G
Understanding the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Well, how do they trace a gun with registration? At best they can determine caliber and barrel length from a ballistics test.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yeah yeah yeah. seriously though, you do realize that registration leads to confiscation, don't you?
The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers the people possess and only lend to government. All powers not conferred to the federal government are retained by the people to either be granted to empower state governments or further retained as rights of the people. Included among those fully retained rights, under federal and many state governments, is the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms free of any conditioning or qualification.
The citizen's right to arms does not exist because the 2nd Amendment is there or from any particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The right exists because no power was ever granted to the federal government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.
IOW, there was nothing for the government to "give back" or "grant" to the citizen via the 2nd Amendment because the government cannot grant that which it never possessed . . . Likewise there is nothing for the government to "take back" by repealing the 2nd Amendment with the intention of disarming of the citizenry.
If one wants to really "understand" the 2nd Amendment, consider that all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government the exercise of powers never granted to it.
The citizen's right to arms does not exist because the 2nd Amendment is there or from any particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The right exists because no power was ever granted to the federal government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.
IOW, there was nothing for the government to "give back" or "grant" to the citizen via the 2nd Amendment because the government cannot grant that which it never possessed . . . Likewise there is nothing for the government to "take back" by repealing the 2nd Amendment with the intention of disarming of the citizenry.
If one wants to really "understand" the 2nd Amendment, consider that all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government the exercise of powers never granted to it.
Not really,....its more like strawman bullshit....as is the spinning of bullshit in post 24......that mis-states what the US Constitution is and does, and the Bill of Rights....
Last edited:
LOL. Is there any chance you could crib together something that could be considered a reasoned rebuttal to what I wrote or any reasoned oppositional statement that explains your understanding of what "the US Constitution is and does, and the Bill of Rights...."??????
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
SmarterthanYou
rebel
reference your little captioned pic, why 1871? can you explain that?
Establishment of the National Rifle Association . . .
I suppose you think Bravo is a liberal anti-gun nut too?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
He doesn't have to be a liberal to be a moron.
"This message is hidden because Rune is on your ignore list."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
huh, learn something new every day. thanks.
Promise?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
What the Second Amendment says
And the Supreme Court has said for over 135 years that inspecting the 2nd Amendment for guidance on what the citizen's right is, who it belongs to and its scope, is not legitimate.
--------------------------
------------------------
Why do you advocate reading conditions, qualifications and restrictions from words upon which the right in no manner depends?
The citizen's right to arms doesn't exist because the 2nd Amendment is there, or from any particular "individual right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
The citizen possess the right to keep and bear arms because the We the People never conferred a shred of power that would permit the government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.
All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government the exercise of powers never granted to it.
--------------------------
- "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
PRESSER V. ILLINOIS[URL="http://supreme.justia.com/us/116/252/case.html"], 116 U. S. 252 (1886)[/URL]
(paraphrasing an earlier decision, US v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876))
(paraphrasing an earlier decision, US v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876))
------------------------
Why do you advocate reading conditions, qualifications and restrictions from words upon which the right in no manner depends?
The citizen's right to arms doesn't exist because the 2nd Amendment is there, or from any particular "individual right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
The citizen possess the right to keep and bear arms because the We the People never conferred a shred of power that would permit the government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.
All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government the exercise of powers never granted to it.
"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
". . . [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . " MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . . DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
". . . [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . " MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . . DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)
Besides the incompatibility with the founding principles, Constitutional rights theory, history and the legal record, any reading of the 2nd Amendment's dependent clause as modifying the independent clause fails as an exercise in English grammar.
The independent clause can stand on its own without the dependent clause and remains true and actionable without any regard to what the dependent clause actually says:
--------
Either way, Steve is taking the dirt nap at sunset.
A dependent clause just can not be read (or interpreted) as creating an iron clad rule or condition:
--------
Deciding whether or not an idea is truly bad or not, can not really depend upon if all things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered because that endeavor can never be completed.
Let's try another simple one:
--------
--------
Can classes only be canceled if the teacher is sick?
What if he is really lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; will classes be held?
Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill, even for just the sniffles?
Let's see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions onto the independent, restrictive clause in sentences grammatically constructed similar to the 2nd Amendment with an inactive, dependent, declaratory clause preceding the actionable, independent, restrictive clause:
--------
--------
Can the people only drive on this governmentally maintained road system?
Can the people only use their automobiles to commute to and from work?
Can the people only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?
Can retired persons or "stay at home" Moms or the unemployed or the independently wealthy be "deautoed" because they do not work?
Can people be prosecuted for taking a scenic route to and from work; is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?"
Has a mandate been created that a governmental entity build and always maintain the "well maintained road system" and that system must exist for the people to be "allowed" to drive?
Let's examine another, this one of near identical construction as the 2nd Amendment:
--------
--------
Can people who are not registered and active voters have their right to keep and read books "infringed?"
Can people considered not well educated, including members of the "electorate," have their right to keep and read books infringed?
Are only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" to be owned and read?
Can access to particular books deemed to not directly be "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" or deemed to not directly promote a, "well educated electorate" be restricted with permits / licenses / tax stamps?
Does the right of the people to keep and read books only exist for them to be well educated voters and to perpetuate the free state? Can all other creation, aquisition and uses of books be restricted, qualified and conditioned and books themselves that do not meet that criteria, be banned by government?
Hopefully you answered no to all those questions.
If you did then I must ask . . .
Why do you read such nonsense into the 2nd Amendment?
The independent clause can stand on its own without the dependent clause and remains true and actionable without any regard to what the dependent clause actually says:
--------
Being a horrible, violent criminal, Steve shall be put to death at sunset.
Being a wonderful, generous person, Steve shall be put to death at sunset.
--------Being a wonderful, generous person, Steve shall be put to death at sunset.
Either way, Steve is taking the dirt nap at sunset.
A dependent clause just can not be read (or interpreted) as creating an iron clad rule or condition:
--------
All things considered, that is a really bad idea.
--------
Deciding whether or not an idea is truly bad or not, can not really depend upon if all things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered because that endeavor can never be completed.
Let's try another simple one:
--------
The teacher being ill, all classes will be canceled today.
--------
Can classes only be canceled if the teacher is sick?
What if he is really lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; will classes be held?
Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill, even for just the sniffles?
Let's see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions onto the independent, restrictive clause in sentences grammatically constructed similar to the 2nd Amendment with an inactive, dependent, declaratory clause preceding the actionable, independent, restrictive clause:
--------
A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.
--------
Can the people only drive on this governmentally maintained road system?
Can the people only use their automobiles to commute to and from work?
Can the people only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?
Can retired persons or "stay at home" Moms or the unemployed or the independently wealthy be "deautoed" because they do not work?
Can people be prosecuted for taking a scenic route to and from work; is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?"
Has a mandate been created that a governmental entity build and always maintain the "well maintained road system" and that system must exist for the people to be "allowed" to drive?
Let's examine another, this one of near identical construction as the 2nd Amendment:
--------
A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
--------
Can people who are not registered and active voters have their right to keep and read books "infringed?"
Can people considered not well educated, including members of the "electorate," have their right to keep and read books infringed?
Are only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" to be owned and read?
Can access to particular books deemed to not directly be "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" or deemed to not directly promote a, "well educated electorate" be restricted with permits / licenses / tax stamps?
Does the right of the people to keep and read books only exist for them to be well educated voters and to perpetuate the free state? Can all other creation, aquisition and uses of books be restricted, qualified and conditioned and books themselves that do not meet that criteria, be banned by government?
Hopefully you answered no to all those questions.
If you did then I must ask . . .
Why do you read such nonsense into the 2nd Amendment?
Last edited:
