The "right" to bear arms

This thread is zeroing in on one particular point, it is to debate i what the language of 2a means, regarding 'the right' and what, specifically 'shall not be infringed".

I contend the following, and I invite your challenge to my contention:

That the right to keep and bear arms by the people shall not be infringed, what that means is that that which shall not be infringed goes solely to the right, and not stitch beyond it.

A simple grammar analysis of the language leads me to that conclusion. Now, I could take the grammar argument further and argue that the Heller decision was wrong, but, for the purpose of this thread, I am not disputing the individual right in this thread. I am only inviting challenge as to what the 'shall not be infringed' language means.

Those who believe 'shall not be infringed' includes the right to own any kind of weapon, of any size and quantity obtained without background checks, without schooling of how to use the weapons, etc., have misunderstood what the second amendment means simply because they do not understand grammar and have read more into it that isn't there.

The wording does not say or imply 'the people'. have....

1 The right to own ghost guns and weapons impossible to detect and regulate
2. The right to own arsenals & armory more than needed to protect one's family and to hunt for food.
3. The right to own bazookas and/or weapons of severe, mass, destruction and professional war which are not needed to hunt for food and to protect one's person and one's family..

etc.

IN fact, the only thing that cannot be infringed upon is the RIGHT to keep and bear arms by the 'people'. The language of 2a only goes to the right.

In other words, IF the law said, individuals not in police or military or occupations requiring weapons usage to discharge their duties required of an occupation (such as security personnel), can only own one rifle, a single shot, not a semi or fully automatic (I'm not a gun guy, so help me with the wording), and one hand gun with a caliber no bigger than a .38 ( or whatever) and one magazine holding no more than 6 bullets, that would be a lawful and constitutional law. of course, the law is not that extreme, but, according to the language of 2a, it would be constitutional IF it were the law.

The wording, to be consistent with 'people' is put to the plural, to be grammatically correct. I could argue that the plural is written solely to be grammatically correct with 'people' and does not imply an individual has the right to own more than one firearm, but, I won't because it is plural I will contend, for the sake of argument, the maximum the wording of the second amendment protects are two firearms for any individual.

Therefore, the government could constitutionally regulate firearms ot the extent of

1. Requiring registration of all guns.
2. REquiring licensing
3. Disallowing concealment
4. Regulation of gun types allowed to be own by non police and military as well as the quantity allowed of arms and ammunition and calibers, etc.
5. Age of individual (under 18, parent must be present, that sort of thing).
6. The quantity of firearms beyond the minimum of 2.

Now, I could take it farther and argue that the Heller ruling is wrong, but I'm not going to argue that point in this thread, so for the purpose of argument of this thread, I'm letting Heller stand without dispute. All that is being debated in this thread is what the meaning of 'the right to keep and bear arms by the people shall not be infringed' means.

Zeroing in on the argument, I'm debating what 'shall not be infringed' goes to.

Grammatically speaking, it goes only toe the right, and nothing more.

In other words, regulation of quantities, types, calibers, issues and matters of concealment, etc., does not 'infringe' as long as the minimum terms of 2a is maintained.

And what is the minimum terms of 2a?

2 guns.

All else beyond 2 guns can be regulated, type, caliber, barrel length, ammunition, number of bullets, whether it's single, semi or fully automatic, concealment, serial numbers, licensing and registration, all of these are not prohibited for regulation because the language of 2a only goes to the right, and nothing more.

In fact, I believe this is consistent with Heller.

Right?

And please, if you disagree, don't just say you disagree, tell me why, put some effort into it, thank you. Simple disagreements are not a counter arguments. I'm seeking counter arguments in this thread. If you agree, fine, that's acceptable of course, we all like it when others agree with our arguments. Other than that, let's see some serious and sober counter arguments beyond the 'you're wrong', statements.

So, give me your best shot.

(pun intended ).

 

Does this pertain to Felons and criminal? Or is this another discussion on how to further burden the law abiding gun owners with more red tape while those criminals that don't recognize ANY GUN law go about their normal lives owning, carrying and committing acts of violence against unarmed victims..

 

Why not add more random, arbitrary crap to the collection? There is zero value in your list when it comes to reducing violent crime.

1. Was there a case solved using a serial number linked back to the "registered" owner?
2. Can it still be considered a "Right" if a license is required? No, it becomes a privilege.
3. How many crimes to CCW holders commit?
4. The person behind the trigger is the only issue, but you can't figure out how to control criminals, so you go after people that would never harm another.
5. 18 is an arbitrary number. I had access to firearms from age 9 and knew how to safely handle them and even reload the brass. Many people at age 30+ can't be trusted with sharp objects. Many parents shield their children from the mere image of a gun and they grow up to be mini-Baldwins.
6. Another example of arbitrary, random crap with zero benefit. A violent person needs only one gun to commit murder. You can't figure out how to control criminals, so you go after those who would never harm another.

To manipulate the ignorant, terms like "assault weapons" "high capacity magazines" and "ghost guns" are used to trigger irrational fear.

The truth is that a semi-auto firearm can easily be made without a background check. That means all of your random, arbitrary gun laws have zero value when it comes to reducing violent crime, and only serves violent criminals with unarmed victims.

Those trying to use grammar to infringe on rights can use a history lesson. The vast majority of murder is committed by government and the vast majority of the victims were unarmed.

Gun control is not from a position of concern for human life.

 

The more the federal regime and democrats/progressives in general even talk about any further limits to 2A rights, red state and county government should further loosen concealed carry permits and restrictions, allow open carry, and generally make it ever easier for their law abiding citizens to legally procure, bear, and carry any semi auto rifle, shotgun, hand gun, and requisite ammo they desire.

 

Gun nuts don't care, they want their guns.

 

It wasn't a list of proposals, or even a complete list, just random examples.

It wasn't an argument about what the regulations should be, disregard them if they confuse you.

The argument is about the meaning of the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

Everything else is subsidiary to that argument.

No one is using 'grammar to infringe on rights', what I'm trying to do is debate what it means, to that end, grammar is important to that determination.

 

"Shall not be infringed" means the government cannot take any actions to prevent individuals from having arms. It does not matter the organization that the indivudual belongs to. It doesn't matter if the person had a criminal record. It does not matter the types of arms. As long as you areva person on the land of the United States, you have the right to bear arms.

 

I understood your intent. Since you used grammar to compile a list of ways to infringe on the rights of good people, you' not fooling anyone. Can you come up with a way to disarm those with the proclivity to commit violence?

 

I previously demonstrated that "bear arms" refers to a military scenario (it doesn't restrict other scenarios... it just doesn't address them).
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

At least in the minds of those who wrote and approved the 2nd Amendment, and any average educated individual at the time it was framed.

Also demonstrated that there was no intention to grant any sort of individual "right" to own weapons.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

I understand, however, that you are focusing on restrictions on that right. Assuming that the 2nd A granted a right to own weapons (which it doesn't), the question you pose is if that right is unlimited. Clearly NO right is unlimited. There are even limitation to more fundamental rights like freedom of speech.

Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, you contend that this 'right" would be satisfied if a person owned a hand pistol. And that owning an additional weapon after that would not necessarily be protected by this "right".

 

It doesn't matter how much you dislike guns, or what your interpretation of the Second Amendment is, guns are here to stay. Period. Whether you like it or not. The only thing that passing even more gun restrictions does is make it even harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain them.

 

Shall not be infringed means that the state nor federal governments have the power to remove or even infringe upon the right to bear arms.

a legal scholar at the time of ratification of the constitution named Tench Coxe even phrased it as such in the Pennsylvania gazette. He claims the 2nd gave the people the right to the same sword and shield of a soldier.

So according to law grad, senator at the time of ratification… you’re 110% wrong

 

And progressives don't care that gun laws don't prevent crime or even mass shootings.

I will never understand this strange need the left has to blame violent crime on everything on God's green earth but violent criminals.

 

The length some people will go to in an effort to avoid dealing with criminals and choose instead to go after law abiding people is a clear testament to their cowardice and lack of ethics. Yet here we are.

 

It also makes law abiding citizens rush out and buy more guns and ammo every time a liberal at the state or national level brings up the issue. Gun grabbing politicians are the worlds best gun sales people. Every time one or more of them opens up their pie hole to suggest it, we flood the market with ever more of them as a direct consequence of their even daring to bring it up. We need to let them know that we will flood the market with ever more of them until they become forever dormant on the issue

 

Im running out of places to put them!!!

 

I only cut it off for space.

I believe had the founders intended for individual gun rights to be restricted, they would have worded that differently. No secret really they were referring to ones right to protect themselves and their property from a tyrannical government, which would probably mean we have the right to match arms with that government. Had they known what "arms" were to come, they would have left room for a little regulation or infringement. Obviously they were not talking about machine guns and bazookas.

Fortunately they also new they did not think of everything and gave us a way to amend. But no doubt they intended for individual gun rights to be absolute.

 

A nice problem to have…

 

So you want people control instead of gun control, how very authoritarian.

 

No I want criminals locked up. If you can't keep from hurting other people and stealing other people's stuff your ass needs to be in jail.

 

Gun control is people control.

 

Like I said people control.

 

Nope.

 

Sir the only thing you ever demonstrated regarding 2A was that you don't understand how the language was used two hundred years and that you haven't read the relevant federalist papers.

 

What about the criminals who have guns?

 

You take them.