The second amendment is not universal or above regulation

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't need to read Roe, please point out where in the Constitution the Federal Government was given authority over reproductive rights? Roe is moot.

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

Abortion deprives a person of life without due process of law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This answer completely destroys your credibility on constitutional issues.

You cannot destroy something that never existed.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Half Nearly all the gun laws in this country would be struck down if reviewed under Strict Scrutiny by a Constitutionally honest court.

The problem is, certain people don't want 2A rights protected to the same degree as the other rights in the BoR.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Anti-Federalists were against the BOR iirc. They were afraid that eventually society would hold only codified rights as inaliable and that it could lead to government expansion. Madison argued the opposite and that the most important rights had to be law, unfortunately the anti-federalists are being proven more correct as our nation ages.

Worse than that, even those rights which are explicitly codified in the Bill of Rights are being badly undermined. The Second Amendment most obviously and most seriously, but other rights as well.

 

[PirateMk1]

But people keep making that argument about guns. "We need them to protect ourselves from our government."


Do private citizens have access to buy tanks, stealth fighters, rocket launchers, land mines, drones, laser guided smart bombs, Apache helicopters, submarines........


Our government has long since surpassed the ability for the average American to defend themselves against said government.

I dont think the afghanies or the iraqis heard about that. You mind telling them?

 

[Tigger]

Just how did that mothers weapons "protect" her in Newtown. By causing her death? Guns are a double edged sword they will kill you as easily as any enemy. The odds say that you would be safer without them.

I'm willing to take that chance, iguanaman.

The guns didn't cause her death. Allowing her 20 year old son to continue living with her is what killed her.

 

[haymarket]

*YAWN* You're ridiculousness and mincing of words and their meanings is getting old and tiresome.

"Mincing of words" ?!?!?!?!? :shock::doh Hardly. Words have meaning. Words have speficic meaning and they are not something to be taken lightly. The words in the Constitution have serious consequences for all Americans. Understanding their original meaning is not some parlor game or a trick but a serius exercise in understanding the historical record so we can have a clear and accurate picture of just what the scope of the document is and what it does and does not allow us to do.

I can understand your personal frustration since it was you that introduced the very definition that came back to prove that your modern interpretation was in serious error.

I can understand your angst and discomfort when you own research reveals the fallacious falsehoods of your own ideological belief system. People often have to make a decision between intellectual knowledge and pure self imposed faith. It is sad that you seem to have opted for self imposed ideology over the historical record that you yourself helped unearth.

 

[SMTA]

*YAWN* You're ridiculousness and mincing of words and their meanings is getting old and tiresome.

You are right.

His posts are like a child spinning a wheel and randomly choosing nonsensical words.

 

[Letusreason]

They say, " nobody NEEDS an assault riffle, so ban them!" I have no problems with bans on fast food, I don't eat it and it will save millions of lives. Lets not forget vehicles that travel faster than 65(that's how fast I drive) no one needs a vehicle that travels faster than 65, and think of all the lives it will save. Oh, and I don't smoke, nobody needs cigarets, or chew, or........

 

[Federalist]

NO. The Second Amendment is what the Second Amendment says.

Nothing you said in that post takes issue with the actual meaning of the word INFRINGED as I have indentified. It is clear that the modern meaning that many who toe the gun lobby line is NOT the one the Founders used in the Second Amendment itself.

Yes, according to you as long as a person is permitted to have a single-shot, muzzle loading, black powder rifle, all other arms may be banned and confiscated and that person would still be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms as required by the 2nd amendment.

You interpretation renders the 2nd amendment virtually meaningless, since the only restriction it places on the government is that it allow people to bear SOME form of arm, even if that form of arm is completely ineffective.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, according to you as long as a person is permitted to have a single-shot, muzzle loading, black powder rifle, all other arms may be banned and confiscated and that person would still be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms as required by the 2nd amendment.

You interpretation renders the 2nd amendment virtually meaningless, since the only restriction it places on the government is that it allow people to bear SOME form of arm, even if that form of arm is completely ineffective.

its like saying if you say were married in a church or attended one communion, you have enjoyed your first amendment rights and anything that bans that in the future has not destroyed your past enjoyment of the right.

 

[Federalist]

its like saying if you say were married in a church or attended one communion, you have enjoyed your first amendment rights and anything that bans that in the future has not destroyed your past enjoyment of the right.

Many authoritarians twist constitution to justify their desire to disarm the American people. They are control freaks, and they want to rule over people in other states. It's preposterous to think that the states established their compact between themselves so that this organization could turn around and disarm their citizens.

 

[blaxshep]

There were no TVs when the constitution was written so your right to the pursiut of happiness does not include owning a TV.

 

[haymarket]

Yes, according to you as long as a person is permitted to have a single-shot, muzzle loading, black powder rifle, all other arms may be banned and confiscated and that person would still be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms as required by the 2nd amendment.

You interpretation renders the 2nd amendment virtually meaningless, since the only restriction it places on the government is that it allow people to bear SOME form of arm, even if that form of arm is completely ineffective.

That is your interpretation. It is not mine. Your views are your views. If you want to discuss mine, please have the integrity to quote them so they are honestly presented.

 

[haymarket]

There were no TVs when the constitution was written so your right to the pursiut of happiness does not include owning a TV.

The US Constitution does not mention any right of pursuit of happiness. TV or otherwise.

 

[Federalist]

That is your interpretation. It is not mine. Your views are your views. If you want to discuss mine, please have the integrity to quote them so they are honestly presented.

Nope. That is your position. You have said many times that if a person has one gun, he is enjoying his right to keep and bear arms and is thus being protected by the 2nd amendment. You're not denying that you said this? Seriously?

 

[haymarket]

Nope. That is your position.

If you attempt to ascribe a position to me, please have the intellectual honesty as well as common decency to quote my words. DO NOT tell me what my position is and then explain it to me using your own words and examples. Simply present my own words to me and they can speak for themselves.

 

[Federalist]

If you attempt to ascribe a position to me, please have the intellectual honesty as well as common decency to quote my words. DO NOT tell me what my position is and then explain it to me using your own words and examples. Simply present my own words to me and they can speak for themselves.

So you are denying that you have told us many times that if a person owns a gun he can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms? Really? You're going to go all weaselly on us here? You're going to force me to waste time looking for something that both you and I know is your stated position?

EDIT: By the way, here is the quote:

Right now I want to simply get one thing straight: if a person owns a firearm, then they are indeed enjoying their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We agree on that correct?

 

[Harshaw]

I cannot believe you people still waste your time with haymarket, especially on this issue. His mendacity knows no bounds.

 

[jimbo]

Yeah, get on a plane while armed.

I have gotten on planes armed. 50 years ago, it was not that unusual. If you went hunting out of state, your guns went with you, and handguns generally were less likely to get lost if they were in your carry on. And and guess what, there were not that many hijackings with guns. Even now, people tend to use box cutters or shoes, not guns.

Since liberals tend to think in theoriticals, think of any of the 9/11 planes where every passenger was armed including the terrorists, or even if an unknown number of the passengers were armed, including the terrorists. Do you think that the terrorists would have second thoughts?

 

[Saboteur]

I guess it IS my fault that I gave you more credit than you're actually due.

And the Miller opinion doesn't even do what you said, which is "nitpick about a comma." So, if you're hell-bent on making yourself look woefully uninformed, mission accomplished.

I full well understand that no Supreme Court case parses the grammar of the Second Amendment in the way you described, which is what I responded to.

Well thank you for the education, though I do maintain that you misunderstood me to some degree and I concede that I can do a better job explaining myself.

Would you agree that both the Miller case and the Heller case, though not related but combined in the course of the history of the Supreme Court and considerations made about the 2nd Amendment stand in contrast to each other according to the interpretation of the members of those courts and times due to the wording and grammar of the Amendment?

While there may not have been a direct debate about the wording and grammar of the 2nd Amendment; I maintain that, though indirectly, due to such circumstances the amendment has been interpreted differently.

I apologize for being a di<k.

 

[H. Lee White]

Would you agree that both the Miller case and the Heller case, though not related....

Not realted? In what way?

but combined in the course of the history of the Supreme Court and considerations made about the 2nd Amendment stand in contrast to each other according to the interpretation of the members of those courts and times due to the wording and grammar of the Amendment?

No. Heller naturally flows from Miller; nothing in eaither case contrasts with the other.

 

[Saboteur]

Not realted? In what way?

They were not related due to the span of time and circumstance of each case.

No. Heller naturally flows from Miller; nothing in eaither case contrasts with the other.

Please explain how;

What is a summary of the US Supreme Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment

US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939)

"Upheld as constitutional the 1934 National Firearms Act that regulated, taxed and required registration of certain types of firearms (in this case, a sawed-off shotgun). Required that the petitioner show evidence in remand to the trial court that the shotgun contributed to the efficiency of a "well-regulated militia."


"Last Term, the Supreme Court heard District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US ___ (2008), a case that alleged Washington, DC, gun control laws were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects Americans' right to bear arms as an individual liberty not specifically limited to the militia, and that the District of Columbia's requirement that guns within the home be unloaded, disassembled and locked were unconstitutional."

Am I missing something here?

To me the 1939 court ruled that the weapon in question be proven contribute to a militia otherwise it was not legal.And the 2008 court ruled that the right to bear arms extends beyond the militia. Not that it ever didn't, The Heller case was only for D.C. not the rest of the country.

 

[H. Lee White]

They were not related due to the span of time and circumstance of each case.

But they were related in that they both directly address the bounds of the 2nd. That's somewhat more important, and now precedent works.

Please explain how;

Clearly, Heller took the Miller decision and applied it as possible to the case at hand - that is, Heller naturally flowed from Miller.
Nothing in either contradicts the other, and so there is no contrast.

Am I missing something here?

Yep. See below.

1: To me the 1939 court ruled that the weapon in question be proven contribute to a militia otherwise it was not legal.
2: And the 2008 court ruled that the right to bear arms extends beyond the militia

1: Miller dealt with the sort of wespons protected by the 2nd.
2: Heller dealt with who has the right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd,

 

[YoungConserv]

When we armed the rebels in lybia or another countries what do we give them? We give them m16 and at-15 these weapons are effective in providing the people the fire power to over throw the government and that is why the government wants to limit these weapons so they can continue to screw us without fear of retribution.