The 2ndAm doesn't say "except for felons" or "except by due process of law". Why not?

[Little-Acorn]

Something that's been discussed here before, with most posters simply ignoring what's been said.

Time to examine it again.

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other 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.

So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

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 legally 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?

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 principle of Jury Nullification 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.
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.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The frog says ," who needs a gun, come on in the water is warm and so comfortable"... and in splash the other frogs while ignoring the fire blazing away under that big black pot ...:laugh:-Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification 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.


Could this be the reason why the 2nd amendment was written with NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions"?

[Little-Acorn]

In the wake of the shootijng of two on-air TV journalists, VA governor Terry McAuliffe is calling for more government restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

Seems it's time to resurrect this thread.

[red state]

Great thread, and I'm TOTALLY in agreement with you (I THINK) but you gave a bad example/scenario.

I DO NOT AGREE with gun restrictions of any kind and firmly believe that the 2nd Amendment *(IS) my right to openly or conceal carry permit. I am so glad to live in what is probably the happiest and most Conservative State in the so-called Union and am fairly certain that our Castle Laws carry over to most ANY other State just as our Home Schooling Association would, will and has supported families regardless of where they are.

Now, getting straight to the topic at hand and HOPEFULLY not sounding like a liberal......I do believe in restricting a violent criminal (theif, drug-dealer, etc) from EVER carrying a "labeled" weapon of any kind. The law's prevent all convicts and I don't agree with that or the VA gov in imposing gun laws on any LAW abiding "citizen" (make that LEGAL citizen from the USA....no border jumpers, wall climbers, river waders please).

Good post and thread.....as usual Little Acorn. THANKS!!!!

[red state]

Could this be the reason why the 2nd amendment was written with NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions"?


It seems that we need to re-discover many Amendments (including the 14th). They all were pretty much designed and written by men of genius but the not-so-much geniuses of our time want to re-write or read something in that isn't there.

I'd like to see a presidential candidate who is an avid hunter, speaks his mind without tip-toeing over topics, has a military record to efficiently run our military (WITH EXPERIENCE from actually serving) and have the ability (both physically and mentally) to give ALL the sob's in Washington a good, swift kick in the @$$ until all the crap is straightened out!!!!! If there was a guy like that show up......we'd likely have a Republican (STRIKE THAT)...CONSERVATIVE, thru & thru, MAJORITY for many, many years to come. Heck, I'd take Israel's PM over most of what we have to choose from.

[Gunny]

Great thread, and I'm TOTALLY in agreement with you (I THINK) but you gave a bad example/scenario.

I DO NOT AGREE with gun restrictions of any kind and firmly believe that the 2nd Amendment *(IS) my right to openly or conceal carry permit. I am so glad to live in what is probably the happiest and most Conservative State in the so-called Union and am fairly certain that our Castle Laws carry over to most ANY other State just as our Home Schooling Association would, will and has supported families regardless of where they are.

Now, getting straight to the topic at hand and HOPEFULLY not sounding like a liberal......I do believe in restricting a violent criminal (theif, drug-dealer, etc) from EVER carrying a "labeled" weapon of any kind. The law's prevent all convicts and I don't agree with that or the VA gov in imposing gun laws on any LAW abiding "citizen" (make that LEGAL citizen from the USA....no border jumpers, wall climbers, river waders please).

Good post and thread.....as usual Little Acorn. THANKS!!!!

Virginia's gun laws are already borderline. If you want to buy a gun, you have to take a form down to the police station, get it signed and bring it back. And they definitely check before signing.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications?

Because it was understood that the right to arms is not being created, given, granted or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment. The right is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the 2nd for its existence.


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.

But a police officer is not an agent of the federal government. His authority emanates from state and local law which most certainly allows and probably compels him to disarm a violent individual.


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.

The right to arms does not exist because of what the federal Constitution says; the right exists because of what the Constitution DOESN'T SAY. The framers knew that only those interests conferred to the federal government would fall under the federal government's purview . . . All not conferred is retained.


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.

The FEDERAL government isn't forbidden from taking guns away because of the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is forbidden because no power was ever conferred to the feds to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to do things it has no power to do.


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 . . .

This is generally true and is evident in the discussions of the proposed amendment regarding the "religiously scrupulous" exception that was in Madison's original draft. The fear was that the well intended attempt to shield Quakers from being forced to bear arms under militia law would give the federal government a mechanism to disarm everyone by declaring a wide section of the population "religiously scrupulous".


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.

But local and state police certainly possess the power to disarm a criminal (or even a hero law-abiding citizen who acted to thwart the attack) while the scene is under active investigation. And this remains true even after McDonald v Chicago which finally enforced the 2nd Amendment upon states and lower political subdivisions. Before2010, the federal 2nd Amendment had NO effect on state or local laws and was not a claimable immunity against state or local governments disarming any citizen.


My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification 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.

You are conflating things that are separate and distinct into an argument that makes no sense constitutionally. The framers of the federal Constitution and the later 2nd Amendment could not have imagined any federal interest in a crime like your example. The framers intended such breaches of the public order to be addressed by state and local governments who most certainly were and are empowered to disarm a criminally violent individual.


Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute...

No, it's not . . .

[red state]

If you are breaking the law, you relinquish your rights......if you are law abiding, the Constitution is CLEAR and (I) am right on this issue. Katrina was WRONG, Kansas was WRONG by TAKING guns from lawful citizens while allowing the animals to run a muck.

The Constitution is also CLEAR on other things YET we have Big Bro / Big Sis frisking us and all kinds of other stuff that even illegal aliens don't have to put up with.....enhanced thanks to a BUSH.

We have an overbearing, confused, chaotic IRS that the Constitution addresses.

Our problem is not the Constitution but perversions of the Constitution and outright mis-interpretations of a CLEAR, set language from men that I deem as pure geniuses. If not for them and their careful planning and exquisite wording of our Constitution, we would have fell on our faces YEARS ago! May still happen and Ben F. warned us on this and how we have something special in this "experiment" (IF) we can keep it. He is also the one who said that when "THEY" figure out that they can vote themselves FREE stuff.....it'll all be over with. I happen tp think we are there because we've most certainly allowed our fear and demand for so-called security to trump our RIGHTS & FREEDOMS. Good ole Ben said when that happens, we will have NEITHER or even deserve NEITHER!

Now....time for a good strong cuppa CoffEE!!
:coffee:

[red state]

Virginia's gun laws are already borderline. If you want to buy a gun, you have to take a form down to the police station, get it signed and bring it back. And they definitely check before signing.

So, it that to mean that Mississippi or Texas (and any town/city or community) within these two GREAT States has the right to systematically, specifically refuse to issue homosexual licsenses? One would think that law is law and the Supreme Court ruled (surprisingly) that the 2nd Amendment is SOLID. Perhaps they put in some micro-language but it seemed that they had already scolded DC about the our gun RIGHTS.

Jeb bragged on Florida's gun rights but I always get so edgy when going there (while packing) cuz they are anything but Conservative. Heck, on the other side, Missouri is (or was) one of my favorite States but I've had more trouble out of them and SILLY so-called security issues involving a itty-bitty Swiss ARmy knife/keychain than I've had trouble with in California's airports!!!!!! And Tennessee is fast becoming liberal and have welcomed TSA to patrol their hwys (unless they've changed but I hear them doing stupid PC CRAP all the time. Perhaps I'll end up having to stay in Missippi. We have coasts, woodlands, lakes, beauti, industry and good HUNTIN'. Still, I do like my mountain in the Smokies.

[Little-Acorn]

But a police officer is not an agent of the federal government. His authority emanates from state and local law which most certainly allows and probably compels him to disarm a violent individual.
The 2nd amendment applies, and has applied, to ALL governments in the United States - Federal, state, local - from the day it was ratified in 1791. Very different from, say, the 1st amendment, which carefully specifies only the Federal government as being forbidden to restrict the freedom of speech, press, religion etc. ("Congress shall make no law..."). (The 14th amendment later changed this.) Since the 2nd makes no identification of "which government" it is forbidding, it forbids them all.


The FEDERAL government isn't forbidden from taking guns away because of the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is forbidden because no power was ever conferred to the feds to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to do things it has no power to do.
That's true of pretty much all the Bill of Rights. In the case of the 2nd, as I point out above, it applies to the Fed and the states and local govts too. One effect of the 2nd, was to forbid those state and local govts from restricting the right to keep and bear arms - which it did from the day it was ratified. Before it was ratified, only the Fed had no power to restrict the RKBA. States could still give themselves that power if they wanted. But with ratification of the 2nd, the states and local govts no longer could.


And this remains true even after McDonald v Chicago which finally enforced the 2nd Amendment upon states and lower political subdivisions.
And it was true before McDonald v. Chicago, too. But so many McAuliffe types were violating the 2nd at the state level (just as they routinely violate the 10th, the Uniformity clause, etc.) that apparently the Supremes decided to nail it down explicitly... again. Just as the Framers did in 1791.

[fj1200]

In the wake of the shootijng of two on-air TV journalists, VA governor Terry McAuliffe is calling for more government restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

Seems it's time to resurrect this thread.

Just a quick follow up: The government can, by due process of law, take away your rights of life, liberty, and/or property but they can't take away your RKBA? The government can restrict felons from voting but can't restrict their 2A rights?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

The 2nd amendment applies, and has applied, to ALL governments in the United States - Federal, state, local - from the day it was ratified in 1791. . . .

Since the 2nd makes no identification of "which government" it is forbidding, it forbids them all. . . .

In the case of the 2nd, as I point out above, it applies to the Fed and the states and local govts too. One effect of the 2nd, was to forbid those state and local govts from restricting the right to keep and bear arms - which it did from the day it was ratified. . . .

And it was true before McDonald v. Chicago, too. . . .


You are wrong.

Can you cite a single example of your theory in action prior to 2010, where a state or local government entity was forced, by a federal government entity, to end the enforcement of a law that restricts the RKBA, because of the 2nd Amendment?

The record has many examples where federal courts deny a citizen's challenge of a state or local law specifically on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment does not impact state law.

That the first 8 provisions of the Bill of Rights did not impact state law is the reason why the 14th Amendment was required, to allow the federal government to enforce those protections, take special note to the 2nd paragraph:



"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution, or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or a prohibition upon state legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."


Senator Jacob M. Howard, introducing to the Senate a proposal for Amendment to the Constitution on May 23, 1866.



I does no good to argue a theory that is legally incorrect.

[Gunny]

You are wrong.

Can you cite a single example of your theory in action prior to 2010, where a state or local government entity was forced, by a federal government entity, to end the enforcement of a law that restricts the RKBA, because of the 2nd Amendment?

The record has many examples where federal courts deny a citizen's challenge of a state or local law specifically on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment does not impact state law.

That the first 8 provisions of the Bill of Rights did not impact state law is the reason why the 14th Amendment was required, to allow the federal government to enforce those protections, take special note to the 2nd paragraph:


"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution, or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or a prohibition upon state legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."


Senator Jacob M. Howard, introducing to the Senate a proposal for Amendment to the Constitution on May 23, 1866.



I does no good to argue a theory that is legally incorrect.

I was going to ask if you fell off the fishing boat this morning, but then, your ID kind of explains it all, doesn't it?

The 2nd Amendment is written in clear and precise English. It doesn't need a bunch of dumbass interpretations. The biggest problem we have in this Nation is a lack of reading and comprehension by those that are played like marionettes by the ones that choose to purposefully misconstrue and take out of context words.

[indago]

A judge in a Kentucky court in 1822 delivered the opinion, concerning the Kentucky Constitution:

"The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right"

[red state]

Even when I was a bit on the "liberal" side back in college years, I still held strong to our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS and felt that ANY regulation was limiting our freedoms and TOTALLY against the Constitution and a real & present danger to our system. In fact, our 2nd Amendment has literally saved us from an all out attack as the Jap leadership did not have it in their hearts to place boots on the ground (despite the stupidity and arrogance of their leader).

We now have a very STUPID and arrogant leadership that does not understand or love America and I consider THEM ALL a treasonous bastardization of what America was meant to be.......and example, an experiment and a success for the rest of the world to follow (not strive to be like the socialists in Europe).

[Surf Fishing Guru]

I was going to ask if you fell off the fishing boat this morning, but then, your ID kind of explains it all, doesn't it?

The 2nd Amendment is written in clear and precise English. It doesn't need a bunch of dumbass interpretations. The biggest problem we have in this Nation is a lack of reading and comprehension by those that are played like marionettes by the ones that choose to purposefully misconstrue and take out of context words.

I don't understand why you feel insulting me is necessary but hey, I can abandon reason, logic and civility and throw mud when it is thrown at me.

Your ID and your idiotic reply leads me to believe you have suffered repeated debilitating blast induced TMI.

You quote what I wrote but then rebut nothing regarding my argument on the legal action of the 2nd Amendment on state and local law.

I dd not offer any "interpretation" of the 2nd -- I refrain from engaging in such folly because I place no conditioning or dependency effects on the right to arms from the words of the 2nd Amendment. The right exists without reference to, or reliance on, the Constitution

You start harping about reading comprehension but prove you are the poster child for the need of remedial education in it. Your talk of "misconstruing" things is laughable, you display zero ability to even recognize my argument let alone comprehend what it is and formulate a on-point reply. OTOH, you show ample ability to go off on goofy tangents that have no relationship to the subject.

Do you have any argument that the 2nd Amendment had any effect on state or local law prior to 2010?

[Little-Acorn]

You are wrong.

Can you cite a single example of your theory in action prior to 2010, where a state or local government entity was forced, by a federal government entity, to end the enforcement of a law that restricts the RKBA, because of the 2nd Amendment?

The record has many examples where federal courts deny a citizen's challenge of a state or local law specifically on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment does not impact state law.


As always, when a gun-rights-hater cannot refute what I pointed out about what the 2nd amendment says, they change the subject and talk instead about what the lawyers and courts say. As if that had any effect on what the 2nd says.

[Gunny]

I don't understand why you feel insulting me is necessary but hey, I can abandon reason, logic and civility and throw mud when it is thrown at me.

Your ID and your idiotic reply leads me to believe you have suffered repeated debilitating blast induced TMI.

You quote what I wrote but then rebut nothing regarding my argument on the legal action of the 2nd Amendment on state and local law.

I dd not offer any "interpretation" of the 2nd -- I refrain from engaging in such folly because I place no conditioning or dependency effects on the right to arms from the words of the 2nd Amendment. The right exists without reference to, or reliance on, the Constitution

You start harping about reading comprehension but prove you are the poster child for the need of remedial education in it. Your talk of "misconstruing" things is laughable, you display zero ability to even recognize my argument let alone comprehend what it is and formulate a on-point reply. OTOH, you show ample ability to go off on goofy tangents that have no relationship to the subject.

Do you have any argument that the 2nd Amendment had any effect on state or local law prior to 2010?

If I was going to insult you there'd be no doubt in your mind. I ain't exactly the one to mince words.

Any day your hurt little butt wants to go at it with me on reading and comprehension, bring it bitch. People like you couldn't understand the English language if .. oh yeah .. it was spelled out in plain English to you. You don't see what is there nor read what is there. You hear and see what you want to;which, has nothing to do with what is being said.

So how about you shut the fuck up and go back into your little hole? You can can come out when you grow up and learn how to use syntax. Otherwise, you're slobbering on the other side of my screen.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

As always, when a gun-rights-hater cannot refute what I pointed out about what the 2nd amendment says, they change the subject and talk instead about what the lawyers and courts say. As if that had any effect on what the 2nd says.

LOL.

You are arguing a position that has no support in the actual application of the 2nd Amendment. I know Stephen Halbrook makes this argument regarding universal language but his is merely a theoretical argument. You are taking that theoretical argument to a level that can't be supported in the real world of legal application.

That you want to ignore legal facts doesn't make you correct; you are making a definitive statement -- that the federal 2nd Amendment has always been a barrier to the implementation of gun restrictions by state and local governments. You have moved beyond the philosophical argument (or even a textual one - "what the 2nd Amendment says") into the purely legal side on how the 2nd has been applied and "what the courts say" and "what lawyers say" (the 39th Congress in my post above) is the final verdict on your theory. No further refutation is necessary.

A simple test -- If your theory was legally correct, there would have been no need for the 14th Amendment. The infringement of Freedmen's right to arms under the Black Codes was of major importance to the 39th Congress. If what you say is true, the right to arms need not have been included as an example of the rights, privileges and immunities of US citizens that must be enforced against the states.


I'm not a "gun-rights-hater", I'm a criticizer of BS arguments about the Constitution and this one most certainly is BS.

Perhaps you should look at a few of my previous posts before you call me something I'm not.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44571-Shall-not-be-infringed-!&p=680555#post680555

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38852-Repeal-the-2nd-Amendment&p=619089#post619089

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28505-Of-the-Bill-of-Rights&p=460931#post460931



Gun rights supporters should hold themselves to a high standard of constitutional truth and legal correctness, your venture into fantasyland does the cause no good.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

If I was going to insult you there'd be no doubt in your mind. I ain't exactly the one to mince words.

Any day your hurt little butt wants to go at it with me on reading and comprehension, bring it bitch. People like you couldn't understand the English language if .. oh yeah .. it was spelled out in plain English to you. You don't see what is there nor read what is there. You hear and see what you want to;which, has nothing to do with what is being said.

So how about you shut the fuck up and go back into your little hole? You can can come out when you grow up and learn how to use syntax. Otherwise, you're slobbering on the other side of my screen.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7622&stc=1

[Jeff]

If I was going to insult you there'd be no doubt in your mind. I ain't exactly the one to mince words.

Any day your hurt little butt wants to go at it with me on reading and comprehension, bring it bitch. People like you couldn't understand the English language if .. oh yeah .. it was spelled out in plain English to you. You don't see what is there nor read what is there. You hear and see what you want to;which, has nothing to do with what is being said.

So how about you shut the fuck up and go back into your little hole? You can can come out when you grow up and learn how to use syntax. Otherwise, you're slobbering on the other side of my screen.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7622&stc=1

:catfight:

Looks to be getting rather interesting. :laugh:

You two go to your neutral corners and on my command come out fighting. :laugh:

SFG Gunny comes on a little strong but he is exactly right if he was truly trying to piss you off you would of known it, Gunny is a good ol guy just a tad bit cranky from time to time.

Gunny you be nice to the new guys or you aren't going to be allowed to come out and play no more. :laugh:

[indago]

The right to arms does not exist because of what the federal Constitution says; the right exists because of what the Constitution DOESN'T SAY. The framers knew that only those interests conferred to the federal government would fall under the federal government's purview . . . All not conferred is retained.

Yes, that is why Hamilton, and others, argued against a Bill of Rights. They argued that if some of the rights, that already existed, were spelled out, regardless the wording, there would be those who would begin twisting the words around and begin to negate them.

"I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights." — Alexander Hamilton - Federalist 84

[indago]

But, as time moved along, it was becoming more and more obvious that the Constitution was not going to be ratified, but for a promise that a Bill of Rights would be assembled and attached to the Constitution. James Madison fulfilled that promise in the Congress when he assembled some of the States Bills of Rights into a document and introduced them to the Congress for their perusal, and assemblage into a federal Bill of Rights.

[Gunny]

:catfight:

Looks to be getting rather interesting. :laugh:

You two go to your neutral corners and on my command come out fighting. :laugh:

SFG Gunny comes on a little strong but he is exactly right if he was truly trying to piss you off you would of known it, Gunny is a good ol guy just a tad bit cranky from time to time.

Gunny you be nice to the new guys or you aren't going to be allowed to come out and play no more. :laugh:

After that stupid sperm donor launched rocks through three back windows early this AM? Cranky ain't even close. Punk ass bitch needs to grow some balls instead of sneaking around like a little bitch boy.

SFG just got in the way. Not his fault. Yet.

His little rock throwing escapade cost the people across the street about $2K. He bent the frame on a hatchback Mercedes. And THAT redneck ain't happy, I can tell you that. Talk about burning bridges. Why don't you pick the three biggest rednecks in the neighborhood to have a hissy fit on?

If he comes up this street again, and he's dumb enough to, it's just a matter of who gets to him first.

[Jeff]

After that stupid sperm donor launched rocks through three back windows early this AM? Cranky ain't even close. Punk ass bitch needs to grow some balls instead of sneaking around like a little bitch boy.

SFG just got in the way. Not his fault. Yet.

His little rock throwing escapade cost the people across the street about $2K. He bent the frame on a hatchback Mercedes. And THAT redneck ain't happy, I can tell you that. Talk about burning bridges. Why don't you pick the three biggest rednecks in the neighborhood to have a hissy fit on?

If he comes up this street again, and he's dumb enough to, it's just a matter of who gets to him first.

Dam Bro I hate to hear this, but on the good a note your problem with the sperm donor is about to be taken care of by the guy with the Mercedes, so he catches a whoopin and you stay home instead of getting those nice chrome bracelets. :thumb: Sounds like a win win.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

:catfight:

Looks to be getting rather interesting. :laugh:

You two go to your neutral corners and on my command come out fighting. :laugh:

SFG Gunny comes on a little strong but he is exactly right if he was truly trying to piss you off you would of known it, Gunny is a good ol guy just a tad bit cranky from time to time.

Gunny you be nice to the new guys or you aren't going to be allowed to come out and play no more. :laugh:

So you want me to know he's an angry incoherent geezer on the internet? Thanks, I kindasorta figured that out all by myself. I guess it's a rule that every political board must have one.

That he takes more pride in his skills of insulting people than composing a message that actually speaks to what the person he's attacking wrote, tells me all I need to know . . . And I know that he just ain't worth thinking about or paying attention to.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Yes, that is why Hamilton, and others, argued against a Bill of Rights. They argued that if some of the rights, that already existed, were spelled out, regardless the wording, there would be those who would begin twisting the words around and begin to negate them.

"I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights." — Alexander Hamilton - Federalist 84

Which is why I criticize supposed gun rights people who go on and on about their "2nd Amendment right" and how "the 2nd Amendment is my carry permit" and the classic, "what part of not be infringed don't you understand" and the immediate discussion, the short-sighted focus on what the 2nd Amendment says as if the right was somehow dependent on the words that are (or aren't) in the 2nd Amendment.

Why do the most hard-headed hard line defenders of the 2nd Amendment not see that with their unwavering focus and essentially the position that the 2nd is the source of the right, they threaten the right they claim to cherish? They play into the hands of those who who would gladly accept that position and then use misconstruction and "interpretation" to use the words of the 2nd against the right to arms (just as Hamilton warned in 84). I don't want my right to arms to be contingent upon ever evolving definitions -- even words like "infringed" can be twisted by men disposed to usurp.

[Gunny]

Dam Bro I hate to hear this, but on the good a note your problem with the sperm donor is about to be taken care of by the guy with the Mercedes, so he catches a whoopin and you stay home instead of getting those nice chrome bracelets. :thumb: Sounds like a win win.


:laugh: Yeah. I was kinda thinking that too. :laugh:

[Gunny]

So you want me to know he's an angry incoherent geezer on the internet? Thanks, I kindasorta figured that out all by myself. I guess it's a rule that every political board must have one.

That he takes more pride in his skills of insulting people than composing a message that actually speaks to what the person he's attacking wrote, tells me all I need to know . . . And I know that he just ain't worth thinking about or paying attention to.

Who you calling geezer, shit for brains? Again, I didn't attack you. You'll have no doubt left in your little brain housing group if and when I do. I usually try to pick people worthy of my attention. So far, that ain't YOU.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Who you calling geezer, shit for brains? Again, I didn't attack you. You'll have no doubt left in your little brain housing group if and when I do. I usually try to pick people worthy of my attention. So far, that ain't YOU.

First, the lack of single syllable of on-point commentary is again noted.

Regarding what you did write, how utterly pathetic and impotent.

Words are the only means we have to communicate here; they can convey many messages, in your case nothing virtuous or of interest comes through. All that you are capable of conveying is the anger and frustration of a lonely, forgotten man who pines for the time when he meant something and people respected him. It's no wonder people in your real life throw rocks at you.

I pity you . . . You are the epitome of that Pink Floyd line, "it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around".

I am done with you, please do not take my ignoring of whatever stupid, vulgar reply you come back with as any sort of victory or that you have chased me away. It's just that I don't measure a man by the amount of purposeless and idiotic negativity they can bang out on a keyboard and my quota for such uselessness has been met and exceeded.

[Little-Acorn]

Which is why I criticize supposed gun rights people who go on and on about their "2nd Amendment right" and how "the 2nd Amendment is my carry permit" and the classic, "what part of not be infringed don't you understand" and the immediate discussion, the short-sighted focus on what the 2nd Amendment says as if the right was somehow dependent on the words that are (or aren't) in the 2nd Amendment.

Why do the most hard-headed hard line defenders of the 2nd Amendment not see that with their unwavering focus and essentially the position that the 2nd is the source of the right, they threaten the right they claim to cherish? They play into the hands of those who who would gladly accept that position and then use misconstruction and "interpretation" to use the words of the 2nd against the right to arms (just as Hamilton warned in 84). I don't want my right to arms to be contingent upon ever evolving definitions -- even words like "infringed" can be twisted by men disposed to usurp.

So the biggest problem with defending our right to own and carry, is that people who don't support that right might abuse us and lie about us?

We'll have that problem whether we defend our right or not.

In fact, it's one of the reasons we have the right in the first place.

Screw the anti-gun-rights whiners. Life's too short to pay attention to them. I'll retain my right and live my life, thanks, safe in the knowledge I won't have to use that right until they show up on my doorstep. And that part is up to them.

[Gunny]

First, the lack of single syllable of on-point commentary is again noted.

Regarding what you did write, how utterly pathetic and impotent.

Words are the only means we have to communicate here; they can convey many messages, in your case nothing virtuous or of interest comes through. All that you are capable of conveying is the anger and frustration of a lonely, forgotten man who pines for the time when he meant something and people respected him. It's no wonder people in your real life throw rocks at you.

I pity you . . . You are the epitome of that Pink Floyd line, "it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around".

I am done with you, please do not take my ignoring of whatever stupid, vulgar reply you come back with as any sort of victory or that you have chased me away. It's just that I don't measure a man by the amount of purposeless and idiotic negativity they can bang out on a keyboard and my quota for such uselessness has been met and exceeded.

On point commentary is noted. Try getting some. I could care less whether your worthless ass comes or goes. For someone who wants to talk a lot of shit, maybe you ought to practice what your lame ass preaches. Like, get an argument? You ignoring me doesn't mean shit until you do. I feel like no more than a bored cat with a mouse in the corner whacking it around for the Hell of it.

Mouse.

[Perianne]

Mouse.

I used to have a friend with the nickname "Mouse". I wonder if it's the same guy?

[Gunny]

I used to have a friend with the nickname "Mouse". I wonder if it's the same guy?

Probably not. This guy's just trying to be somebody. Not his entire last post is some whimpy-a$$ disclaimer, thinking it gets him the high road. Methinks he got his panties in a wad over nothing. It's called taking yourself too seriously.

What I wonder is if he's my brother? That dude thinks you can hang the moon on his every word.:laugh:

[Little-Acorn]

Back to the subject:
Unlike many provisions in the Constitution, the 2nd amendment was written with no exceptions or qualifiers.

The left, which has a cultural horror of any absolute mandate they cannot control, try to get around this by announcing that the Framers didn't mean what they wrote.

They have utterly failed to justify such speculation.

Is it even true?

Or did the Framers mean exactly what they said: NO exceptions, and government has no say whatsoever in whether Joe Blow can own a gun. Only a duly assigned group of ordinary citizens who are not part of government (aka a jury) has any power to make exceptions... and they must do it on a case by case (literally) basis.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

So the biggest problem with defending our right to own and carry, is that people who don't support that right might abuse us and lie about us?

When you are arguing from a premise that gives the opposition the upper hand then I believe what you are doing is not helping. Your focus on what the 2nd says and basing your argument on the inviolate nature of the right because of what it says, (or doesn't say), places the meaning and effect of the right to arms in the linguistic meatgrtinder from which it can not emerge intact. You are putting the right into box that leftist gun grabbers want it to be in; where definitions and punctuation and syntax and obsolete uses can be perverted and mutated into a mandate to restrict the right. The argument that you think is ironclad is a steel trap around your leg; you just don't know it is you that's caught.


We'll have that problem whether we defend our right or not.

But arguing from a premise that gives the opposition no opportunity to use "what the 2nd says" against us, is the much better path.


In fact, it's one of the reasons we have the right in the first place.

It would be my argument that "we have the right" NOT because the 2nd Amendment is there and certainly NOT because of what it says (or doesn't say). My argument would be that "we have the right" because we never gave the federal government any power to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. To examine a provision that does not give or grant or create or otherwise establish the right, and to hold up what it says (or doesn't say) as determinative, is giving the anti's a path to attack the right -- because you essentially agree with them that the right is what the 2nd Amendment says it is.


Screw the anti-gun-rights whiners. Life's too short to pay attention to them.

I've been enjoying defending / debating gun rights vs gun control since 1993. I have heard every pro-gun and anti-gun argument there is to be argued. Today, the quality of the anti-gun argument is a shell of its former self; in the 90's and early 2000's there were some good debates to be had.

Unfortunately I must say that your OP's premise and your subsequent statements (especially as to the 2nd's enforcement against states) is a step backwards for our side.


I'll retain my right and live my life, thanks, safe in the knowledge I won't have to use that right until they show up on my doorstep. And that part is up to them.

I get that you want to furiously masturbate your gun rights bona fides, but to present such legally incorrect statements and refuse to defend them (except to assign nefarious intent to ANY challenger) is not doing the cause any favors.

I've read the other threads you have with this premise / OP and you received some decent challenges (e.g., USMB). In reading your replies there and here to me, I can appreciate your decision to just reject any and all commentary on it from people on both sides of the gun rights fence . . . Your tactic of 'translating' what the person said is especially pathetic and incredibly ironic, given my criticism of your premise. It is also embarrassing, there is no need for gun rights people to engage in such poor debate form.

In the hundreds of replies over the years these threads have been up has anyone ever agreed with you?
Have you even once given any criticism a fair reply?

[Gunny]

When you are arguing from a premise that gives the opposition the upper hand then I believe what you are doing is not helping. Your focus on what the 2nd says and basing your argument on the inviolate nature of the right because of what it says, (or doesn't say), places the meaning and effect of the right to arms in the linguistic meatgrtinder from which it can not emerge intact. You are putting the right into box that leftist gun grabbers want it to be in; where definitions and punctuation and syntax and obsolete uses can be perverted and mutated into a mandate to restrict the right. The argument that you think is ironclad is a steel trap around your leg; you just don't know it is you that's caught.



But arguing from a premise that gives the opposition no opportunity to use "what the 2nd says" against us, is the much better path.



It would be my argument that "we have the right" NOT because the 2nd Amendment is there and certainly NOT because of what it says (or doesn't say). My argument would be that "we have the right" because we never gave the federal government any power to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. To examine a provision that does not give or grant or create or otherwise establish the right, and to hold up what it says (or doesn't say) as determinative, is giving the anti's a path to attack the right -- because you essentially agree with them that the right is what the 2nd Amendment says it is.



I've been enjoying defending / debating gun rights vs gun control since 1993. I have heard every pro-gun and anti-gun argument there is to be argued. Today, the quality of the anti-gun argument is a shell of its former self; in the 90's and early 2000's there were some good debates to be had.

Unfortunately I must say that your OP's premise and your subsequent statements (especially as to the 2nd's enforcement against states) is a step backwards for our side.



I get that you want to furiously masturbate your gun rights bona fides, but to present such legally incorrect statements and refuse to defend them (except to assign nefarious intent to ANY challenger) is not doing the cause any favors.

I've read the other threads you have with this premise / OP and you received some decent challenges (e.g., USMB). In reading your replies there and here to me, I can appreciate your decision to just reject any and all commentary on it from people on both sides of the gun rights fence . . . Your tactic of 'translating' what the person said is especially pathetic and incredibly ironic, given my criticism of your premise. It is also embarrassing, there is no need for gun rights people to engage in such poor debate form.

In the hundreds of replies over the years these threads have been up has anyone ever agreed with you?
Have you even once given any criticism a fair reply?

Really. Try reading and comprehension. The 2nd Amendment is as clear as a bell ad it doesn't leave room for morons who want to misconstrue the meaning of words. The right of the people to own and bear arms is pretty damned clear and not left to interpretation by fuckups.

[indago]

Really. Try reading and comprehension. The 2nd Amendment is as clear as a bell ad it doesn't leave room for morons who want to misconstrue the meaning of words. The right of the people to own and bear arms is pretty damned clear and not left to interpretation by fuckups.

And yet there are those, as has been previously mentioned, who would go through the process of redefinition, to the point, even, of taking it to the Supreme Court a number of times...

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Really. Try reading and comprehension. The 2nd Amendment is as clear as a bell ad it doesn't leave room for morons who want to misconstrue the meaning of words. The right of the people to own and bear arms is pretty damned clear and not left to interpretation by fuckups.

Really??? Again you quote what I wrote and chastise me about "reading and comprehension" while completely missing that I'm the only person posting in this thread who imparts no action upon the right to arms by / from the words of the 2nd Amendment.

What possible "interpretation" can be crafted by someone who believes the right to arms in no manner depends upon the Constitution for its existence?

How can you accuse me of "misconstru[ing[ the meaning[s] of words" when I argue that it is a mistake to refer to or appeal to the words of the 2nd Amendment for any illumination / instruction on the right to arms?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

And yet there are those, as has been previously mentioned, who would go through the process of redefinition, to the point, even, of taking it to the Supreme Court a number of times...

Do you understand the process a case takes to be heard by SCOTUS and more specifically, do you know the paths of the RKBA / 2nd Amendment cases that have been heard by SCOTUS? (there have only been five of significance)

For me, knowing each case, I find your statement puzzling and would be interested in hearing you expand on your reasoning.

[indago]

Do you understand the process a case takes to be heard by SCOTUS and more specifically, do you know the paths of the RKBA / 2nd Amendment cases that have been heard by SCOTUS? (there have only been five of significance)

For me, knowing each case, I find your statement puzzling and would be interested in hearing you expand on your reasoning.

What is "puzzling" to you about what I wrote?

[Gunny]

Really??? Again you quote what I wrote and chastise me about "reading and comprehension" while completely missing that I'm the only person posting in this thread who imparts no action upon the right to arms by / from the words of the 2nd Amendment.

What possible "interpretation" can be crafted by someone who believes the right to arms in no manner depends upon the Constitution for its existence?

How can you accuse me of "misconstru[ing[ the meaning[s] of words" when I argue that it is a mistake to refer to or appeal to the words of the 2nd Amendment for any illumination / instruction on the right to arms?

Interesting question. The Constitution assumes Rights that are not God-given nor inherent. So I read and comprehend just fine.

Arguing inherent law vs Man's law are two different thing. I'm quite capable of differentiating between the two.

And, I just accuse you of shit because I can, and it pisses you off. :)

[Gunny]

Really??? Again you quote what I wrote and chastise me about "reading and comprehension" while completely missing that I'm the only person posting in this thread who imparts no action upon the right to arms by / from the words of the 2nd Amendment.

What possible "interpretation" can be crafted by someone who believes the right to arms in no manner depends upon the Constitution for its existence?

How can you accuse me of "misconstru[ing[ the meaning[s] of words" when I argue that it is a mistake to refer to or appeal to the words of the 2nd Amendment for any illumination / instruction on the right to arms?

NO, you got that wrong. I just pick on you for fun.

I don't think we disagree other than the fact that you just think you can. You might as well go beat your head against a tree as argue philosophy with ME.

The Right to bear arms is based on not letting a government control us. Like we do. We fought an insurrection against our King for less. But it's only treason if you lose, right?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

What is "puzzling" to you about what I wrote?

The question I posed touched on it.

Your statement seems to be saying that 2nd Amendment redefiners are either so far along or desperate in their scheme that they have brought SCOTUS into the program ("a number of times").

I wonder, who is doing this redefining and how did they get SCOTUS to hear and rule on their redefinition?

Please cite the cases that were brought by these redefiners and explain how "redefining" was at the core of the appeal.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Interesting question. The Constitution assumes Rights that are not God-given nor inherent. So I read and comprehend just fine.

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. All the powers that government was granted through the Constitution were originally possessed by the people. That the people only surrendered a limited amount of power and retained everything not conferred certainly means that the Constitution not only "assumes" the inherent nature of rights but the entire foundation for the authority of the Constitution is based on the concept of inherent rights (with some rights being so intrinsic to being human that they can not be conferred -- un/inalienable rights).


Arguing inherent law vs Man's law are two different thing. I'm quite capable of differentiating between the two.

Mmmkay


And, I just accuse you of shit because I can, and it pisses you off. :)


All your accusations have done is prove you are an asshat.

Nothing you have said remotely relates to what I have written; it's as if you are using an old broken Cracker-Jack decoder ring you got back in 1962 to rework my posts.

Do you really think your juvenile antics make me angry? You are a pathetic vulgar bully who thinks that the presentation of a hard-ass persona on-line gets him cred . . . It's funny, on other boards you probably present yourself as a 14 year-old cheerleader. Really, who would know? How can anyone get mad at such an amusing, impotent caricature of an internet hero?


NO, you got that wrong.

I got what wrong? I asked questions, I challenged your thought process and reasoning, which in extra-ordinary fashion you again demonstrate is poor at best.


I just pick on you for fun.

But nothing you have come at me with has had any relationship to what I have said. I have made dozens of definitive statements about the Constitution and the right to arms and you have "picked on" me with nonsensical and tangential comments. Just like satire, busting on someone needs to be grounded in truth; all you have proven is that you are an idiot, incapable of understanding what I've written.


I don't think we disagree other than the fact that you just think you can. You might as well go beat your head against a tree as argue philosophy with ME.

Are you really as drunk as you type?

The only thing that would surprise me more than you discussing philosophy with intelligence would be seeing Jesus Christ riding right through my living room on a rainbow farting unicorn. . .


The Right to bear arms is based on not letting a government control us.

No shit Sherlock. And your focus on the words of the 2nd Amendment as being the be-all-end-all statement on what you believe is the non-inherent right to keep and bear arms, tells me you believe the 2nd Amendment is what creates/gives/grants/establishes the right to arms and you accept the premise that the provision is a permission slip for the citizen.

[Gunny]

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. All the powers that government was granted through the Constitution were originally possessed by the people. That the people only surrendered a limited amount of power and retained everything not conferred certainly means that the Constitution not only "assumes" the inherent nature of rights but the entire foundation for the authority of the Constitution is based on the concept of inherent rights (with some rights being so intrinsic to being human that they can not be conferred -- un/inalienable rights).



Mmmkay



All your accusations have done is prove you are an asshat.

Nothing you have said remotely relates to what I have written; it's as if you are using an old broken Cracker-Jack decoder ring you got back in 1962 to rework my posts.

Do you really think your juvenile antics make me angry? You are a pathetic vulgar bully who thinks that the presentation of a hard-ass persona on-line gets him cred . . . It's funny, on other boards you probably present yourself as a 14 year-old cheerleader. Really, who would know? How can anyone get mad at such an amusing, impotent caricature of an internet hero?



I got what wrong? I asked questions, I challenged your thought process and reasoning, which in extra-ordinary fashion you again demonstrate is poor at best.



But nothing you have come at me with has had any relationship to what I have said. I have made dozens of definitive statements about the Constitution and the right to arms and you have "picked on" me with nonsensical and tangential comments. Just like satire, busting on someone needs to be grounded in truth; all you have proven is that you are an idiot, incapable of understanding what I've written.



Are you really as drunk as you type?

The only thing that would surprise me more than you discussing philosophy with intelligence would be seeing Jesus Christ riding right through my living room on a rainbow farting unicorn. . .



No shit Sherlock. And your focus on the words of the 2nd Amendment as being the be-all-end-all statement on what you believe is the non-inherent right to keep and bear arms, tells me you believe the 2nd Amendment is what creates/gives/grants/establishes the right to arms and you accept the premise that the provision is a permission slip for the citizen.

You challenged ME? I'm sorry. Did I miss one of your self-sanctimonious posts? When do you get to the part where you quit being a disagreeable POS just for the sake of it when we're saying the same things? Let me know when you get a fresh set of Huggies.

The 2nd Amendment is Man's law, not God's. Think I pointed that out for your slow ass. So how about you try reading in English and try to fuck with someone your own speed? Like a rainbow farting unicorn?

And I'm just trying to remember which board full of losers you come from. Good luck finding some thugs to back you up here, junior.

[indago]

The question I posed touched on it.

Your statement seems to be saying that 2nd Amendment redefiners are either so far along or desperate in their scheme that they have brought SCOTUS into the program ("a number of times").

I wonder, who is doing this redefining and how did they get SCOTUS to hear and rule on their redefinition?

Please cite the cases that were brought by these redefiners and explain how "redefining" was at the core of the appeal.

Here's one...

Jack Miller and Frank Layton were apprehended carrying a sawed-off shotgun from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam, Arkansas. They were brought, under indictment, to the federal district court in Arkansas. The indictment filed against them charged, in part, that they "did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length...", in violation of the Federal Firearms Act, 26 USC Section 1132, a felony crime. Their response to the indictment reads, in part, that the National Firearms Act "offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment", infringing upon their right to keep and bear arms. The federal court agreed, quashed the indictment, and they were discharged from custody.

The prosecutor filed a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court. There was no brief filed by Jack Miller or Frank Layton. The indictment had been quashed, and there was no trial in which to present evidence or to obtain any facts in the case. The Court wrote: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." So, in order to have a more rounded and factual presentation before them, they "unquashed" the indictment, and sent the case back to the district court for a trial on the issues for evidence to be presented, and facts to be developed.

There was no trial.

But, as the Kentucky Judge noted in 1822: "whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution."

The Miller case was a blatant attempt at redifinition of the second amendment to hamper the bearing of arms, as is any case brought before the Supreme Court that addresses the right to keep and bear arms.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

You challenged ME?

Yes, multiple times. I have repeatedly challenged you to either defend or explain your "thought process and reasoning" . . .


I'm sorry. Did I miss one of your self-sanctimonious posts?

You have missed everything I have written. Nothing you have said relates to anything I have written. You quote me but then go on to bayonet strawmen of your own creation.


When do you get to the part where you quit being a disagreeable POS just for the sake of it when we're saying the same things?

Sez the guy who's first post to me contained nothing but the incoherent ramblings of a disagreeable POS -- nothing pertaining to what I had written, nothing that indicated you understood what I said and nothing that could be taken for the reasoning of a sane and reasoned man.


The 2nd Amendment is Man's law, not God's. Think I pointed that out for your slow ass.

It is painfully obvious you have zero understanding of the constitutional concepts you ramble about.


So how about you try reading in English and try to fuck with someone your own speed? Like a rainbow farting unicorn?

And again telling me to "read" something that I argue imparts no conditioning on the right it merely recognizes and secures. Your focus on reading sounds hollow given the fact that you disavow the most foundational philosophy of the US Constitution (inherent rights).


And I'm just trying to remember which board full of losers you come from. Good luck finding some thugs to back you up here, junior.

I don't need "thugs" to "back me up". I compose and defend my posts without help from others. Are you calling yourself a thug, given the fact that you swooped in and "backed up" Little Acorn? Obviously your only beef with me is that I had the audacity to rebut Little Acorn -- you quoted what I wrote and then went off on a tangent spouting crap that had nothing to do with what I wrote.

And don't for a second think you and I are on the same side or "saying the same things" . . . You are a constitutional idiot whose rantings and peacocking are embarrassing and do more harm than good.

[Gunny]

Yes, multiple times. I have repeatedly challenged you to either defend or explain your "thought process and reasoning" . . .



You have missed everything I have written. Nothing you have said relates to anything I have written. You quote me but then go on to bayonet strawmen of your own creation.



Sez the guy who's first post to me contained nothing but the incoherent ramblings of a disagreeable POS -- nothing pertaining to what I had written, nothing that indicated you understood what I said and nothing that could be taken for the reasoning of a sane and reasoned man.



It is painfully obvious you have zero understanding of the constitutional concepts you ramble about.



And again telling me to "read" something that I argue imparts no conditioning on the right it merely recognizes and secures. Your focus on reading sounds hollow given the fact that you disavow the most foundational philosophy of the US Constitution (inherent rights).



I don't need "thugs" to "back me up". I compose and defend my posts without help from others. Are you calling yourself a thug, given the fact that you swooped in and "backed up" Little Acorn? Obviously your only beef with me is that I had the audacity to rebut Little Acorn -- you quoted what I wrote and then went off on a tangent spouting crap that had nothing to do with what I wrote.

And don't for a second think you and I are on the same side or "saying the same things" . . . You are a constitutional idiot whose rantings and peacocking are embarrassing and do more harm than good.

Bored are you? Give yourself a rest. You're boring the fuck out of me, that's for sure.

You couldn't take me on on your best day and my worst so go find someone in your comic book league you might be able to compete with.

For all your posturing, you got NO fucking argument. And yeah, you DO need back up. Lots of it.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

But, as the Kentucky Judge noted in 1822: "whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution."

I know that the glowing statement on the right to arms in Bliss is intoxicating but it really has no relevance to the discussion of current 2nd Amendment application. If you want to cite a state case try Aymette v State (http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html), it is the case that SCOTUS cited as forming its reasoning about how to treat Miller's shotgun and is a primer for the Supreme Court's opinion in Miller.


The Miller case was a blatant attempt at redifinition of the second amendment to hamper the bearing of arms, as is any case brought before the Supreme Court that addresses the right to keep and bear arms.

Certainly the US Attorney's brief to the Court in Miller included an interpretation of the 2nd that is hostile to individual gun rights, ("militia right" focus), but SCOTUS did not mention let alone endorse or sustain that argument in Miller.

That the Court ruled how it did, only hearing the government's arguments is noteworthy. For that reason (and others) I disagree that SCOTUS is the enemy and I certainly disagree that every case brought to the Court has been an attempt to redefine the 2nd -- to restrict rights.

In my opinion, SCOTUS, while not perfect, has always been on the correct side of the RKBA and in recent years has been the savior of gun rights. The only "redefining" that has been coming from SCOTUS is striking down the various "militia right / "state's right" / "collective right" interpretations that sprung out of the lower federal courts beginning in 1942 (unashamedly recognizing but then ignoring and dismissing what SCOTUS said in Miller).

[Gunny]

Go back to your pussy little board with your pussy little ass kissers and fuck off. You want a war? I'll give your dumb ass one you won't believe.

You ain't got an argument pissant. Your idea of an argument is a personal attack but you can't ever address the topic. Sounds like .. oh yeah.. that stupid fucking message board you come from. It only took me awhile to remember what a loser you are. Go back where someone thinks you're important. I'll rip your fucking head off. I got bricks with more intelligence than you.

You ain't shit and you're dumber than a hitchpost.

[indago]

I know that the glowing statement on the right to arms in Bliss is intoxicating but it really has no relevance to the discussion of current 2nd Amendment application. If you want to cite a state case try Aymette v State (http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html), it is the case that SCOTUS cited as forming its reasoning about how to treat Miller's shotgun and is a primer for the Supreme Court's opinion in Miller.

1822 was a lot closer to the founders than 1840, and the judge's statement from 1822 would have more relevance, I would think.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Bored are you? Give yourself a rest. You're boring the fuck out of me, that's for sure.

I can understand that since you can only converse in vulgarities it must get boring.


You couldn't take me on on your best day and my worst so go find someone in your comic book league you might be able to compete with.

LOL. You haven't said anything of substance. The few on topic grunts you have attempted have been profoundly incorrect in history and the law (again, that the Constitution doesn't recognize "inherent" rights springs first to mind). The only thing you have proven is that you are a uncouth pig that can't keep his comments out of the gutter.


For all your posturing, you got NO fucking argument. And yeah, you DO need back up. Lots of it.

I need backup to deal with you? You are delusional.


Go back to your pussy little board with your pussy little ass kissers and fuck off. You want a war? I'll give your dumb ass one you won't believe.

Sez the old, sweaty, impotent geezer sitting at his computer in some un- air conditioned trailer. Your TV dinner is gettin cold.


You ain't got an argument pissant.

LOL You demonstrating an ability to read what you quote and address what was actually written would go a long way to enhance your credibility.


Your idea of an argument is a personal attack but you can't ever address the topic.

And now we know, You are delusional. Little Acorn asked for feedback on his theory, I took it apart piece by piece and explained my reasoning (philosophical and legal) for disagreeing with him.

You jump in and accuse me of doing what I argue against, using "dumbass interpretations" and "purposefully misconstrue and take out of context words". No matter how I say it or how many times I say the words don't matter, you still want to tell me that the words of the Amendment are important. Moron doesn't begin to define you . . .


Sounds like .. oh yeah.. that stupid fucking message board you come from. It only took me awhile to remember what a loser you are.

And now we know you are paranoid delusional. Not only do you invent my argument for me, you have invented a persona for me too? How dissociative of you!


I'll rip your fucking head off.

Paranoid delusional featuring dissociative disorder with violent tendencies.

You really should seek professional help.


I got bricks with more intelligence than you.

I'm not surprised that you have conversations with bricks and have drawn conclusions as to their intelligence. Are you admitting, leaving open the possibility that that some of the bricks you own but have yet not talked to, could in fact be dumber than me?


You ain't shit and you're dumber than a hitchpost.

Hey, the first thing you are correct on; I am not shit.

You talk to hitchposts too?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

1822 was a lot closer to the founders than 1840, and the judge's statement from 1822 would have more relevance, I would think.

That's not at all how it works.

[Black Diamond]

Charlie don't surf.

[indago]

That's not at all how it works.

Works for me...

[Gunny]

I can understand that since you can only converse in vulgarities it must get boring.



LOL. You haven't said anything of substance. The few on topic grunts you have attempted have been profoundly incorrect in history and the law (again, that the Constitution doesn't recognize "inherent" rights springs first to mind). The only thing you have proven is that you are a uncouth pig that can't keep his comments out of the gutter.



I need backup to deal with you? You are delusional.



Sez the old, sweaty, impotent geezer sitting at his computer in some un- air conditioned trailer. Your TV dinner is gettin cold.



LOL You demonstrating an ability to read what you quote and address what was actually written would go a long way to enhance your credibility.



And now we know, You are delusional. Little Acorn asked for feedback on his theory, I took it apart piece by piece and explained my reasoning (philosophical and legal) for disagreeing with him.

You jump in and accuse me of doing what I argue against, using "dumbass interpretations" and "purposefully misconstrue and take out of context words". No matter how I say it or how many times I say the words don't matter, you still want to tell me that the words of the Amendment are important. Moron doesn't begin to define you . . .



And now we know you are paranoid delusional. Not only do you invent my argument for me, you have invented a persona for me too? How dissociative of you!



Paranoid delusional featuring dissociative disorder with violent tendencies.

You really should seek professional help.



I'm not surprised that you have conversations with bricks and have drawn conclusions as to their intelligence. Are you admitting, leaving open the possibility that that some of the bricks you own but have yet not talked to, could in fact be dumber than me?



Hey, the first thing you are correct on; I am not shit.

You talk to hitchposts too?


Matter of fact, yeah. Rather obvious, isn't it?

I don't care who nor what you think you are, you aren't gong to win with ME. Period. You got an argument on a topic? Bring it. You want to be nasty? Find someone else. I'm the meanest fucker you ever ran into, but quite frankly, you ain't worth the hassle of having the staff up my ass for tearing you apart.

But I know your ilk. All people like you do is drag boards down. When you can't handle the argument, you turn it into a personal pissing contest. There's a whole board full of people like you right around the corner. There's a reason none of us are on it anymore.

So, quite simply, STFU if you can't debate, and DEFINITELY stay away from ME.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Works for me...

You think so? Not from where I stand . . .

This thread is about legal application of the 2nd Amendment's immunities / protections against actual (not theoretical) government action. Conjecture about what the framers intent was, is not pertinent; all that matters is how the Amendment is applied by various courts (if we are to remain on topic -- which is, as I read it is, the 2nd Amendment FROM ITS WORDING established an absolute right that no government may impact in any fashion and that in actual practice, the 2nd has bound state government action since its ratification).

Bliss is a dead branch on the tree of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. I can appreciate that you embrace the sentiments expressed there and it does align with absolutist gun rights opinion, but to hold it up as definitive and determinative, in a discussion of 2nd Amendment application, is not legitimate.

Saying your chronological assignment of importance "works for you" tells me that you are happy arguing from a position of --how you wish things to be-- rather than how things actually are. That entirely emotional construct seems to be a very strong theme among the gun rights people here . . . Which explains why some would rather ignore "what the lawyers and courts say (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44061-The-2ndAm-doesn-t-say-quot-except-for-felons-quot-or-quot-except-by-due-process-of-law-quot-Why-not&p=759997#post759997)". And I guess that explains the purely emotionally driven, off topic, angry, ad hominem responses I have received since my first post that demonstrated Little Acorn's premise, as set-out in the OP is wrong and without any support (and of course remains so).

[Surf Fishing Guru]

So, let's revisit my first post in rebuttal to the OP. . . .

Since the fundamental premise of my rebuttal to the OP's focus on the words of the 2nd is, "the right is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the 2nd for its existence", replies focused on "what the 2nd Amendment says" will be treated as the nonsense they are.

_________________________________________________



Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications?

Because it was understood that the right to arms is not being created, given, granted or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment. The right is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the 2nd for its existence.


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.

But a police officer is not an agent of the federal government. His authority emanates from state and local law which most certainly allows and probably compels him to disarm a violent individual.


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.

The right to arms does not exist because of what the federal Constitution says; the right exists because of what the Constitution DOESN'T SAY. The framers knew that only those interests conferred to the federal government would fall under the federal government's purview . . . All not conferred is retained.


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.

The FEDERAL government isn't forbidden from taking guns away because of the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is forbidden because no power was ever conferred to the feds to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to do things it has no power to do.


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 . . .

This is generally true and is evident in the discussions of the proposed amendment regarding the "religiously scrupulous" exception that was in Madison's original draft. The fear was that the well intended attempt to shield Quakers from being forced to bear arms under militia law would give the federal government a mechanism to disarm everyone by declaring a wide section of the population "religiously scrupulous".


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.

But local and state police certainly possess the power to disarm a criminal (or even a hero law-abiding citizen who acted to thwart the attack) while the scene is under active investigation. And this remains true even after McDonald v Chicago which finally enforced the 2nd Amendment upon states and lower political subdivisions. Before2010, the federal 2nd Amendment had NO effect on state or local laws and was not a claimable immunity against state or local governments disarming any citizen.



My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification 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.

You are conflating things that are separate and distinct into an argument that makes no sense constitutionally. The framers of the federal Constitution and the later 2nd Amendment could not have imagined any federal interest in a crime like your example. The framers intended such breaches of the public order to be addressed by state and local governments who most certainly were and are empowered to disarm a criminally violent individual.


Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute...

No, it's not . . .

[indago]

So, let's revisit my first post in rebuttal to the OP. . . .(and other and sundry aberrations, ramifications, fixations, lamentations, hallucinations, and incantations)

Let's not...




.

[Truth Detector]

Something that's been discussed here before, with most posters simply ignoring what's been said.

Time to examine it again.

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other 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.

So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

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 legally 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?

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 principle of Jury Nullification 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.
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.

What an incredibly stupid unintelligent massive pile of smelly bile.

Another low information dullard who hasn't got the slightest intelligence of what constitutes law or what is contained in the Constitution.

You must be one of those Libertarian nutbags. Who "thanks" such tripe???

[Little-Acorn]

You are wrong.

Can you cite a single example of your theory in action prior to 2010, where a state or local government entity was forced, by a federal government entity, to end the enforcement of a law that restricts the RKBA, because of the 2nd Amendment?

The record has many examples where federal courts deny a citizen's challenge of a state or local law specifically on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment does not impact state law.

That the first 8 provisions of the Bill of Rights did not impact state law is the reason why the 14th Amendment was required, to allow the federal government to enforce those protections, take special note to the 2nd paragraph:



"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution, or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or a prohibition upon state legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."


Senator Jacob M. Howard, introducing to the Senate a proposal for Amendment to the Constitution on May 23, 1866.



I does no good to argue a theory that is legally incorrect.
TRANSLATION: I can't find anything in the Constitution that gives government any power to restrict people's right to keep and bear arms either. So I'll quote other people who claim govt has that power, even though they can't find anything in the Constitution to back up their assertions either.

[Gunny]

TRANSLATION: I can't find anything in the Constitution that gives government any power to restrict people's right to keep and bear arms either. So I'll quote other people who claim govt has that power, even though they can't find anything in the Constitution to back up their assertions either.

Hint: go with the state of Illinois. It's as communist as it gets about firearm ownership.

The 2nd Amendment is clear and concise, Except to those that want to make crap up.

[Truth Detector]

TRANSLATION: I can't find anythingin the Constitution that gives government any power to restrict people's rightto keep and bear arms either. So I'll quote other people who claim govt hasthat power, even though they can't find anything in the Constitution to back uptheir assertions either.

I am amused by the incredibly ignorant argument that suggests that felons have a constitutional right to firearms. It is almost as stupid as arguing there are no restrictions on the right to firearms.

Back in the day, Bonnie and Clyde would have made similar arguments about owning grenades and machine guns. Civilized SANE people discovered that this was stupid. Idiots still argue it makes perfect constitutional sense.

[Bilgerat]

http://www.youngcons.com/whoa-engineer-claims-ahmed-mohamed-didnt-invent-digital-clock-just-transferred-it-to-pencil-case/

[Gunny]

I am amused by the incredibly ignorant argument that suggests that felons have a constitutional right to firearms. It is almost as stupid as arguing there are no restrictions on the right to firearms.

Back in the day, Bonnie and Clyde would have made similar arguments about owning grenades and machine guns. Civilized SANE people discovered that this was stupid. Idiots still argue it makes perfect constitutional sense.

Which goes back to the OP. Aren't we ALL supposed to be given that "2nd chance", to include our Rights? We treat former felons as pariahs and I thought the whole "debt to society" thing applied. We wonder why we have so many repeat offenders, but what chance do we actually ever give them once they're out? They're set up to fail.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

TRANSLATION: I can't find anything in the Constitution that gives government any power to restrict people's right to keep and bear arms either. So I'll quote other people who claim govt has that power, even though they can't find anything in the Constitution to back up their assertions either.

TRANSLATION: I have nothing to support my claim that, "The 2nd amendment applies, and has applied, to ALL governments in the United States - Federal, state, local - from the day it was ratified in 1791". I freely admit that I can't prove any aspect of my premise, it is only grounded in what, "I suspect . . . how the Framers expected this particular law to work". My premise is nothing more than a fantastical "guess" and in the end, is just a statement of how I wish things were. As I have proven with the above reply, even though I ask for feedback on my premise, I will denigrate, misrepresent and dismiss any challenge of my unsupportable premise.

[Little-Acorn]

What an incredibly stupid unintelligent massive pile of smelly bile.

Another low information dullard who hasn't got the slightest intelligence of what constitutes law or what is contained in the Constitution.

You must be one of those Libertarian nutbags. Who "thanks" such tripe???
TRANSLATION: I can't refute what the OP wrote either. So I'll call it names, call him names, insult and smear him, and hope somebody believes I actually have a point somewhere.

[Voted4Reagan]

https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/1509864_850366808313592_1208555050_n.jpg?oh=7ddc76 116e22790bbe9b666206092710&oe=56672C4D

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/1509864_850366808313592_1208555050_n.jpg?oh=7ddc76 116e22790bbe9b666206092710&oe=56672C4D

WHATS THE PRICE ON THAT BEAUTIFUL BABY????
I want one and do they sell wrist/arm brace and ear plugs to go along with it???- :laugh: -Tyr