Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

And you have admitted your wacky ideas are contrary to the vast majority of the greatest legal minds in this country. I should take your legal opinion over theirs? Hilarious

 

rights are granted by the constitution.

I'm not a gun banner. I'm just pointing out we have certain rights, granted by the constitution.

if the right wasn't enumerated in the constitution, there would be no right to keep and bear arms.

I agree, and never stated otherwise.

there's no such thing as natural rights. Only legal/constitutional rights.

 

I have yet to see you post any proof of your claims and we have already established you don't know any great legal minds or understand their works.

- - - Updated - - -

claiming there is no natural rights is irrelevant given the founders intended to cement those rights into our jurisprudential framework with the bill of rights.

the constitution grants no rights-the government cannot interfere on rights that it was never given the power to infringe or intrude upon.

 

Have you presented proof that a majority of legal experts agree with your position? We know at the very least the majority of Supreme Court justices for decades have agreed with me. Do you deny this?

 

well no, it's not irrelevant. You can go and claim natural right to anything you want in court, but if you can't demonstrate a constitutional basis for that right, you're going to lose. The concept of natural rights is merely a philosophical ideal. Rights are codified into law.

US rights are granted by the constitution. without being codified into law, it doesn't exist, except in philosophical discussions.

 

I must agree

 

how would the federal government have any power over our ability to do anything unless the constitution granted the government that power

Do I have a right to dress as I do because the government granted me that right or because the federal government was never given any power to say otherwise

 

people who understand the constitution and what the founders believed correctly note

the people, at the federal level-can do whatever they want unless the federal government was properly given the power to restrict such actions

statists and those who are not educated in constitutional theory claim we can only do that which the government says we can

must gun banners are in that second group.

 

I don't understand the question? The constitution spells out a framework and purpose of government. It also grants certain rights to citizens, and certain restricted rights to non citizens on US soil.

you don't have a right to dress any way you want. the government can place restrictions on you, or more accurately, require you to cover certain parts of yourself while in public.

 

you can maintain your profound understanding of the constitution all you want. The courts have and will continue showing you otherwise.

I am not a gun banner. Quite the opposite actually. I just understand constitutional law, and how it differs from philosophical concepts like "natural rights".

 

so do you agree or disagree that the government was set up by the founders to only have powers delegated to it. and thus, the bill of rights was merely reiterating that the federal government was never given power to restrict those rights

you do understand that the federalists did not see the BOR as necessary because they noted that the constitution did not give the new government any powers to restrict the rights listed in the bill of rights

easy question-yes or no

 

The people in your group are a tiny minority of legal experts

 

Without going back through the debates on the bill of rights and the second amendment, I see no reason why it shouldn't. Granted, back in those days they were talking muskets, flintlocks and the like. Perhaps what they meant by arms is the key. Was arms more or less shoulder fired weapons or the occasional pistol? Not including artillery or the day.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hal-lin.html

 

the bill of rights codifies certain rights to the citizenry, or people. That list was expanded on through subsequent amendments.

which is irrelevant to the actual law.

not a yes or no question, but I answered it appropriately above.

 

When you start interpreting what arms they meant you admit it is no longer intended to be taken literally

 

fail-I see your answers as contrarian nonsense. but thanks, I won't bother to take this any further. the fact is, you clearly don't understand the entire foundation of the constitution

- - - Updated - - -

that shows a complete lack of understanding about the entire second amendment and the constitution. the federal government was never intended any jurisdiction over private citizens acting within their own sovereign states.

 

You are simply presenting your legal opinion which very few legal experts agree with. Even you agree with that

 

which you are entitled to having that opinion. My answers, however, are of course correct, as evidenced by any number of court rulings.

of course I do. You just have no understanding of constitutional law. Natural rights do not exist. they are a philosophical concept. the rights we enjoy, are codified into law. If they weren't codified into law, they wouldn't exist.

- - - Updated - - -

and then the 14th amendment incorporated the states. do you really not understand what amendments to the constitution do?

 

Possible, but then there were arms, sidearms, rifles, muskets etc in those days which were referred to as arms. Then there was the artillery, howitzers etc. which weren't.

 

Let's see your evidence

 

You are correct-let me expand that. the first place we have to look is where in Article One Section 8 was the federal government given any power to determine what PRIVATE citizens acting within their own several sovereign states could now. and there is absolutely no wording or even mere insinuations of any such power

Then we go to the second amendment which, like the other amendments, was a blanket negative restriction on the federal government-telling it that it had no jurisdiction in areas where it was never delegated any proper power to begin with. Yet the Second amendment is a bit more "limited" than what was covered by the tenth amendment because "ARMS" within the meaning of the second meant arms a citizen would normally keep and BEAR. artillery pieces, howitzers and bombs were normally not weapons a citizen would KEEP AND BEAR

the gun banners in the courts have always started with what the second amendment allows, which of course is a dishonest approach because the starting place should always be WHAT POWER DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE and if it has the power, is that power later restricted or modified by an amendment. Of course the federal government never had the power to regulate privately owned small arms

- - - Updated - - -

He' right, and why do you demand of him what you never ever produce as proof in support of your silly assertions?

 

I can easily bear a suitcase nuke. So that must then be covered

 

wrong for several reasons

its ordnance not an arm

it has international and interstate repercussions which would actually give congress the power to regulate it since its use or threat of use actually does jeopardize interstate commerce.

the second amendment was intended to guarantee a natural right the founders believed were endowed by "the creator" meaning rights men had from the dawn of human time. That right was the right of self defense. and a Nuke is not something that even the most silly anti gun extremist can claim is useful for individual self defense.

and since you want to ban firearms its really dishonest for you to PRETEND that nukes are constitutionally protected.

the nuke argument is one of those really silly arguments that gun banners have used for decades and have constantly been destroyed on. Its as stupid as saying the second amendment only was intended to protect the arms available in the 1790s

you really don't help your jihad against our freedom by dredging up stupid arguments that have been found wanting for at least 30 years

 

The second amendment never mentions self defense. Another legal interpretation. Nuclear arms are called nuclear arms. You are making all kinds of interpretations. You are making my point that the second can not be taken literally

 

LOL I cannot help it if you are ignorant of the founders' writings, speeches and belief. I cannot help it if you want to dishonestly claim nukes are the type of arms the founders were intending to protect with the second. You are making my point that you really are here to argue but you really have no interest in learning


http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ent-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense

Contemporary debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment—is it a collective right or an individual right?—would have been incomprehensible to the Founders. Everyone at the time agreed that the federal government had no power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Contemporary debates for the most part also fail to address the essential question of why the right to bear arms was enshrined in the Constitution in the first place. The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life. The Second Amendment therefore does not grant the people a new right; it merely recognizes the inalienable natural right to self-defense.