Question on guns

[Flash]

5 to 4. It should be looked at again. The impact of guns in America has demonstrated the horrors of such a shitty decision. The justices should be able to add up the needless deaths and outrageous carnage.

Why? What does that decision allow or prevent that couldn't be done before (other than a complete ban of handguns in a federal district). Any regulations that were permissible before that decision are still permissible today. Almost no jurisdictions would actually ban weapons, so the decision affected almost nothing. There was nothing keeping states or local jurisdictions from banning weapons before 2010 and none did so (with limited exceptions applying to blacks).

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Exactly, it is the "prefatory clause," the condition required to make what comes after it legitimate

Amazing part is that for over two hundred years the Supreme Court, conservative and Liberal Courts, never directly ruled on the Second Amendmemt because they could not get beyond the "prefatory clause," but the Roberts Court, swayed by Scalia, conviently just skipped over it, accepting the prior Courts' inability as their justification

Bottom line is that no Constitutional right is absolute, none, have never been, and will never be, a fact the gun people just refuse to accept

well THAT is absolute horseshit. you should actually read the debates and documentation that congress had when they implemented the NFA of 34. They KNEW that the 2nd Amendment prohibited regulation, but they bullshitted the american people using the commerce clause, mainly because people are stupid. and if rights are not absolute, then they aren't rights, they are privileges. something the founders rebelled against.

 

[CFM]

The 5th Amendment says nothing felons. If you say Congress can limit felon ownership of weapons through due process (passing a law), it can also pass other regulations

You're still confused. You think limiting a convicted felon that went through due process for a crime he/she committed is the same as limiting someone that has done nothing wrong simply because you don't like what they own is the same thing. You're equating those that committed a crime with those that haven't done a thing wrong.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Try learning the context in which it was written.

Try learning the decisions related to the 2nd.

something you have yet to do.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You are telling me there are no federal or state regulations on firearms? Those are all "infringements" that you say cannot exist.

all kinds of infringements exist on ALL kinds of rights. That does not mean that they are constitutional, just that you accept tyranny of the majority.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Can you legally own a machine gun made after 1986?

and the question you should ask yourself is WHAT PART of the constitution does the government have to implement a cut off date for machine gun possession?

 

[domer76]

Is the whole militia argument still relevant since Heller ruled it is an individual right?

That is correct. It has been rendered irrelevant. But the argument that these guys keep effing up is original intent. And that original intent is clear.

 

[Flash]

You're still confused. You think limiting a convicted felon that went through due process for a crime he/she committed is the same as limiting someone that has done nothing wrong simply because you don't like what they own is the same thing. You're equating those that committed a crime with those that haven't done a thing wrong.

I understand what you are saying and see your point, but you are trying to make provisions in the 5th Amendment modify rights in the 2nd. I think such modifications would be included in the 2nd. If so, that makes the 2nd the only right in the Bill of Rights that can be restricted through the 5th. 5th Amendment due process cannot be used to restrict speech, press, religion, or any other rights in 1-10.

 

[Flash]

That is correct. It has been rendered irrelevant. But the argument that these guys keep effing up is original intent. And that original intent is clear.

It is not that clear to me if you read the competing arguments in Heller about that intent. They are both convincing to me. But my point is that nothing in Heller changes the ability of government to regulate weapons.

 

[domer76]

something you have yet to do.

Here’s the way it is. Until you have the balls to walk into that courtroom with that pissant little popgun of yours to prove that your cretinous interpretation of the 2nd is correct, you’re nothing more than another clueless, loudmouthed, barrel-stroking faggot.

But we knew that anyway.

 

[domer76]

It is not that clear to me if you read the competing arguments in Heller about that intent. They are both convincing to me. But my point is that nothing in Heller changes the ability of government to regulate weapons.

You’re correct. Nothing does. In fact, Scalia, in the majority opinion, made that very clear.

I did read the competing arguments and am in agreement with the minority. But, of course, that opinion did not prevail.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here’s the way it is. Until you have the balls to walk into that courtroom with that pissant little popgun of yours to prove that your cretinous interpretation of the 2nd is correct, you’re nothing more than another clueless, loudmouthed, barrel-stroking faggot.

But we knew that anyway.

blah blah blah blah fucking blah blah. we all know you're a fucking statist bitch that LOVES to see people downtrodden and have their rights denied. so fuck off with your bullshit anti constitutional constipation and shut the fuck up you weaselly assed coward.

 

[Flash]

You’re correct. Nothing does. In fact, Scalia, in the majority opinion, made that very clear.

I did read the competing arguments and am in agreement with the minority. But, of course, that opinion did not prevail.

Some posters seem to think that because someone is arguing the Constitution allows regulation of weapons means they are gun control advocates. They make assumptions that are not contained in the post.

Wasn't your agreement with the minority confirmation bias?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America — Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible. — Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. — Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1

The writings of scholars who have written on the subject are virtually united on the point that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not simply the state national guards. — PROFESSOR GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS



No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights. — EDMUND A. OPITZ

 

[domer76]

Some posters seem to think that because someone is arguing the Constitution allows regulation of weapons means they are gun control advocates. They make assumptions that are not contained in the post.

Wasn't your agreement with the minority confirmation bias?

Confirmation bias? Perhaps.

But, as I read about the origins of the 2nd, including the original wording by Madison that included a conscientious objector provision, one cannot draw any conclusion other than the context of the militia. "Bear arms", at that time, did not mean "Annie get your gun". It meant arms in a military context, not what the NRA has morphed it into.

However, as much as I think Scalia was full of shit on so many issues, I agree with him on the portion of that decision where he states that Heller does not mean any gun, any time, any place.

 

[domer76]

blah blah blah blah fucking blah blah. we all know you're a fucking statist bitch that LOVES to see people downtrodden and have their rights denied. so fuck off with your bullshit anti constitutional constipation and shut the fuck up you weaselly assed coward.

Loud-mouthed, barrel-stroking faggot. All mouth, but too chickenshit to back up his claims.

 

[Flash]

Confirmation bias? Perhaps.

But, as I read about the origins of the 2nd, including the original wording by Madison that included a conscientious objector provision, one cannot draw any conclusion other than the context of the militia. "Bear arms", at that time, did not mean "Annie get your gun". It meant arms in a military context, not what the NRA has morphed it into.

However, as much as I think Scalia was full of shit on so many issues, I agree with him on the portion of that decision where he states that Heller does not mean any gun, any time, any place.

Even if we agree that any 2nd Amendment right to own weapons only applies to militia membership, that does not mean Americans do not still have the same freedoms to own those weapons. It only means they do not have a constitutional right to do so and government can choose to prohibit those freedoms.

However, government does not choose to prohibit those freedoms in most cases. Those jurisdictions that favor more regulation (7 states prohibit assault weapons) are free to do so. Most others are choosing to expand carry laws. So, political decisions determine our level of gun regulation and not constitutional interpretation.

Even without the NRA citizen opposition would prevent stricter regulation. Legislators are more scared of voters than NRA lobbyists because that is how they win or lose elections.

 

[domer76]

Even if we agree that any 2nd Amendment right to own weapons only applies to militia membership, that does not mean Americans do not still have the same freedoms to own those weapons. It only means they do not have a constitutional right to do so and government can choose to prohibit those freedoms.

However, government does not choose to prohibit those freedoms in most cases. Those jurisdictions that favor more regulation (7 states prohibit assault weapons) are free to do so. Most others are choosing to expand carry laws. So, political decisions determine our level of gun regulation and not constitutional interpretation.

Even without the NRA citizen opposition would prevent stricter regulation. Legislators are more scared of voters than NRA lobbyists because that is how they win or lose elections.

You and I don't disagree. The right to own a weapon is not in dispute. I have never made the claim that one has to be a member of a militia to possess a weapon. The back and forth I have are with posters who wish to interpret the Constitution and BofR in their original intent. I am not an originalist but am framing the argument in THEIR context. Certainly, the founders never required militia membership to possess arms. But the 2nd was clearly written in the context of the militia.

The other argument the pro-gunners propose is the infringement issue, which you have addresses, as if the right to bear arms is limitless. Of course it is not. But extremists like smarterthanyou are unable to understand that. Their response is the always predictable "tyrants in black robes".

You and I will disagree about gun lobbyists such as the NRA. Even after such tragedies as Sandy Hook and Las Vegas, when public sentiment was to do something, dialogue faded fast because "it was too early to talk about gun measures". Who was behind that logic?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Here’s the way it is. Until you have the balls to walk into that courtroom with that pissant little popgun of yours to prove that your cretinous interpretation of the 2nd is correct, you’re nothing more than another clueless, loudmouthed, barrel-stroking faggot.

But we knew that anyway.

And until you have the balls to try and physically take someone's firearm away from them, by yourself, all your talk is just you flapping your cock sucker.

 

[CFM]

I understand what you are saying and see your point, but you are trying to make provisions in the 5th Amendment modify rights in the 2nd. I think such modifications would be included in the 2nd. If so, that makes the 2nd the only right in the Bill of Rights that can be restricted through the 5th. 5th Amendment due process cannot be used to restrict speech, press, religion, or any other rights in 1-10.

I'm not trying to do it. The founders DID it. They were willing to make the distinction I made and one with which you understand and see the point. 5th amendment due process was recently used related to a bakery in Oregon that refused to bake a cake for a fag wedding. A COURT ruled that the owners' claim of religious freedom granted under the 1st amendment didn't come up to the level of a state law which said the owners couldn't refuse. In essence, that court, through due process limited their 1st amendment rights. In fact, any time such an issue goes through court, due process of the 5th amendment is used.