The "right" to bear arms

Are you going to apply that logic to the First Amendment? You have the right to free speech, but not as many free speech as you want or any kind of free as you want.

 

We already do.

 

Exactly. However, given that the 2a is written in plural, whereby it was necessary to write it in plural to conform to 'the people', whereby that doesn't necessarily mean there is a right to own more than one gun, I will accede on the point of plurality, for the sake of argument, and state that the second amendment doesn't gaurantee the right to own more than 2 guns of a legislated type, and if that were the regulation, the law, that regulation would be constitutional.

Right, per above.

I'm not arguing the issue of 'bear arms' which was ruled on by Heller. Because of Heller, I'm only debating the meaning of 'shall not be infringed', and, analyzing the grammar, it goes solely to the right keep and bear arms, NOT the right to own as many weapons of any kind, without licensing, concealed, etc.

 

Even Heller acknowledges the government's right to regulate.

MOreover, I can site 'legal scholars' that will assert that the second amendment does not give the individual the right to bear arms, only the military and police.

So, it depends on which scholar you are referring to.

Sorry, you are 110% wrong.

 

Let's be honest here. Even if you were only allowed to have one gun, needed to have training and a license for it, and have it registered, things like mass shootings, murder, robberies, school shootings, and carjackings, etc... would still take place and the liberal gun grabbers would still be whining about "we need gun control"....

 

Yup! Illegal guns and criminal will always exist.. And where there is money, contraband will always be available in the U.S. The only shortage this country has is common sense and the willingness to face reality

 

So you are saying the members of government were saying they wanted to give people arms to protect them from the government, the very guys writing the bill of rights? Not really, they were thinking of the British, that I'll accept. Anyway...

However, that is not what they were saying at all. In fact, if read the transcripts of all the arguments given at the constitutional ratification convention of 1788, they were not concerned with 'protecting citizens from tyranny' at all, they were concerned mostly about state's militia versus 'standing armies' ( which now exists) and how the new congress might usurp the state's militia (in Virginia, specifically, because it was their signature they needed to ratify the new constitution which gave the new congress new powers ) they were worried how the new congress might usurp the state's militia and do the federal governments bidding, taking them away from the states and turning them into standing armies. Why were the worried about that? Well, see, what the north needed for the constitution's ratification was Virginia's signature. One of the prominent plantation owners was Patrick Henry, and if you listen to his oratory during that convention, one of the last given, it was all about slave patrols, he was worried that congress will 'take away their 'negroes' ( he used worse language ), which would happen, inadvertently, if they didn't have their state's militia doing patrols in Virginia noting that Virginia's economy was heavily invested in slavery and plantations.

Read it for yourself:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3124758

 

How many times has it been before the SC and yet to be amended

 

I will allow for an expanded definition of what the minimum should be, if not 2 guns, but it needs to be clarified, and I think Heller did that, no?

What I'm saying is that 'shall not be infringed' goes to the right, and that right does not include owning as many guns of any kind as one wants, fully automatic, weapons of professional war, etc.

 

Your not correcting my argument. 'Shall not be infringed' goes to the 'right'.

Tat is why 'right' was in quotes, for emphasis given that was that the OP was about, which is to say, it was NOT to alter the constitution.

Thanks wasting digital space.

 

That's not at issue, what is at issue is the meaning of 'shall not be infringed', what shall not be infringed? The 'right'.

Nothing beyond it. Why? Because nothing beyond it is in the constitution, which is why Heller came along.

So, what is inclusive of that right should be clarified. I think Heller did, to some extent. But it doesn't mean the gov can't regulate ownership.

 

I find it funny when people try to get completely different messages or hidden meanings out of what is said. It says shall not be infringed. That means if you are thinking about taking that right, then you can **** right off. All the mental gymnastics in the world won’t change what it saysright there in plain English. Every ruling since those words were written down that has infringed on those rights has been unconstitutional. I don’t know why people accept it.

 

Thousands of things are discussed, which are discussed before, your point is?

As to who listens to what, well listen to this:

That's not a counter argument.

 

In a sense, yes, because not all speech is protected by the first amendment, and like the second amendment, it's not an absolute right.

 

It's a slippery slope. To argue we are okay with compromising a little bit in some areas, so why not in another?

 

It doesn't have to be an absolute right in order to be an individual right.

That being said I think the right to own firearms is far too restricted. People should be allowed to own machine guns the reasoning behind them being illegal is stupid.

California and New York should be prosecuted and fine for some of the laws they have enacted on their states. All registries state and local should be considered a felony. In the ATF in its entirety should be dissolved.

 

Yes, but can you name one at the time of ratification? And you’re right that Heller acknowledges that right. However I find that that acknowledgment wrong. Tench Coxe’s quotes and writings were used in that case and I’m not quite sure how that conclusion was made knowing his writings and his (Tench Coxe) esteemed opinion. No where in his writings gives the faintest idea that this is the case. So I tend to believe this judgment has human error involved. If he does give leeway for such decisions I would like to know if I’m missing his writings giving that leeway or if it was all emotion on current events.

 

This situation with guns in America only started becoming a problem when the NRA gave up its core beliefs and sold out to become the voice of the manufacturers masquerading as the consumer. It's only predictable that an organization that became devoted to money eventually bankrupted itself with its internal corruption.

Body counts are no longer the score card, it's the number of incidents of mass shootings. That gun owners like yourself who still parrot the NRA propaganda aren't willing to budge an inch on this issue is what will be the downfall of the very thing they wish to protect. The country is now seriously traumatized, just look at what the hell happened this morning.

These lame worn-out excuses no longer suffice. There will be gun legislation, and the more you resist, the more likely it may become the draconian nightmare that you imagine.

 

No it isn't. You are trying to take guns from people who have never committed a crime and likely never will.

 

I disagree that is at issue. Meaning when you’re talking about what the right is referring to within the context of the document, one has to ask what purpose they had.

Why? Because if their purpose was just so people could hunt or defend their homes, your argument might hold merit. But if their purpose is to give the people the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government, then your interpretation makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Regulation doesn't equal 'infringed'. How so? Because the second amendment only protects the singular right to own firearms.

It speaks nothing of type, kind, conditions of ownership, responsibilities of ownership, etc.

The only thing that would equal 'infringed' is if there was a law that said you can't own a firearm, which was the reason for the Heller decision.

 

No, and you are engaging in what is known as the 'slippery slope logical fallacy'. See the section on this in the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit. This doesn't mean that there are circumstances where a slippery slope argument is valid, but it isn't here. And here's why:

See, 1a is one of the biggest things with SCOTUS, and your slippery slope just isn't going to happen with SCOTUS protecting it.

 

False and I’ll prove it using you.

Let’s assume the right says okay Patricio, we tell you what. We will accept your definition of the second amendment in the constitution and only allow (I forgot what you said exactly but I think this is close) every individual two firearms a shotgun and a rifle UNDER THE CONDITION that there is a constitutional amendment added guaranteeing that there will be ZERO further infringements or regulations upon firearms or ammunition in ANY WAY going into the future. EVEN IF there are multiple atrocities (ie school shootings, mosque shootings, etc) committed with a rifle or shotgun.

Deal?

 

If you read the transcripts of all the arguments given at the constitutional ratification convention of 1788, they were not concerned with 'protecting citizens from tyranny' or even the 'individual right to bear arms' at all, they were concerned mostly about state's militia versus 'standing armies' ( which now exists) and how the new congress might usurp the state's militia (in Virginia, specifically, because it was their signature they needed to ratify the new constitution which gave the new congress new powers ) they were worried how the new congress might usurp the state's militia and do the federal governments bidding, taking them away from the states and turning them into standing armies. Why were the worried about that? Well, see, what the north needed for the constitution's ratification was Virginia's signature. One of the prominent plantation owners was Patrick Henry, and if you listen to his oratory during that convention, one of the last given, it was all about slave patrols, he was worried that congress will 'take away their 'negroes' ( he used worse language ), which would happen, inadvertently or otherwise, if they didn't have their state's militia doing patrols in Virginia noting that Virginia's economy was heavily invested in slavery and plantations.

Read it for yourself:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3124758

 

The anti gun left has been using their verbal diarrhea for decades and has zero care about rights of the abiding people .