to be interpreted to mean-

HANDS OFF, NO WEAKENING!!--Tyr

[Kathianne]

I got that, felons shouldn't have guns taken away. To what end he'd hoping for?

[Robert A Whit]

Justice Scalia has come out and said that according to legal precedents the 2nd amendment can be limited to ban "unusual weapons" including "assault weapons". Again, don't get mad at me, I just want the background checks.


I figured you would pull that. So I have Scalia's actual words for you to carefully study.

"We will See he said."


http://youtu.be/OYay_oi-tkk

[Little-Acorn]

What do you want others to say about this? Spit it out.

My opinion is that the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, meant it to be exactly what it says it is: An ironclad, zero-exceptions, ban on any government or govt agent having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon. Government can't impose "reasonable restrictions", can't levy usurious taxes (see 1934 NFA), nothing, zip, nada.

And all this talk about "what makes common sense", what would be "reasonable", etc., is just so much persiflage - dishonest (or at best, wishful) attempts at distracting from the fact that any such government action is JUST FLAT BANNED.

The Framers, and everyone else who lived at that time, were no strangers to the fact that sometimes you would get highly emotional people, or occasional flat-out nutcases, whom everybody wished didn't have access to a gun. And it was known that some criminals would carry two or even four loaded pistols, as well as knives etc., capable of killing many people quickly - not much different from what we face today. Plus gunpowder bombs, greek-fire type weapons, and all the rest.

And yet the Framers (and everyone else) clearly believed that it was less dangerous to society, to face such occasional criminals and lunatics, than to have a government that had ANY authority to decide who could and couldn't have such weapons.

And they believed it so strongly, that they enshrined it into the highest law of the land.

And, the situation hasn't changed much today. Sure, it's possible for criminals and lunatics to kill even more at one sitting, than the criminals of colonial times. But very few do - overall, the peril to us today isn't significantly higher than it was in George Washington's time.

And keep in mind that GOVERNMENTS today, are able to kill FAR more people that those of Washington's time, and have actually done so on numerous occasions in the most recent century - a far greater increase for us to worry about, than the occasions when a lunatic kills twelve people in a theater instead of six.

The Framers, in fact, were RIGHT to place a total, 100% ban on government having ANY authority to disarm ANY citizen. And it is even more necessary today, that that ban continue. The only ones who can make ANY exception, are the members of a jury, who have no affiliation or loyalty to government at all.

Why on Earth are we talking about how nice it would be if we gave government just a little authority, blandly assuming they would never exceed it (which makes us a lot stupider than Washington, James Madison, Jefferson, and even Hamilton were)? We should be discussing whether government is fulfilling the Framers' worst fears by trying to usurp that authority in spite of the 100% ban they put in place... and what we should do to stop AND PUNISH them for even trying.

Comment?

[Kathianne]

I figured you would pull that. So I have Scalia's actual words for you to carefully study.

"We will See he said."


http://youtu.be/OYay_oi-tkk

Good catch! I was going to say the same.

[Robert A Whit]

Justice Scalia has come out and said that according to legal precedents the 2nd amendment can be limited to ban "unusual weapons" including "assault weapons". Again, don't get mad at me, I just want the background checks.



http://youtu.be/OYay_oi-tkk

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My opinion is that the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, meant it to be exactly what it says it is: An ironclad, zero-exceptions, ban on any government or govt agent having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon. Government can't impose "reasonable restrictions", can't levy usurious taxes (see 1934 NFA), nothing, zip, nada.

And all this talk about "what makes common sense", what would be "reasonable", etc., is just so much persiflage - dishonest (or at best, wishful) attempts at distracting from the fact that any such government action is JUST FLAT BANNED.

The Framers, and everyone else who lived at that time, were no strangers to the fact that sometimes you would get highly emotional people, or occasional flat-out nutcases, whom everybody wished didn't have access to a gun. And it was known that some criminals would carry two or even four loaded pistols, as well as knives etc., capable of killing many people quickly - not much different from what we face today. Plus gunpowder bombs, greek-fire type weapons, and all the rest.

And yet the Framers (and everyone else) clearly believed that it was less dangerous to society, to face such occasional criminals and lunatics, than to have a government that had ANY authority to decide who could and couldn't have such weapons.

And they believed it so strongly, that they enshrined it into the highest law of the land.

And, the situation hasn't changed much today. Sure, it's possible for criminals and lunatics to kill even more at one sitting, than the criminals of colonial times. But very few do - overall, the peril to us today isn't significantly higher than it was in George Washington's time.

And keep in mind that GOVERNMENTS today, are able to kill FAR more people that those of Washington's time, and have actually done so on numerous occasions in the most recent century - a far greater increase for us to worry about, than the occasions when a lunatic kills twelve people in a theater instead of six.

The Framers, in fact, were RIGHT to place a total, 100% ban on government having ANY authority to disarm ANY citizen. And it is even more necessary today, that that ban continue. The only ones who can make ANY exception, are the members of a jury, who have no affiliation or loyalty to government at all.

Why on Earth are we talking about how nice it would be if we gave government just a little authority, blandly assuming they would never exceed it (which makes us a lot stupider than Washington, James Madison, Jefferson, and even Hamilton were)? We should be discussing whether government is fulfilling the Framers' worst fears by trying to usurp that authority in spite of the 100% ban they put in place... and what we should do to stop AND PUNISH them for even trying.

Comment?

Yes, I agree. The Amendment was worded to be interpreted as saying keep your damn hands off!!
All this nuance strategy comes from its opponents which are lying, traitorous dumbasses that appeal to those with too thick a skull to comprehend much more that eating , crapping and fornicating. In other words, obama voters..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Yes, I agree. The Amendment was worded to be interpreted as saying keep your damn hands off!!
All this nuance strategy comes from its opponents which are lying, traitorous dumbasses that appeal to those with too thick a skull to comprehend much more that eating , crapping and fornicating. In other words, obama voters..-Tyr

How can you 'thank my post' regarding Scalia, then say you agree with LA? I'm confused.

[Little-Acorn]

How can you 'thank my post' regarding Scalia, then say you agree with LA? I'm confused.

It is my personal opinion that Scalia allowed for "reasonable restrictions" in the Heller decisions, because if he hadn't, the liberal justices who voted with him would have switched their vote, voted the other way, and he would have lost the entire decision. So he did what he had to do.

That's my opinion, worth what you paid for it, and I have no proof or evidence to back it up.

I just have a hunch it's so.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How can you 'thank my post' regarding Scalia, then say you agree with LA? I'm confused.

I thanked you for your contribution and am myself confused by Scalia's stand on this issue. Appears to me that he was attempting to straddle the fence so to speak. To be blunt , I admire the man and you for your views, thus the thanks even tho' I take a much harder stand myself for the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

I thanked you for your contribution and am myself confused by Scalia's stand on this issue. Appears to me that he was attempting to straddle the fence so to speak. To be blunt , I admire the man and you for your views, thus the thanks even tho' I take a much harder stand myself for the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment. -Tyr

Clarity may be forthcoming or not. That is what he was saying.

[Missileman]

My opinion is that the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, meant it to be exactly what it says it is: An ironclad, zero-exceptions, ban on any government or govt agent having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon. Government can't impose "reasonable restrictions", can't levy usurious taxes (see 1934 NFA), nothing, zip, nada.

And all this talk about "what makes common sense", what would be "reasonable", etc., is just so much persiflage - dishonest (or at best, wishful) attempts at distracting from the fact that any such government action is JUST FLAT BANNED.

The Framers, and everyone else who lived at that time, were no strangers to the fact that sometimes you would get highly emotional people, or occasional flat-out nutcases, whom everybody wished didn't have access to a gun. And it was known that some criminals would carry two or even four loaded pistols, as well as knives etc., capable of killing many people quickly - not much different from what we face today. Plus gunpowder bombs, greek-fire type weapons, and all the rest.

And yet the Framers (and everyone else) clearly believed that it was less dangerous to society, to face such occasional criminals and lunatics, than to have a government that had ANY authority to decide who could and couldn't have such weapons.

And they believed it so strongly, that they enshrined it into the highest law of the land.

And, the situation hasn't changed much today. Sure, it's possible for criminals and lunatics to kill even more at one sitting, than the criminals of colonial times. But very few do - overall, the peril to us today isn't significantly higher than it was in George Washington's time.

And keep in mind that GOVERNMENTS today, are able to kill FAR more people that those of Washington's time, and have actually done so on numerous occasions in the most recent century - a far greater increase for us to worry about, than the occasions when a lunatic kills twelve people in a theater instead of six.

The Framers, in fact, were RIGHT to place a total, 100% ban on government having ANY authority to disarm ANY citizen. And it is even more necessary today, that that ban continue. The only ones who can make ANY exception, are the members of a jury, who have no affiliation or loyalty to government at all.

Why on Earth are we talking about how nice it would be if we gave government just a little authority, blandly assuming they would never exceed it (which makes us a lot stupider than Washington, James Madison, Jefferson, and even Hamilton were)? We should be discussing whether government is fulfilling the Framers' worst fears by trying to usurp that authority in spite of the 100% ban they put in place... and what we should do to stop AND PUNISH them for even trying.

Comment?

When the founders wrote the 2nd, was it customary to allow prisoners to remain in possession of their weapons? If someone was taken into custody by law enforcement, did they, in the 18th century, allow an arrestee to remain in possession of whatever weapon(s) they had on them?

And you "pooh pooh" arguments based in common sense...:slap:

[Little-Acorn]

When the founders wrote the 2nd, was it customary to allow prisoners to remain in possession of their weapons? If someone was taken into custody by law enforcement, did they, in the 18th century, allow an arrestee to remain in possession of whatever weapon(s) they had on them?

And you "pooh pooh" arguments based in common sense...:slap:

I did not "pooh pooh" them. I replied to them, and pointed out why they were invalid.

And you ignored what I said, and tried to pretend I didn't say them.

Who is "pooh poohing" whom?

Once again:

The Framers did not put any language such as "except as provided by law", etc. into the 2nd amendment for a clear and obvious reason: They intended to ban government from having even the slightest say in who could or couldn't own and carry a gun.

And they made another intention in the Constitution, just as clear and obvious: That in any significant trial, they intended final judgement to be rendered, not by any government agent (such as a judge), but by civilians with no affiliation to government: A jury of the accused man's peers.

And as has been demonstrated over and over (even in George Washington's day and earlier), that jury has full power to find a man "not guilty", even if fifty witnesses swear up and down that "he did it". Jury nullification has long been the last bastion of the people's defense against an overbearing or tyrannical government. IF a jury feels there is good reason to not convict a man, even under a duly passed and enacted law, they can refuse to convict. And no one, but no one, can overrule them. Period.

So, the copy who cracks the murderer in the restaurant over the head and takes his gun away, despite clear language of the 2nd amendment that forbids any govt or its agents (including that cop) from infringing on ANY man's right to own and carry (including that murderer with bodies bleeding at his feet), has unquestionably violated the Constitution by doing so.

And, as I said in the OP, there isn't a jury in the world who would convict him for it. And that's a good thing. If the murderer brings charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the cop will walk away a free man, and probably get a tickertape parade down the main street of his town, and hopefully a promotion. While the murderer goes to the chair he richly deserves.

The Framers put together the best possible system for ensuring that citizens remain sovereign. The 2nd amendment bans ANY government or govt agent from making any law that infringes on our right to own or carry a gun or other such weapon. No exceptions, no "reasonable restrictions", nothing. Which means that the only way any govt agents (legislator or cop or etc.) can possibly do it, is if they are quite sure that a jury would let them off.

The cop confronting a murderer at the scene of the crime, can be as sure of that as he can of anything.

The Framers, and everyone else who lived at that time, were no strangers to the fact that sometimes you would get highly emotional people, or occasional flat-out nutcases, whom everybody wished didn't have access to a gun. And it was known that some criminals would carry two or even four loaded pistols, as well as knives etc., capable of killing many people quickly - not much different from what we face today. Plus gunpowder bombs, greek-fire type weapons, and all the rest.

And yet the Framers (and everyone else) clearly believed that it was less dangerous to society, to face such occasional criminals and lunatics, than to have a government that had ANY authority to decide who could and couldn't have such weapons.

And they believed it so strongly, that they enshrined it into the highest law of the land.

And, the situation hasn't changed much today. Sure, it's possible for criminals and lunatics to kill even more at one sitting, than the criminals of colonial times. But very few do - overall, the peril to us today isn't significantly higher than it was in George Washington's time.

And keep in mind that GOVERNMENTS today, are able to kill FAR more people that those of Washington's time, and have actually done so on numerous occasions in the most recent century - a far greater increase for us to worry about, than the occasions when a lunatic kills twelve people in a theater instead of six.

The Framers, in fact, were RIGHT to place a total, 100% ban on government having ANY authority to disarm ANY citizen. And it is even more necessary today, that that ban continue. The only ones who can make ANY exception, are the members of a jury, who have no affiliation or loyalty to government at all.

Why on Earth are we talking about how nice it would be if we gave government just a little authority, blandly assuming they would never exceed it (which makes us a lot stupider than Washington, James Madison, Jefferson, and even Hamilton were)? We should be discussing whether government is fulfilling the Framers' worst fears by trying to usurp that authority in spite of the 100% ban they put in place... and what we should do to stop AND PUNISH them for even trying.

[Missileman]

I did not "pooh pooh" them. I replied to them, and pointed out why they were invalid.

And you ignored what I said, and tried to pretend I didn't say them.

Who is "pooh poohing" whom?

Once again:

The Framers did not put any language such as "except as provided by law", etc. into the 2nd amendment for a clear and obvious reason: They intended to ban government from having even the slightest say in who could or couldn't own and carry a gun.

And they made another intention in the Constitution, just as clear and obvious: That in any significant trial, they intended final judgement to be rendered, not by any government agent (such as a judge), but by civilians with no affiliation to government: A jury of the accused man's peers.

And as has been demonstrated over and over (even in George Washington's day and earlier), that jury has full power to find a man "not guilty", even if fifty witnesses swear up and down that "he did it". Jury nullification has long been the last bastion of the people's defense against an overbearing or tyrannical government. IF a jury feels there is good reason to not convict a man, even under a duly passed and enacted law, they can refuse to convict. And no one, but no one, can overrule them. Period.

So, the copy who cracks the murderer in the restaurant over the head and takes his gun away, despite clear language of the 2nd amendment that forbids any govt or its agents (including that cop) from infringing on ANY man's right to own and carry (including that murderer with bodies bleeding at his feet), has unquestionably violated the Constitution by doing so.

And, as I said in the OP, there isn't a jury in the world who would convict him for it. And that's a good thing. If the murderer brings charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the cop will walk away a free man, and probably get a tickertape parade down the main street of his town, and hopefully a promotion. While the murderer goes to the chair he richly deserves.

The Framers put together the best possible system for ensuring that citizens remain sovereign. The 2nd amendment bans ANY government or govt agent from making any law that infringes on our right to own or carry a gun or other such weapon. No exceptions, no "reasonable restrictions", nothing. Which means that the only way any govt agents (legislator or cop or etc.) can possibly do it, is if they are quite sure that a jury would let them off.

The cop confronting a murderer at the scene of the crime, can be as sure of that as he can of anything.

The Framers, and everyone else who lived at that time, were no strangers to the fact that sometimes you would get highly emotional people, or occasional flat-out nutcases, whom everybody wished didn't have access to a gun. And it was known that some criminals would carry two or even four loaded pistols, as well as knives etc., capable of killing many people quickly - not much different from what we face today. Plus gunpowder bombs, greek-fire type weapons, and all the rest.

And yet the Framers (and everyone else) clearly believed that it was less dangerous to society, to face such occasional criminals and lunatics, than to have a government that had ANY authority to decide who could and couldn't have such weapons.

And they believed it so strongly, that they enshrined it into the highest law of the land.

And, the situation hasn't changed much today. Sure, it's possible for criminals and lunatics to kill even more at one sitting, than the criminals of colonial times. But very few do - overall, the peril to us today isn't significantly higher than it was in George Washington's time.

And keep in mind that GOVERNMENTS today, are able to kill FAR more people that those of Washington's time, and have actually done so on numerous occasions in the most recent century - a far greater increase for us to worry about, than the occasions when a lunatic kills twelve people in a theater instead of six.

The Framers, in fact, were RIGHT to place a total, 100% ban on government having ANY authority to disarm ANY citizen. And it is even more necessary today, that that ban continue. The only ones who can make ANY exception, are the members of a jury, who have no affiliation or loyalty to government at all.

Why on Earth are we talking about how nice it would be if we gave government just a little authority, blandly assuming they would never exceed it (which makes us a lot stupider than Washington, James Madison, Jefferson, and even Hamilton were)? We should be discussing whether government is fulfilling the Framers' worst fears by trying to usurp that authority in spite of the 100% ban they put in place... and what we should do to stop AND PUNISH them for even trying.


You're arguing that the right is absolute, that the founders meant for it to be absolute, yet as has been pointed out to you, they didn't practice it as an absolute. The only possible conclusion is YOUR argument is flawed.

[Little-Acorn]

You're arguing that the right is absolute, that the founders meant for it to be absolute, yet as has been pointed out to you, they didn't practice it as an absolute. The only possible conclusion that I can think of is YOUR argument is flawed.

Fixed it for you.

It's always a hoot when leftist fanatics try to tell us that government officials are perfect and normal people are always the ones who are wrong.

The idea that maybe the govt back in colonial times didn't do a good job of following a good system, never occurs to them. And then they announce that therefore the system was wrong, and we shouldn't follow it, and we should give more power to that govt instead.

Somehow the leftists' argument always comes back to more government control, and less personal responsibility for normal people. Along with a hefty dose of "Iffen it ain't perfect then we should tro'wn it out" - which gives them infinite license and authority in a society of imperfect humans.

Yes, the right IS absolute. Yes, the founders DID mean it to be absolute. And yes, they did fail in this quest for perfection you seem to demand of them, and us. But they knew (as apparently you don't) that if people try to achieve what the founders laid out, even with their occasional failings, they would have a better, safer, and more prosperous society than if they gave up and turned their responsibilities and consciences over to government as the leftists keep proposing.

Free citizens will never make a perfect society, when they have the power to try to do so. But they will make a better society than government-dominated citizens will. Always. Every time.

And the ONLY way they will stay out from under eventual government dominance, and the inevitable oppression it historically has ALWAYS brought, is if they are armed and that government has NO POWER WHATSOEVER to take away their arms. Not the slightest bit. No "reasonable restrictions", if government is the one allowed to do the restricting.

Yes, we will have the occasional theater shooter... but we will have fewer of them if everyone is allowed to be armed. Even then, most people won't bother to carry a weapon... but a few will, and the bad guy won't know which ones they are, so most bad guys will be a lot more reluctant to do bad things.

And we WON'T have twenty million people starved by their own government (something that actually happened to one disarmed populace), or thirty million imprisoned and killed because a govt official didn't like their attitudes (another historical fact), or even six million disarmed people sent to work camps and eventually ovens because another govt official didn't like their religion or ancestry.

We will still have problems. But we will have a better solution than any offered by government.

[jimnyc]

While it's possible that reasonable restrictions may be admissible, I will guarantee you that they never expected a portion of the population, or especially those in charge, to have access to arms that the law abiding citizen was banned from having.

[Missileman]

Fixed it for you.

It's always a hoot when leftist fanatics try to tell us that government officials are perfect and normal people are always the ones who are wrong.

The idea that maybe the govt back in colonial times didn't do a good job of following a good system, never occurs to them. And then they announce that therefore the system was wrong, and we shouldn't follow it, and we should give more power to that govt instead.

Somehow the leftists' argument always comes back to more government control, and less personal responsibility for normal people. Along with a hefty dose of "Iffen it ain't perfect then we should tro'wn it out" - which gives them infinite license and authority in a society of imperfect humans.

Yes, the right IS absolute. Yes, the founders DID mean it to be absolute. And yes, they did fail in this quest for perfection you seem to demand of them, and us. But they knew (as apparently you don't) that if people try to achieve what the founders laid out, even with their occasional failings, they would have a better, safer, and more prosperous society than if they gave up and turned their responsibilities and consciences over to government as the leftists keep proposing.

Free citizens will never make a perfect society, when they have the power to try to do so. But they will make a better society than government-dominated citizens will. Always. Every time.

And the ONLY way they will stay out from under eventual government dominance, and the inevitable oppression it historically has ALWAYS brought, is if they are armed and that government has NO POWER WHATSOEVER to take away their arms. Not the slightest bit. No "reasonable restrictions", if government is the one allowed to do the restricting.

Yes, we will have the occasional theater shooter... but we will have fewer of them if everyone is allowed to be armed. Even then, most people won't bother to carry a weapon... but a few will, and the bad guy won't know which ones they are, so most bad guys will be a lot more reluctant to do bad things.

And we WON'T have twenty million people starved by their own government (something that actually happened to one disarmed populace), or thirty million imprisoned and killed because a govt official didn't like their attitudes (another historical fact), or even six million disarmed people sent to work camps and eventually ovens because another govt official didn't like their religion or ancestry.

We will still have problems. But we will have a better solution than any offered by government.

Are you alleging that I'm a leftist? ROFL...that's at least the 2nd wrong conclusion you've reached today...pun intended. If you think I'm arguing FOR more gun control, that's a 3rd strike. You don't seem to be fairing well at all.

I am arguing against YOUR nonsensical argument that the founders wrote the 2nd with the intention that we couldn't even disarm criminals while under arrest or imprisoned...that's just stupid beyond the pale, and there's no historical support for your argument either...the founders disarmed criminals.

[Robert A Whit]

While it's possible that reasonable restrictions may be admissible, I will guarantee you that they never expected a portion of the population, or especially those in charge, to have access to arms that the law abiding citizen was banned from having.

One only need to revisit the Burr v Hamilton duel to see what they thought about arms, and dues for that matter.

I notice that some treat logic like an ice cube.

It starts out cold, solid but over time melts.

[Little-Acorn]

Well, I'll just shortcut this by pointing out I never said the cops shouldn't take the murderer's gun away. The murderer said that, with bodies still bleeding around him. Whereupon the cop whacked him over the head with a billy club and took it from him anyway.

And later when the murderer brought charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the jury let the cop walk. The cop had no more worries since double jepoardy isn't allowed. And the murderer went to the chair as he deserved. And that's exactly how the system should work.

And when some govt official tried to take the gun of a law-abiding citizen, the jury did NOT let the govt official walk, but threw him into jail with all those nice criminals, where they could discuss obeying the Constitution, and the advantages of jury nullification, all they wanted. And, again, that's exactly how the system should work. And was designed to work, in fact, by those founders the leftist fanatics keep desperately denigrating and insulting.

Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute... because of the many horrifying examples that happen when it isn't. And imperfect as we are, the closer we come to making it that way, the safer and more prosperous (and, BTW, the freer) our society will be.

[glockmail]

Once you're under arrest your rights are restricted so hence cops can take your gun away from you, along with your belt and shoelaces if they deem necessary.

The 2nd Amendment affirms our right to bear arms for the specific means to form a militia against a tyrannical government as well as defend our person and property. In these purposes the arms would be used against specific individuals who insist on attempting to usurp our rights to life and liberty. We don't have the right to inflict collateral damage, cause wanton destruction of property or kill nondiscriminatory to meet this goal. Thus, the government has the power to regulate weapons of mass destruction and explosive weapons.

This reasoning has been applied to successfully argue restrictions on fully automatic weapons, based on the fact that it is difficult for someone who is not a professionally trained soldier to use such a weapon without causing collateral damage.

[Little-Acorn]

Once you're under arrest your rights are restricted so hence cops can take your gun away from you, along with your belt and shoelaces if they deem necessary.


If and when the law so states. As most laws do.

But the 2nd amendment doesn't. I wonder why not?

Actually I've been spending the last six pages of this thread, pointing out exactly why not. Want to comment on what I said, rather than ignore it as you're doing here?

[glockmail]

I'm not commenting on that other than to say that I think you're defying common sense. When you're under arrest certain rights are suspended, just like if you were in jail or prison. Or standing in a court room for that matter. Every law or amendment doesn't have to repeat the obvious.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm not commenting on that other than to say that I think you're defying common sense.

Taking a crook's gun away is "defying common sense"?

[Robert A Whit]

Once you're under arrest your rights are restricted so hence cops can take your gun away from you, along with your belt and shoelaces if they deem necessary.

The 2nd Amendment affirms our right to bear arms for the specific means to form a militia against a tyrannical government as well as defend our person and property. In these purposes the arms would be used against specific individuals who insist on attempting to usurp our rights to life and liberty. We don't have the right to inflict collateral damage, cause wanton destruction of property or kill nondiscriminatory to meet this goal. Thus, the government has the power to regulate weapons of mass destruction and explosive weapons.

This reasoning has been applied to successfully argue restrictions on fully automatic weapons, based on the fact that it is difficult for someone who is not a professionally trained soldier to use such a weapon without causing collateral damage.

It seems to me that only those who fired automatice weapons should engage in such topics. Too many mistakes can be made by those who never shot one. I fired machine guns. I assure you that even well trained, one can't hold one to an accurate setting. Even locked down, the bullet pattern varies according to the range they strike. A surprise to me when being trained is that locked down machine guns do not put bullets into the same spot. And the pattern of the strikes varies at different distances.

I was following your logic or facts up to the point that I made bold with the starting word .... Thus. How does your basis cause you to use the word THUS followed by what I believe to be inaccurate conclusions? The Government seems to me to try to be the only user of some of those weapons though explosives is used a lot in places like mines or quarries.

Most speking of automatic weapons seem to not realize that one may own automatic weapons though it is my understanding with federal permits.

Trying to not beat this to death and since I have no clear memory of the precise patterns, visualize say at 100 yards the pattern looks like a vertical oval. But say at 500 yards, that pattern changed to a horizontal oval. It is possible I have reversed the patterns.

As you may suspect, even locked down, it may be impossible to not cause collateral damage.

[glockmail]

Taking a crook's gun away is "defying common sense"?No. Taking it away is common sense.

[glockmail]

It seems to me that only those who fired automatice weapons should engage in such topics. Too many mistakes can be made by those who never shot one. I fired machine guns. I assure you that even well trained, one can't hold one to an accurate setting. Even locked down, the bullet pattern varies according to the range they strike. A surprise to me when being trained is that locked down machine guns do not put bullets into the same spot. And the pattern of the strikes varies at different distances.

I was following your logic or facts up to the point that I made bold with the starting word .... Thus. How does your basis cause you to use the word THUS followed by what I believe to be inaccurate conclusions? The Government seems to me to try to be the only user of some of those weapons though explosives is used a lot in places like mines or quarries.

Most speking of automatic weapons seem to not realize that one may own automatic weapons though it is my understanding with federal permits.

Trying to not beat this to death and since I have no clear memory of the precise patterns, visualize say at 100 yards the pattern looks like a vertical oval. But say at 500 yards, that pattern changed to a horizontal oval. It is possible I have reversed the patterns.

As you may suspect, even locked down, it may be impossible to not cause collateral damage.
I've read your post twice and still don't understand where your issue is.

"Thus" states a conclusion based on the prior sentences. The conclusion is completely independent of what follows, except for the fact that I give a specific example.

With regards to the specific example, you appear to be agreeing with me but trying to disagree at the same time.

[Robert A Whit]

I've read your post twice and still don't understand where your issue is.

"Thus" states a conclusion based on the prior sentences. The conclusion is completely independent of what follows, except for the fact that I give a specific example.

With regards to the specific example, you appear to be agreeing with me but trying to disagree at the same time.

I question that automatic weapons in a soldiers hands stands for reduced collateral damage due to the fact the bullets land all over the place.

We saw this happen during night fireing with tracers and clearly the bullets were going all over the place. A slight movement of the barrel creats a spray pattern. It is the nature of the automatic weapon. Same thing happens when you fire a high powered rifle where the shooter can't prevent the recoil of the gun so clearly by quickly firing it will also spray bullets.

The party who never fired a machine gun, especially at night using tracers probably won't take that into consideration. If one aims at one target the size of a human, the human can be hit but other humans nearby are in danger.

The other issue is explosives, etc. I am trying to figure out the basis of law to regulate explosives. Explosives are in civilian hands and I gave examples.

If this is tested in a court, it is possible the court will set the regulators right.

Some issues that may not meet the test of the constitution are not challenged in court. I tried to find a court case where the ACLU defended the second amendment but so far find none. My point is things are allowed but are not in court test cases.

Another example is how long did it take just to merely get a case like Heller to be heard. States poured on regulations that the court determined were wrong.

[glockmail]

I gave you the basis of laws to regulate both.