How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Okay, but I was discussing the limits that the 2nd places upon the federal government. It forbids the federal government from denying the people the right to keep and bear arms.

Then why are people legally barred from ownership then?

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Then why are people legally barred from ownership then?

The federal government is violating the constitution.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The federal government is violating the constitution.

How and where? What specific examples can you give?

 

[TNAR]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

There seems to be a general misunderstanding of where rights originate and how governments are formed. While it is patently obvious that not everyone will agree with this assessment, the presence of dissent in no way discounts the logic of the argument. If at any time you have a dispute with this essay, please address the issue(s) one at a time prior to proceeding to further qualms. There is no reason to argue about minutia until we can agree on substance.

To begin, the natural state of humanity is the complete absence of government. Governments do not simply exist; they must be created by man. As such, all activities potentially available to man are necessarily their natural right. In a very basic understanding of this concept, man has the right to do anything he is willing and capable of doing.

This natural right of ultimate sovereignty is tempered by societal obligations. If man desires to participate in society he must conform his actions along one of two paths: violence or cooperation. Man may very well have the natural right to murder his neighbors, but societal ethics restrict this prerogative. In this sense, he either must live according to the Golden Rule (do as he pleases so long as he does not restrict the right of others to do similarly) or force his will upon others by violence.

Thus we find our way back to governments. The popularized notion of a representative republic such as the United States presumes to have been formed under the guise of cooperation. Saving debate about the actuality of it for a later time, it should become obvious that the government itself was formed via the cooperative efforts of individuals who desired peaceable coexistence with his fellow man. The government itself was nominally formed to prevent those who desired to live according to the rule of might from encroaching upon the remaining peaceful society. Because the government had not existed previously – and in fact no government has ever existed prima facie – it logically had no capability to bestow rights, but simply acted to restrict potentially hostile intent. In other words, the agent can only perform the duties assigned and delegated to it by the principal. Furthermore, the principal cannot bestow rights upon the agent for which it had no legitimate claim initially.

Coming full circle then, we find that the Bill of Rights bestowed no rights whatsoever. A close reading of these amendments will conclusively prove that the language in which they are written conveys a negative or restrictive connotation. “Congress shall make no law… .” “… shall not be infringed.” “No Soldier shall… .” “… shall not be violated.” “No person shall be held… .” The only exception is the Sixth Amendment which places a requirement on the government to provide something which otherwise would not exist in nature: “… the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial… .”

Therefore, the original claim by haymarket is fallacious: “Sorry but it does not say that you have a right to any all weapons or firearms that you want to have. It only says that you can keep and bear arms.” The Second Amendment bestows no rights whatsoever and simply states that the government may not restrict the pre-existing right to bear arms possessed by man; a right which exists for the sake of being man and in no way depends upon the existence of government.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

That is exactly what I mean by "the haymarket problem"; infringed does not necessarily include abridged so anything short of an outright ban of all guns to all citizens is not a complete denial of the 2A right. The word infringed is what keeps giving us "resonable restrictions" like the Brady bill, CHLs and CCW permits.

nope, what gives us those restrictions is a bs expansion of the commerce clause

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

nope, what gives us those restrictions is a bs expansion of the commerce clause

Carrying a gun, legally purchased, has nothing to do with commerce.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You have already been corrected many times by others as well as myself that the Second Amendment applies to the state governments and local governments. And those governments do indeed prohibit, ban and outlaw firearms ownership for many people.

that is dishonest, contrary to known fact and correct only after the last USSC on the second amendment. For years the courts and the legal scholars noted that the second amendment had NOT been applied to the states via the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the reason why the DC gun ban was targeted first was that DC law was not state action but some of the amicus briefs argued that DC's actions were in the nature of "home rule" and thus was in the nature of state, not federal action and thus IMMUNE from the second amendment challenge. ONLY AFTER McDONALD was the second amendment seen as being incorporated by the 14th. So your claims are without merit and contrary to the legal history of this country.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Carrying a gun, legally purchased, has nothing to do with commerce.

so you have a federal carry license? what federal laws are you talking about? on a federal facility>

that prohibition is state not federal. see my last post about the incorporation. Having handled dozens of 18 USC matters, every indictment charging a felon in possession under federal law ALWAYS incorporates the following

The Grand Jury further finds that the defendant possessed a weapon that traveled in INTERSTATE COMMERCE

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

so you have a federal carry license? what federal laws are you talking about? on a federal facility>

that prohibition is state not federal. see my last post about the incorporation. Having handled dozens of 18 USC matters, every indictment charging a felon in possession under federal law ALWAYS incorporates the following

The Grand Jury further finds that the defendant possessed a weapon that traveled in INTERSTATE COMMERCE

The 2A is an individual right - the gov't at any level must honor that right. Note that slavery prohibition, the vote, and due process apply to all levels of gov't. It is not OK, as a states rights issue, to deny individual 2A constitutional rights. If the 14th amendment applies to state marriage laws then the 2A should certainly apply to state gun laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The 2A is an individual right - the gov't at any level must honor that right. Note that slavery prohibition, the vote, and due process apply to all levels of gov't. It is not OK, as a states rights issue, to deny individual 2A constitutional rights. If the 14th amendment applies to state marriage laws then the 2A should certainly apply to state gun laws.

I agree but you apparently aren't following what I said. The first ten amendments were not originally directed towards the states but merely federal action

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

that is dishonest, contrary to known fact and correct only after the last USSC on the second amendment. For years the courts and the legal scholars noted that the second amendment had NOT been applied to the states via the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the reason why the DC gun ban was targeted first was that DC law was not state action but some of the amicus briefs argued that DC's actions were in the nature of "home rule" and thus was in the nature of state, not federal action and thus IMMUNE from the second amendment challenge. ONLY AFTER McDONALD was the second amendment seen as being incorporated by the 14th. So your claims are without merit and contrary to the legal history of this country.

I have no idea what you are raving about as my post clearly and unmistakably referred to the McDonald v. Chicago decision as applying the Amendment to the states. That was part of my post. Why you saw fit to come in and pretend you were correcting me is ridiculous in the extreme.

As to the history of this country - it has been the case for a very long time now - way way way before McDonald - that states and local units of government have seen fit to deny some people firearm ownership and it has been legal to do so. And that was the point made to Federalist.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I have no idea what you are raving about as my post clearly and unmistakably referred to the McDonald v. Chicago decision as applying the Amendment to the states. That was part of my post. Why you saw fit to come in and pretend you were correcting me is ridiculous in the extreme.

As to the history of this country - it has been the case for a very long time now - way way way before McDonald - that states and local units of government have seen fit to deny some people firearm ownership and it has been legal to do so. And that was the point made to Federalist.

1) years of state denigrations of the RKBA has no relevance to trying to establish that your fringe interpretation of the second amendment has any merit

2) we all agree that the federal government has engaged in restrictions. Most of us-those who understand the issue-note that the Federal government-starting with the scum of the FDR administration-blatantly ignored the second and tenth amendments and lapdog judges allowed that denigration to happen.

3) your historical references have zero merit in trying to support your anti gun extremist arguments that "infringements" aren't "infringed"

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

1) years of state denigrations of the RKBA has no relevance to trying to establish that your fringe interpretation of the second amendment has any merit

Actually, reality is the best refutation of your opinions. And your opinions are based upon your own extremist belief system and not reality of America as it exists and its history.

 

[scatt]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I do not know what you mean by "today's kind of welfare". Could you elaborate on that please?

The militia is all the people. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16 provides for Congressional powers over the militia.

Welfare today is not the same as it was in late 1700s.

Over the militia "currently employed," yes. Even you know what employment is.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Actually, reality is the best refutation of your opinions. And your opinions are based upon your own extremist belief system and not reality of America as it exists and its history.

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page. Your silly claims that people who own one gun cannot have the "enjoyment" of their 2A rights infringed upon by any subsequent restrictions by the government are dishonest and moronic. For example, the USSC struck down the DC ban even though some citizens had grandfathered Handguns they possessed. So much for your specious claims that the law was constitutional when applied to those who were "enjoying" their 2A rights

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Welfare today is not the same as it was in late 1700s.

Over the militia "currently employed," yes. Even you know what employment is.

I have no idea what you point about welfare is and you have failed to explain it.

We have been told over and over and over and over again that all the people are the militia and it matters not if you have been officially called up or not. You are still in the militia. And Congress still has authority over it.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page.

Most means more than half. I look forward to that verifiable evidence being presented by you within the morning.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Most means more than half. I look forward to that verifiable evidence being presented by you within the morning.

You need to read the writings of

Sanford Levinson

My good college friend Akhil Reed Amar (The Sterling Professor of Const. Law-Yale)

William Van Alstyne

Eugene Volokh

David Koppel

have you been able to find anyone who actually understands the constitution that subscribes to the "enjoyment" theory of individual rights?

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

How and where? What specific examples can you give?

By denying American's their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You need to read the writings of

Sanford Levinson

My good college friend Akhil Reed Amar (The Sterling Professor of Const. Law-Yale)

William Van Alstyne

Eugene Volokh

David Koppel

have you been able to find anyone who actually understands the constitution that subscribes to the "enjoyment" theory of individual rights?

Here is your claim from 2465

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page.

You have failed to present any such evidence that more than half agree with you. In fact, you have not presented the views of one that does.

Most means more than half. I look forward to that verifiable evidence being presented by you within the morning.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

By denying American's their right to keep and bear arms.

No examples or specifics from you - as usual. :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Here is your claim from 2465



You have failed to present any such evidence that more than half agree with you. In fact, you have not presented the views of one that does.

Most means more than half. I look forward to that verifiable evidence being presented by you within the morning.

can you name ANY leading constitutional scholars who support the nonsense you peddle here?

can you tell us who leading constitutional scholars are

I named several of the very top ones.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

can you name ANY leading constitutional scholars who support the nonsense you peddle here?

can you tell us who leading constitutional scholars are

I named several of the very top ones.

I don't remember making any claims of that nature. So I have no obligation to indulge you on that.

You Turtle have indeed made a very clear claim of fact in 2465

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page.

and you have utterly FAILED MISERABLY to even begin to support it.

One can only conclude that you cannot and will not do so.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

No examples or specifics from you - as usual. :roll:

Let's say one had a select-fire carbine. A select-fire carbine is an arm, therefore Americans have a right to keep and bear it. Yet the federal government violates this right by forbidding possession of that arm.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I don't remember making any claims of that nature. So I have no obligation to indulge you on that.

You Turtle have indeed made a very clear claim of fact in 2465



and you have utterly FAILED MISERABLY to even begin to support it.

One can only conclude that you cannot and will not do so.

I named several of the most prominent legal scholars. You cannot even come back with ONE that supports your "enjoyment" theory of constitutional rights. So lets see if you can come up with ONE

again, we are treated to the disparate burdens of proof that you constantly attempt to hold others to. You demand we meet standards you never attempt to approach. Its like your tactic of trying to defend silly extremist statist positions by demanding the rest of us accept your fringe silly and extremist definitions. We won't and thus your argument fails because it lives and dies on the acceptance of your fringe terms that you proffer in an attempt to evade and avoid the common sense or correct meanings of things.