No right is absolute. You seem to think 2A is absolute but 'shall not be infringed' does not equal absolute.
I never said religion is limited. But 1A is not absolute. Schenck v United States and Wash DC v Heller state that rights are not absolute. Absence of constraints does not equal 'constraints are unconstitutional'. So, your logic is flawed. Moreover, on 1A, words are not the only aspect of 1A, context and intent are pertinent. Hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment, where the words, per se, are not unconstitutional, but intent and context are pertinent to a conviction. For example, setting fire to a cross posted without consent on a black person's home could be construed as an example of hate speech, which the first amendment does not protect, where each component, the Cross,. the Fire, by themselves devoid of context are not unconstitutional, and wearing a hood with KKK embroidered on it while having a permit to protest in a public space is protected by the first amendment. Context / intent, is everything.
you continually confuse what the second amendment does-it gives us nothing so your claim that what it gives us can be limited. what it does is create a negative restriction on a government that never had any proper power in the first place to regulate private citizens arms while they are acting in their individual capacity. The correct argument is to claim that certain actions by the federal government are either de jure or de facto not INFRINGEMENTS and thus the negative restriction does not apply.
Really? Well, if that's the case it's even MORE significant that you can't produce even ONE clear, unequivocal, direct quote from the debates in Congress that led to the amendment that, according to you, ended up enshrining this "right to own firearms" You can relax now. Your post makes two things clear. One is that you now KNOW that NO discussion that had to do with "owning firearms" took place... and the matter wasn't even mentioned during the debate that ended with the adoption of the 2nd A in Congress. And the other is that you won't admit it in public. So, in a more general sense, this also demonstrates the ability of right-wingers to place reality behind their political agenda. Folk on the left aren't so efficient at doing this. And I guess that the left lacking this ability to deny facts regardless of evidence gives the right some sort of advantage.
They're all quite suitable, it just depends on your circumstances. A barrett .50 cal sniper's rifle is useful for defense, dependent on circumstances. So are various machineguns, explosives, etc. I'm not saying they're usable in any situation, just that there are lawful purposes they can be put to. Further: The 2a is not simply about self defense. Additionally: If you're a proponent of a restriction, cough up the analogous provision from the founding or admit there is none.
Man. Portable. Yes, challenges on various provisions are already working their way through the courts.
You said no right is unlimited. Support your argument by listing the limits that are imposed on the free exercise of religion.
There is no ambiguity in "shall not be infringed". Infringed literally means limit, or undermine. The 2nd Amendment means "shall not be limited, or undermined". You're right that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute, in that murder, assault, reckless discharge, brandishing, etc. are illegal.
It's absolutely your logic. You insist that owning a firearm requires membership in the militia. You also demand that the members of the militia be regulated in what weapons they can own and where they can possess them. Ultimately, you don't want them to be able to own any weapons at all.
Show us the ruling that says "no right is absolute" and how that ruling has been applied to ANY other enumerated right in the Constitution.
OK fair enough, I disagree but there is a good argument on both sides. Your's is that they are bearable arms. Mine is a bit more based on the underlying natural right of self defense and weapons designed to attack areas or objects are not self defensive. But your position is far more reasonable than those who either deny an individual right or pretend that anything more sophisticated than a musket or a single shot 22 rifle is not covered
and when Scalia made that point (DICTA designed to keep an erratic Justice Kennedy from being swayed by Breyer and Stevens who lobbied Kennedy with claims that scalia wanted to wipe away federal bans on felons owning arms or state bans on carrying concealed without permits etc) he was mainly talking about 1) state restrictions (the Second had YET to be incorporated) and 2) the unconstitutional but long standing GCA of 1968.
I guy I represented back before the idiotic HUGHES Amendment made a M2 from a Registered Side Plate! He was a Title II manufacturer mainly specializing in movie props. He was offering it for 30K It was a beast
That's just the barrel and the receiver, not w/ammo I know some WW2 reenactors that have registered side plates for M2's
Its not 'mine'. That's what the 2a says. Prima facie all bearable arms are covered, full stop. Area or objects: See Marque and Reprisal clause which clearly contemplates a populace only needing naked permission to start attacking enemy ships of the line. Historically, that's how the United States also USED the Marque and Reprisal Clause. Our privateers were so good at their trade, and so well armed, that the Euros got together and had a convention wherein they declared that privateering would now be considered piracy, even though they initially came up with privateering in the first place as a self help method of resolving conflicts short of open war. Literally. So, no, the 2a isn't limited to self defense objects, and being able to tag through armor isn't a limitation built in. Quite the opposite. You can stop it at nuke, chem, or bio weapons, because those weapons inherently target an area over a period of time far in excess of actual needs. You drop a nuke, you poison the land and anything that moves through it for decades. Bio weapons go off the reservation essentially immediately, and chem weapons leave a residue that can likewise poison the land (or waters) and anything that moves through it. But conventional explosives? Don't really have that problem. So if you want to prove that doesn't fly, show me an instance of a letter of marque being used to authorize the purchase of cannon. Hint: That's not how it worked, but that's what you'd need to beat the text, history and tradition.
that the government-at one time -did not ban something is not really proof that the second amendment was the reason
The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Note the 1939 Miller ruling for example. Unfortunately the lower courts were disregarding the Constitution and the Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court had to crack down on them. And they had to crack down on the lower courts again with the Bruen ruling. And will probably have to crack down yet again in the future. The only thing Heller got wrong was to not say that everyone has the right to have grenades and machine guns. The 1939 Miller ruling confirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and also ruled on the scope of the right. Under Heller, the scope of the right is defined by Strict Scrutiny. Under Bruen the scope of the right is broader yet. That does not change the fact that a law against machine guns would not pass muster under any correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. Bruen was necessary because the lower courts were disregarding Heller. Just as Heller was necessary because the lower courts were disregarding Miller. That's not an either-or issue. Being tied to the militia does not mean that it isn't an individual right. Being tied to the militia just means that everyone has the right to have military weapons. Miller 1939. Heller was necessary merely because the lower courts were disregarding Miller.
you pretend that there is some constitutional authority for the federal government to get around the tenth amendment and the negative restriction in the second amendment. Your argument is based on what? the fact that we have a dishonest federal government empowered by the dishonest FDR regime?
yep. there had been a plethora of district and appellate judges who ignored the text of the second and the holding of Cruikshank--most were FDR appointees and later, weak minded conservatives who were a slave to bullshit precedent
Noting in Miller suggests the 'individual right'. If anything, it suggests the opposite, given that the ruling was that a sawed off shotgun was not normal use by the militia so it's not protected by the second amendment. Either way, there is no explicit language one way or the other. The lower courts had nothing to disregard in Miller. That is why SCOTUS decided to settle the issue, rather recently, in a party line 5/4 vote, which hardly makes for a strong precedent.
IF your incorrect interpretation of MILLER was actually true, why wasn't Miller's position dismissed on STANDING?
