Right to Keep & Bear Arms

pretty, please?

 

Where does it say that in the Constitution???

Not according to the Constution's original meaning. The states may restrict gun ownership within their individual states, but not the Federal Government.

 

In the Preamble, the purpose of the Constitution is laid out, "in order to form a more perfect union". Leaving it completely up to the states to restrict whatever rights they want, doesn't lead to a more perfect union. That's why right after the Civil War, the 14th Am. was adopted, to guarantee the BoR wouldn't be violated by state law. But the states do have police power to regulate health, safety, and morals. So that must be balanced with our rights. The balancing procedure depends on what right the state law is violating, and what category of that right, but in general, if the right is considered fundamental (which the 2nd has been determined by SCOTUS), then a state must have a compelling interest, and further that interest in the least restrictive way if the law infringes upon it.

But the both the feds and states must be able to infringe on any right in order to maintain society. For example, one has freedom of speech, but one can be punished for insider trading. How do you justify that infringement of speech? Or do you propose no legal penalties for insider trading? It is obvious that infringements on speech, and any of the other rights, must occur in order for society to function.

 

The preamble is pure fluff and subjective. The legal stipulations of the document come after the preamble.

You're forgetting that slaves were not considered American citizens at the time. The ability for states to regulate the rights of voting citizens is one thing, denying citizenship and a voice in government to certain native born Americans is something else. The Federal Government does have the right to intercede on behalf of Americans' national rights.

The Federal Government was never created to tell the States what rights American citizens have. Americans, through their state legislatures, are to determine what they feel are their fundamental rights. The Bill of Rights is there to restrict the Federal Government, not the State governments.

The Federal Government has the right to infringe of "speech" on Federal ground, but not nationwide - although the Federal Government can regulate trade between the states. They just can't redulate "insider trading" (whatever that is) within the individual states.

 

Then why is it still debated among constitutional scholars? Remember, the Constitution is very explicit in its powers and phrases. If it meant "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it would say just that. It would not prelude it with "A well-regulated militia."

 

TOTALLY WRONG!

The term "the people" clearly refers to a plurality. Note that it does NOT say, "each person or individual ". It is predicated on the condition that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It says what it says. I understand that conservatives wish it said something else. But it doesn't. And despite your claims that is how the law stood until 2008.

Don't quote Scalia or any other Republican appointed member of the Supreme Court who claims that their body has the right to appoint a US President.

 

Here's what I want to know:

WTF is your problem with weapons? Like, why? Do they scare you? Because that's a lameass excuse to ban them. Pretty much everyone who isn't a criminal that carries a firearm does so to protect themselves. They aren't carrying it so they can mug you or murder you at a moment's notice because in case you haven't noticed, most people aren't criminals or murderers.

Seriously I think the only reason progressives want to take away guns in because they're wimpy and afraid of just being around them. And in that case, man the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

I realize that you were talking to someone else but take a look at the second post above this one to see what the Supreme Court said for a lot longer than they agreed with you.

 

If you interpret the 2A as an individual right where does it say that restrictions can be placed on criminals and lunatics? Obviously you want to interpret it to your own benefit regardless of what it actually says.

 

I don't think so. The pecking order is all rights are the Feds until they surrender some to the states, or the people. The 2nd stands.

 

That's an argument they refuse to listen to.

I often ask 2A supporters if they think the Framers thought that women, children or black people should own guns. I don't usually get a reply.

I often ask 2A supporters if they think that violent criminals, infants, or those with with severe mental illness should be allowed to own or carry and again, rarely a reply.

Instead, like you said, they just interpret it to suit their interests... while screaming "Tyranny!"

 

They also don't seem to mind "activist judges" as long as they are on their side. "The Appointment of GWB", "Citizens United" and "Gun nuts vs. Illinois" to name a few.

 

All of those things were present in America to these intelligent founders when they wrote the document ~ They put no restrictive clause in the 2nd, and they made damn sure it would not be changed adding the clause shall not be infringed. Every gun law is unconstitutional.

 

Isn't any movement or word an expression of speech? Isn't any suppression of movement or utterances a violation of First Amendment rights? Doesn't this make all laws unconstitutional?

 

If it meant "the right of the state-run militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it wouldn't have said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It might have said, "the right of the state," but that's just sheer stupidity. The militia was and is the people. "Well-regulated" is an outdated term, but it had nothing to do with "regulations" as we understand them today, as something the state does. "Well-regulated" merely meant, "in good working order." So, to put it in modern terms for you:

"An effective civilian defense force, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Make sense now? The purpose of the second amendment isn't for hunting, it's for security.

 

None of what you said is explicit fact. It is your interpretation. That is why our 2nd Amendment (and much of our Constitution) is embarrassing, and still being debated today.

An effective civilian defense force doesn't exist in the 21st century. Do you really think the people with a bunch of handguns could actually mount a serious defense against our actual army of nukes, drones, tanks, fighters, and infantry? The constitution is outdated and this is just another example.

The Right to Bear Arms is for hunting, personal self-defense, and the threat of civilian political pressure. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Oh I see. Childish bs isn't worth my time. When you get your head out of the black hole you sit on, let me know.

 

Black hole? You are translating something you aren't qualified to translate. If that was the explicit meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it wouldn't even be a contemporary discussion (nor would this thread exist).

 

You're the one discounting historical facts from 'interpretation'. You're also the hyprocrite, saying that I (who have cited historical facts for support) am unqualified to interpret plain English, but you (who have no historical facts for support) are perfectly willing to interpret plain English into something that has nothing to do with what the plain English clearly says. Haha, and then you try to invent straw men and use my interpretation as PROOF that the Constitution is outdated?

You're grasping for straws, and it's pathetic. Save yourself the embarrassment and just quit while you're ahead.

 

If you asked those questions of me, I would assume that you failed to understand that they (the founders) expected a lot of truths to be self evident.
In the context of the time, women were busy with the tasks of running the home and tending to young children. They were not expected to be a part of any well regulated militia, as far as concerned firearms.
Blacks were considered livestock.
Criminals and the mentally incompetent. Come now, and call again on truths that are self evident.
The Founding Fathers made a dangerous assumption: That "The People" (even people like you) would USE THEIR BRAINS.

 

Quit what?

You are trying to tell me that a civilian defense force is the well regulated militia. Historically it makes sense back in the 1700s and 1800s but we do not have a civilian defense force for a while now. "A well regulated militia" does not mean "every man has unlimited right to own a gun." It means "A well regulated militia."

 

The Founding Fathers were idiots, to put it nicely. All (white) men were created equal. The Freedom of speech refers to Christianity and nothing else. I'm sure glad we don't take them literally in the 21st century.

 

So you cede that your interpretation of the 2nd is not in the least bit about founder's intent or the language of the 2nd. That's all you needed to say.

- - - Updated - - -

So you cede that your interpretation of the 2nd is not in the least bit about founder's intent or the language of the 2nd. That's all you needed to say.

 

So you literally see no merit to the 2nd Amendment? You can't understand why it's a good idea for citizens to be armed?

 

If only that were true.

Wandering Man with Alzheimers Mistaken for Burglar Shot and Killed on Wednesday

Great "defensive gun use" there by a "responsible citizen".

People who hide behind guns are brave?