2nd Amendment zealots think the Constitution was written just for them.

[mrjurrs]

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct is flat out incorrect.

"The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason. Gun regulation and gun ownership have always existed side by side in American history. The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to enacting sensible gun laws. The failure to do so is not the Constitution’s fault; it is ours.

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.

theconversation.com

 

[SkyChief]

2nd Amendment zealots think the Constitution was written just for them.

The Second Amendment was not written for gun zealots - - the Bill of Rights (of which the Second Amendment is included) was written for CONGRESS - - it tells them which ten Rights they cannot mess with.

Of course Congress still passes Laws that infringe on our Constitutional Rights, but this is no fault of the Framers or the Constitution itself - - rather, it is the fault of the lawmakers who choose to ignore the words "shall not be infringed". They are to blame. They are not accountable for passing Laws which infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The Second Amendment was not written for gun zealots - - the Bill of Rights (of which the Second Amendment is included) was written for CONGRESS - - it tells them which ten Rights they cannot mess with.

Of course Congress still passes Laws which infringe on our Constitutional Rights, but this is no fault of the Framers or the Constitution itself - - rather, it is the fault of the lawmakers who choose to ignore the words "shall not be infringed". They are to blame. They are not accountable for passing Laws which infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms.

How is your right to keep and bear arms currently infringed?

 

[multivita-man]

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct is flat out incorrect.

"The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason. Gun regulation and gun ownership have always existed side by side in American history. The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to enacting sensible gun laws. The failure to do so is not the Constitution’s fault; it is ours.

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.

theconversation.com

Our modern "understanding" of the 2nd Amendment is fiction, thanks to the gun lobby and thanks to The Federalist Society. The 2nd Amendment was not written with a focus on arming individuals; it was written to ensure that states had militias comprised of trained and armed citizen soldiers who could contribute to the defense of a free state, as it says in the amendment's language itself.

The Court decisions that have been rendered on this issue are, unsurprisingly, as we've seen in their recent abortion rulings, remarkably ahistorical and the work of ideologically creative writing at the hands of some of the most activist judges in American history. They are legally valid only because the lower courts, state legal systems, the Congress, state governments, and the Executive branch choose to continue respecting their precedents. But they're pushing it.

 

[SkyChief]

How is your right to keep and bear arms currently infringed?

Nearly every gun control Law or statute is an infringement (at least to some degree) on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment explicitly states that the Right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

There is zero wiggle-room for small or minor infringements.

 

[stealthycat]

"2nd Amendment zealots think the Constitution was written just for them."

I dare you to show me one pro-gun person who's said that.

I doubt you cannot, which really means this thread is worthless

 

[OrphanSlug]

Forget it, being practical about the 2nd Amendment is out the window. Has been for several decades now. Even the NRA has abandoned what would be considered "reasonable" today for a very extreme position as opposed to many that look at items in that list from the OP's article as not going far enough.

The extremes are doing too much of the talking, therefor what would be sensible gun regulation the majority of the public could agree to has been discarded. A long way back.

 

[brianpatrick]

Given how many guns the zealots sell to the Mexican cartels it may have been written for Mexican gangsters too

 

[mrjurrs]

Nearly every gun control Law or statute is an infringement (at least to some degree) on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment explicitly states that the Right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

There is zero wiggle-room for small or minor infringements.

None of our rights are absolute. None.

Name one that is...

 

[multivita-man]

Nearly every gun control Law or statute is an infringement (at least to some degree) on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment explicitly states that the Right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

Ignoring the rest of the amendment's language, I see. Fortunately for your side, you've had some really ape-shit activist friends in high places these last two decades.

The Supreme Court wrote their own fictitious history and changed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which is the height of irony coming from "originalists". In reality, as we're going to see with the Colorado and Maine ballot cases, these justices are originalists and textualists when it suits them. When it comes to the 14th Amendment, Section 3, they're originalists; the 2nd Amendment? Not so much.

 

[SkyChief]

None of our rights are absolute. None.

Name one that is...

The Second Amendment is absolute. The words "shall not be infringed" make it absolute. It is the only Right that is qualified with the words "shall not be infringed".

 

[mrjurrs]

"2nd Amendment zealots think the Constitution was written just for them."

I dare you to show me one pro-gun person who's said that.

I doubt you cannot, which really means this thread is worthless

"The Second Amendment explicitly states that the Right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed"."

from this thread...
How would a national gun database infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[DrewPaul]

You mean it wasn't written just for me?

 

[Integrityrespec]

The Second Amendment was not written for gun zealots - - the Bill of Rights (of which the Second Amendment is included) was written for CONGRESS - - it tells them which ten Rights they cannot mess with.

Of course Congress still passes Laws that infringe on our Constitutional Rights, but this is no fault of the Framers or the Constitution itself - - rather, it is the fault of the lawmakers who choose to ignore the words "shall not be infringed". They are to blame. They are not accountable for passing Laws which infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't like the 2nd then there is a procedure for changing it. Try that.

 

[stealthycat]

"The Second Amendment explicitly states that the Right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed"."

from this thread...
How would a national gun database infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

because a radical Democrats could pass a law saying if you voted Trump you were an insurrectionist and boom!

your labeled and your guns taken

no thank you - target violent people, don't target me

 

[mrjurrs]

because a radical Democrats could pass a law saying if you voted Trump you were an insurrectionist and boom!

your labeled and your guns taken

no thank you - target violent people, don't target me

Slippery slopes are an indication of an argument without substance.

Almost all gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent...until they are not.

 

[stealthycat]

Slippery slopes are an indication of an argument without substance.

Almost all gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent...until they are not.

as are people who drink alcohol and drive cars are not drunk drivers until they are
or a knife owners are law abiding and non-violent until they are

no, no more laws that target gun owners

keep violent people in prison, put mentally ill in institutions if they're showing violence, if someone talks violence, let police have long, hard looks at them where they can't hurt anyone ........... stop the drugs/gangs, empower women to conceal carry if they're afraid of spousal abuse ........... those things really WOULD matter

 

[mrjurrs]

as are people who drink alcohol and drive cars are not drunk drivers until they are
or a knife owners are law abiding and non-violent until they are

no, no more laws that target gun owners

keep violent people in prison, put mentally ill in institutions if they're showing violence, if someone talks violence, let police have long, hard looks at them where they can't hurt anyone ........... stop the drugs/gangs, empower women to conceal carry if they're afraid of spousal abuse ........... those things really WOULD matter

But we have ways to restrict people operating those.

And who should gun laws target?

If incarceration worked, we'd already be the safest country on Earth. You mean like 4/91? This is exactly what I meant in the OP. Gun owners are willing to take rights from others just to protect theirs.

 

[mrjurrs]

The Second Amendment was not written for gun zealots - - the Bill of Rights (of which the Second Amendment is included) was written for CONGRESS - - it tells them which ten Rights they cannot mess with.

Of course Congress still passes Laws that infringe on our Constitutional Rights, but this is no fault of the Framers or the Constitution itself - - rather, it is the fault of the lawmakers who choose to ignore the words "shall not be infringed". They are to blame. They are not accountable for passing Laws which infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms.

Which rights does the 9th tell Congress they can't mess with? The right to be safe from gunfire while attending school (something that is a legal requirement for young Americans)?

None of our rights are absolute. None of them. Prove me wrong.

A textbook example of the myopic viewpoint of 2nd Amendment zealots.

 

[RF667799]

But we have ways to restrict people operating those.

And who should gun laws target?

If incarceration worked, we'd already be the safest country on Earth. You mean like 4/91? This is exactly what I meant in the OP. Gun owners are willing to take rights from others just to protect theirs.

We have regulations prohibiting certain people from not only operating guns, but having guns in their possession at all. Not to mention that nearly any use of a gun that is harmful to others is severely restricted. Basically you're only allowed to shoot people within some very narrow parameters that define self defence.

 

[RF667799]

Slippery slopes are an indication of an argument without substance.

Almost all gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent...until they are not.

When slippery slope is an acknowledged tactic of the gun control industry in their zealotry to limit Constitutional rights and civil liberties, it is not a fallacy. "FIRST, we ban the AR-15 rifles...."

Your second statement is just bumper sticker drivel.

 

[SkyChief]

Which rights does the 9th tell Congress they can't mess with? The right to be safe from gunfire while attending school (something that is a legal requirement for young Americans)?

The 9th Amendment doesn't specifically name a Right. The Framers were concerned that future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist.

The Second Amendment specifically protects the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

None of our rights are absolute. None of them. Prove me wrong.

The Second Amendment IS absolute. The proof is in what the Framers wrote in the Amendment, i.e., the Right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
It is not possible to be more absolute than that. The 2A is the ONE enumerated Right that IS absolute.

A textbook example of the myopic viewpoint of 2nd Amendment zealots.

In your opinion are ALL gun owners "2nd Amendment zealots", or just the gun owners who cite the 2nd Amendment as an argument that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

 

[brianpatrick]

If you don't like the 2nd then there is a procedure for changing it. Try that.

Working on it, and MAGA is helping. We appreciate your guys’ support in the effort.

 

[mrjurrs]

The 9th Amendment doesn't specifically name a Right. The Second Amendment specifically protects the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment IS absolute. The proof is in what the Framers wrote in the Amendment, i.e., the Right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
It is not possible to be more absolute than that. The 2A is the ONE enumerated Right that IS absolute.


In your opinion are ALL gun owners "2nd Amendment zealots", or just the gun owners who cite the 2nd Amendment as an argument that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Did you post this? " the Bill of Rights (of which the Second Amendment is included) was written for CONGRESS - - it tells them which ten Rights they cannot mess with." Which one of your answers do you want to stand by?

Massive fail. Easiest example...felons. In your mind they would have unlimited access to guns. Your absolute claim? Destroyed.

Any gun owner that does not respect the right of others to live without having to worry about being shot at a public gathering is a 2nd Amendment zealot, loyal to the amendment and not the country.

 

[stealthycat]

But we have ways to restrict people operating those.

no we don't

And who should gun laws target?

we don't have a gun problem

we have a violence problem

did you know twice as many are killed with knives than semi-auto rifles ?

If incarceration worked, we'd already be the safest country on Earth. You mean like 4/91? This is exactly what I meant in the OP. Gun owners are willing to take rights from others just to protect theirs.

you mean if we let out 50% of the violent people in our prison's we'd not have a more dangerous society ?

of course you don't mean that, you KNOW all the violent people locked up is protecting society, don't you ?