Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

And clearly you believe it should not be taken literally.

 

No, I think it should be taken literally.

 

lots of them claimed the DC gun ban was constitutional because its what they WANTED. many legal scholars aren't exactly intellectually honest. BTW can you find a legal scholar who argues that the FDR expansion of the CC was actual an honest interpretation of the Commerce Clause or the intent of the founders?

NO-rather they say-MOVE ON its ACCEPTED AND WE CANNOT CHANGE IT

that is what you get from those scholars.


I noticed in all the years I have debated anti gun posters none of them can make even a cursory argument that the CC was intended to say prevent a man in Ohio from making a machine gun for use in Ohio. But the dishonest government claims that ban is justified by the CC. its a joke, all the legal scholars I have dealt with know it but they say-HEY its been in place since 1942-we cannot overturn it and besides (most of us being liberal) like that the federal government can ban machine guns even if the founders never intended that power

- - - Updated - - -

I do too and in a proper nation, the politicians and judges who infringe upon that right would be indicted for treason and/or impeached for violating their oaths

 

You cite all kinds of infringements and the say ....well.....they are not really infringements. Sorry...but they are according to the literal definition of the word

 

Most people don't what to deal with the consequences of interpreting the Second Amendment as an unrestricted, individual right.

"Unlike the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, the language of the Second Amendment is absolute: 'shall not be infringed.' If read as an individual right, criminals, convicted felons, pirates, or revolutionaries could all be armed in the District of Columbia or in the federal territories. Pirates could load up their ships on the Potomac River and sail out to sea. Hunters could trample through Yellowstone or some other national park, guns in hand. 85 Anyone might board a plane, gun in hand, or carry a weapon into Congress, the White House, or any other federal building. After all, what better place to exercise your Second Amendment rights, than in front of your representatives or even in the courts of justice? As absurd as this would be, such people could not be 'disarmed,' at least until they began to commit a crime, if the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms. Taken to its logical extreme, we might argue that just as a federal felon, serving time, has some First Amendment rights to press, petition, and religion, or Eighth Amendment rights not to be subjected to cruel punishment, so too, a prisoner might claim some Second Amendment right. The Fifth Amendment allows the taking of liberty under some circumstances, while the Second, if read as an individual right, does not."
http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3291&context=cklawreview

 

As I said....yours is a position few hold. But you are entitled to your opinion

 

the bill of rights was never intended to apply to the states. I believe the founders only had the power to create a federal government and couldn't tell the states what to do. That all changed when southern states constantly violated obvious rights of freed slaves so the 14th amendment applied the Bill of rights to the states and that meant from then on, the police powers of the states were going to be subjected to a test by federal courts when the bill of rights was incorporated to the states. Ideally that should have never happened. Ideally, the several states (now fifty of them) would have enforced their own constitutions that would have prevented state governments from interfering with the natural rights the founders cemented into our federal law with the BOR.

 

Again few legal experts believe this

- - - Updated - - -

Well said

 

that pre-Heller article has several flaws. 1) constitutional rights-including freedom of assembly and freedom of speech can be lost through due process of law. the most fundamental rights-life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are constantly curtailed without violating the constitution through due process of criminal law. so the fear of armed felons is idiotic

secondly, most gun banners only try to argue what the second amendment doesn't prevent rather than PROPERLY focusing on what the CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY empowers the federal government to do. that is because they can never make a real sound argument for federal power to restrict what private citizens own and use, buy and possess, in their own states

 

What I said is that "shall not be infringed" should be taken literally, but that what the framers meant by "the people" is loyal, law-abiding people who are not using firearms to rob and murder. "The people" are the people who use firearms for legitimate purposes. I think this is common sense.

 

The people were white land owners. That much is crystal clear

 

If that's what they thought, it doesn't matter. They didn't write that into the Constitution.

 

The Second Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed without due process of law." It simply says "shall not be infringed." So, apparently, there are no circumstances under which it may be infringed.

 

They also did not write into the constitution an exception for felons. You are making my case

 

Were non-land owners, women, or non-whites forbidden to own firearms?

 

Yes in practice a slave caught with a gun was punished

 

Look. In the 21st Century, "the People" doesn't mean "white landowners". "The People", as we all agree in the present, disregards land ownership or race. That does not mean it necessarily follows that it doesn't still mean that "the people" are law-abiding loyal people who use firearms for legitimate purposes, just as it was intended in the 18th Century.

I am stating common sense.

 

In the 21st century almost all legal experts agree some infringements are constitutional.

 

Like what?

 

Background checks, restrictions on the right to BEAR arms in public, restrictions on where you can have a gun....etc. and many more

 

he didn't say it, he quoted it and it is full of mistakes. why don't you tell me how many legal experts you actually have had discussions with. How many panels you have been on involving other legal experts. How many lectures you have presented at ABA accredited law schools on the second amendment?

 

we who actually are honest about the constitution agree that the state governments can have some powers to do that

 

You are going personal again. Do you deny any statement I made is true?

 

so what part of the first amendment says that the right of assembly is subject to being infringed through imprisonment? Oops

 

Those are infringements.