Quote:
Originally Posted by greatamerican128
Would you accept the restriction of free speech if the supreme court said part of the 1st amendment was unconstitutional?
|
Where have I said the 2nd is "unconstitutional" or that the right to arms is subject to any particular restrictions? What exactly have I argued that compels you to come at me with such an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatamerican128
Listen to the founding fathers, they know the constitution more than the supreme court. They overwhelmingly supported the right of citizens to own weapons.
|
I think that you are too obtuse to be arguing the pro-gun side; the debate requires much deeper thought and reasoning than just posting quotes (when you so obviously do not understand the underlying concepts and principles held and articulated by the speakers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatamerican128
Of course the founding fathers must have been wrong because guns are horrible, right?  |
And where have I argued anything like "guns are horrible"? Since you have such profound reading comprehension difficulties let's parse what I wrote and see if you can keep up. I said:
Quote:
- "The Supreme Court has said the right to arms (specifically the right to arms of freed slaves) "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.""
|
I am merely quoting Cruikshank here, a Supreme Court case which eloquently states that the citizen's right to arms is
not a gift from a benevolent legislature but a pre-existing right which Congress found being exercised freely and without qualification before the Constitution was written.
This means that since no power was granted to government via the Constitution to impact the private arms of the citizen no power exists to do so.
I said:
Quote:
- "That means the construction of the provision is a separate entity from the pre-existing right it merely recognizes and guarantees. . . The words chosen to secure the right can not be constructed to outwardly constrict or restrict or define or constrain the right."
|
This should be self explanatory but I'll go through it just for you; three concepts are evident here . . .
A) Since the right to arms is not granted, given, established or conferred to the citizen by the 2nd Amendment, . . .
B) the right to arms of the citizen exists without any reference to the 2nd Amendment, . . .
C) so the amendment can not be "interpreted" to outwardly restrict, condition or qualify the right to arms.
Here's a big hint if you are going to argue the pro-gun side; when I say the right to arms is "not granted" that's a good thing for gun rights because it makes clear we do not exercise our rights at the behest of, or only with, the permission of government.
I'm sure you have heard the term "inherent right" but do you understand what that term means? Are "inherent rights" granted?