Should states decide on gun ownership?

The right to life, liberty, property and self-determination were not granted by the Declaration of Independence.

 

Ah. You know you have no meaningful response.
I accept your concession of the point.

 

What is COTUS?

 

My meaningful response is your whole post is misinformation.

 

What's wrong with using Article V of The Constitution?? Ya know, a portion of The Constitution which already exists and was written in the late 1700s?

 

Where do Arms rights come from if the 2ND doesn't infringe upon Arms rights?

 

That's Natural Law but Natural Law isn't The Constitution, either.

 

The amendment is not too far away from another principle of conduct, "Thou shalt not kill". In that, there is no real room for wiggling unless you lie to yourself.
This wasn't lack of forethought by the founders- just the opposite. Very carefully crafted for such simplicity as to be absolutely consistent and clear.
Comes back to something like what part of no don't you understand?

The 2nd says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you understand those three words- there is no wiggle room, nothing to redefine or bypass.
We have ALLOWED and TOLERATED infringement in the efforts to improve the civility of society- and the recognition that some people will never regulate their own behavior. But that toleration is a voluntary thing.
If the courts were not allowed to fudge, to dodge the inescapable truth of the words, no infringement would be allowed period- for good purpose or not. Many people just can't grasp the fact that no gun has malice; it's ability to do harm comes only from the person holding it.

People do- legally- own such things as Howitzer cannons, tanks, etc. Lots of restrictions, but there are places they get together. I personally never wanted a cannon or tank. I don't have the parking space anyway.
But they are fun to watch in action, kind of like monster trucks.... of course, bring your ear protection.

 

Constitution Of The United States

 

It's perfectly proper to use Article V

 

They are, the Government is prohibited from violating them in the original amendments.

The "Immunities" of the Privileges and Immunities clauses are mostly natural rights. Privileges are mostly grants that we give in exchange for allegiance, like the right to vote, hold office, serve on a jury and so forth.

This phrase in the 14th amendment closely tracks a similar phrase in the Declaration of Independence: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property."

 

I've already explained why: they're classified as explosives.

Even during the founders times they regulated storage of gunpowder.

Many of these same regulations exist today. While it's completely legal to own powder and primers in the manufacture of your own ammo, there are regulations on how it is to be stored over a certain amount.

Explosives are unstable and require special handling. Even though they're safer than most people think, I can attest that your Mk 19 getting jammed up while firing it is a butt clenching moment.

 

No, the Constitution does not enumerate rights "to the people".

The Constitution doesn't give us anything. It restricts the government from infringing on rights we already have.

 

just curious-what part of Article One, Section Eight actually empowers the federal government to regulate privately owned small arms

 

well that is currently what is happening despite McDonald v Chicago. The second amendment was initially intended to only prevent a federal government from acting in an area that it was never delegated any proper power to act. With incorporation, a conflict was guaranteed between state police powers and the bill of rights that were so incorporated

 

are you claiming that the purpose of the second amendment was to extend to the federal government powers it was not given in Article One Section 8?

 

so you oppose McDonald v Chicago's holding

 

wrong-states don't have rights-you are making a tenth amendment argument

 

You know your statement is false.
Disagree?
Show me how I am wrong.

 

That's the point.
You'll have to convince 38 states they should give up their power to ratify amendments and give that power directly to the people.
Good luck with that.

 

You avoided my question.
Why do YOU act as if "shall not be infringed" does not exist?

 

Correct.
The constitution does not grant the right to life, liberty, property ,or self-determination.
Or the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to the free practice of religion, or the right to keep and bear arms.
Glad you caught on.

 

For starters, you need to read the original Hebrew in the OT first. Technically, it is Thal shall not murder. It is the Hebrew word "retzach" which literally means murder, among other things and depending on how it is used. But the English language is an imprecise language at best. And thus, depending on which English translation you use, it may say murder, kill or kill without provocation. And in the New Testament, need to read Greek first. Take Galatians chapter 5, the infamous love chapter. In Greek, several words for love appear from philia, to agape, to pragma, to storge. All have different meanings, but we all translate it to love.

All background checks and other avenues when purchasing firearms across state lines are incorporated not in the 2nd amendment, but the interstate commerce clause, one of the broadest and most powerful clauses of the Constitution. That does not infringe on anyone owning a firearm but allows states and the federal government to set limits. In Scalia's opinion, he also specifically said, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

 

The letter of the law provides for zero infringements or limits. If you can read, and if you can think, and if you can understand the definitions of the words "shall not be infringed", you have no choice but to acknowledge that. There is nothing imprecise about it in any way.

Wrong. Registration and background checks are infringement. They make the right conditional on federal approval, and the constitution does not provide for that, and it makes no difference what agency you use to disguise the action. The constitution is the prime directive, the foundation of all laws- and all laws are answerable to it.

Regardless of what anyone past or present you think may have wanted you to assume was implied- it is not. We Tolerate infringement for the purpose of civil control of criminals- but the2nd amendment makes no such provision for that in any way. It doesn't matter that you think otherwise, or that justice whatever thought it should have or is otherwise. Your assumption seems to be "They meant to say", which means you assume the moral authority to over-ride the prime law of the nation. The constitution can be changed, the means to do so is provided. But from the time it was written the 2nd amendment has stood untouched. Deal with it.

 

Dude, SCOTUS may use natural law to help make a decision on a case but SCOTUS doesn't rely on natural law to make a decision on a case.

One could consider natural law like, for example, the pings created by 2020 election vote mules in the 2000 Mules video. The pings don't legally establish that there were shenanigans in the 2020 election but the pings correlate strongly with shenanigans in the 2020 election and should be followed up on (if one wants free and fair elections, er, democracy that is).