The second amendment is not universal or above regulation

[jonny5]

The terrm "arms" has been interpreted by the court to exclude nuclear weapons and include all classes of firearms.
Denying the right to arms to felons does not fall under the 2nd, but the 5th.

That's all I remember from your list.

And the court is clearly wrong. Nuclear weapons are arms. But lets use something less extreme. Machine Guns, grenade launchers, lasers, automatic shotguns, m28 tactical nuke rifle. These are all clearly arms, which under the 2nd amendment we have a right to keep and bear. Since I suspect most of us dont want our neighbors running around with these, shouldnt we rewrite it?

 

[haymarket]

Nice deflection. You care to actually address the argument, or are you just in "making **** up"s-ville because you made a stupid argument?

Telling the truth is not a deflection.

 

[haymarket]

Please cite the SCotUS decsions overturned by Heller and supply the text to that effect.

You have already provided the cases which changed the view connecting the Second Amendment to the militia to a change in a personal individual right apart from the militia. Thank you for doing that.

That was my contention and that was proven by the cases you cited decided only in this century and not the previous three.

Again, my statement of fact is that no federal judge affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right apart and aside from the militia until this 21st century. And the cases you listed affirm this and do NOT dispute it.

 

[Ikari]

Telling the truth is not a deflection.

Is that what you envisioned that deflection to be? Man, the delusions of grandeur you suffer from.

 

[haymarket]

Is that what you envisioned that deflection to be? Man, the delusions of grandeur you suffer from.

Truth is what truth is. Attacking me does not change that reality.

 

[Ikari]

Truth is what truth is. Attacking me does not change that reality.

Indeed, and the truth is, you're deflecting. You've made a stupid argument, you've more than doubled down on the stupid argument, and you're backtracking to avoid having your argument applied to other rights which highlights the absurdity of it. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[haymarket]

Indeed, and the truth is, you're deflecting. You've made a stupid argument, you've more than doubled down on the stupid argument, and you're backtracking to avoid having your argument applied to other rights which highlights the absurdity of it. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Again, attacking me does not change the truth and fact of my previous posts.

I never applied any argument to other rights. You did that. I clearly told you that this is this and not something else. You use the word ABSURDITY. I believe it applies perfectly to what you are attempting to do with this idea that when you can no longer gain any traction in a discussion of the original meaning of the Second Amendment, you then try to change the topic to some other Constitutional right.

Again, this is this. This isn't something else. And this thread, this topic and this discussion is about the second amendment.

 

[Ikari]

I never applied any argument to other rights.

Of course you didn't. You made a stupid argument and you know it's stupid, you weren't about to highlight why it was a stupid and incorrect argument.

You did that.

Of course I did. I was showing how stupid and incorrect your argument was. This is a thread on the 2nd amendment, it doesn't mean one cannot use comparison to show retarded arguments as retarded.

 

[haymarket]

Of course you didn't. You made a stupid argument and you know it's stupid, you weren't about to highlight why it was a stupid and incorrect argument.



Of course I did. I was showing how stupid and incorrect your argument was. This is a thread on the 2nd amendment, it doesn't mean one cannot use comparison to show retarded arguments as retarded.

Instead of attacking me and calling names like STUPID, STUPID STUPID, STUPID and RETARDED, perhaps you can reproduce my words that seem to trouble you so greatly?

I will be glad to examine it and hope you can stop the attacks.

 

[Ikari]

Instead of attacking me and calling names like STUPID, STUPID STUPID, STUPID and RETARDED, perhaps you can reproduce my words that seem to trouble you so greatly?

I will be glad to examine it and hope you can stop the attacks.

Perhaps you could read, and instead of going all drama queen and pretend I'm attacking you, notice that I'm attacking the dumbass argument you had made, which I have shown to be retarded already in this thread, which is why you had to start deflecting in the first place. Thanks for playing.

 

[haymarket]

Perhaps you could read, and instead of going all drama queen and pretend I'm attacking you, notice that I'm attacking the dumbass argument you had made, which I have shown to be retarded already in this thread, which is why you had to start deflecting in the first place. Thanks for playing.

Perhaps you can simply cut to the chase and simply reproduce what you claim is my argument that is so wrong instead of continuing to attack me and calling of names?

 

[Ikari]

Perhaps you can simply cut to the chase and simply reproduce what you claim is my argument that is so wrong instead of continuing to attack me and calling of names?

I've already shown why it's not applicable. 1 gun demonstrating full exercise of our right to keep and bear arms is the same as 1 topic of discussion demonstrating full exercise of our right to free speech.

 

[haymarket]

I've already shown why it's not applicable. 1 gun demonstrating full exercise of our right to keep and bear arms is the same as 1 topic of discussion demonstrating full exercise of our right to free speech.

You are comparing apples to cinder blocks and then wondering why you keep chipping your teeth on that hard grey pie filling.

Why is it that you have to change amendments when you can no longer defend your position on the Second?

 

[Ikari]

You are comparing apples to cinder blocks and then wondering why you keep chipping your teeth on that hard grey pie filling

Why is it that you have to change amendments when you can no longer defend your position on the Second?

Rights are rights, what goes for one goes for them all. This is nothing more than deflection, which you have to return to, as you are not speaking any sort of truth towards the protections and exercises of rights.

The truth of the matter is that while all rights are subjected to some restrictions, the government cannot apply any restriction it wants. The government is limited, that's the purpose of rights over privilege. From privacy, property, press, speech, religion, guns, etc. It's universal. If you don't have a universal, and you don't as clearly demonstrated, you're just making crap up because you don't like a particular right. This is why you deflect and try to pretend that rights are not rights and that your argument cannot be applied to other rights. Of course it can't be logically applied to other rights; it's an illogical and stupid argument to start.

 

[haymarket]

Rights are rights, what goes for one goes for them all. This is nothing more than deflection, which you have to return to, as you are not speaking any sort of truth towards the protections and exercises of rights.

The truth of the matter is that while all rights are subjected to some restrictions, the government cannot apply any restriction it wants. The government is limited, that's the purpose of rights over privilege. From privacy, property, press, speech, religion, guns, etc. It's universal. If you don't have a universal, and you don't as clearly demonstrated, you're just making crap up because you don't like a particular right. This is why you deflect and try to pretend that rights are not rights and that your argument cannot be applied to other rights. Of course it can't be logically applied to other rights; it's an illogical and stupid argument to start.

And you make these sweeping statements about universality with what behind them as definitive and authoritative evidence?

And at the same time you make these sweeping statements you concede that the various rights do indeed are subject to restrictions. And I would submit that the place those restrictions begin in in the language of the particular amendment being discussed.

You accuse me of being ILLOGICAL. Sorry but I was not aware that this was a meeting of the Yale Freshman Logic Club and those rules applied to how one reads the Constitution.

Since we are making unsupported allegations based on belief. I can just easily state that it is YOU who are being illogical since you want to come up with some sort of rule or interpretation about a different amendment- let us call it Amendment A - but then apply it to an Amendment B. That is not at all logical since each Amendment discusses very different things with very different real world applications and thus has very different real world restrictions.

Is it logical for me or anyone else to take the restrictions that governments are permitted to make about voting - a right mentioned no less than FIVE TIMES in the Constitution and then apply those same restrictions to the Second Amendment?

Is that logical and permitted?

 

[TurtleDude]

I think the reason why most of us find Ikari's position more sound is that he actually is stating what he believes as far as the right is concerned. The fact is, most of the schemes the disgusting ghouls in the dem party are trying to pass fueled with the blood of innocent children are clear violations of our right to keep and bear arms

 

[H. Lee White]

And the court is clearly wrong. Nuclear weapons are arms.

Read US v Miller, the case from which the conclusion is drawn. Show how the reasoning of the court is usound.

 

[H. Lee White]

You have already provided the cases which changed the view connecting the Second Amendment to the militia to a change in a personal individual right apart from the militia. Thank you for doing that.

That was my contention and that was proven by the cases you cited decided only in this century and not the previous three.

Again, my statement of fact is that no federal judge affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right apart and aside from the militia until this 21st century. And the cases you listed affirm this and do NOT dispute it.

I see.

So, after being corrected, and refusing to cite the SCotUS rulings overturned by Heller (of which there are none), you're -actually- pointing out that the court, in Heller, went against the holdings of seven the nine circuit courts, not all of whom agreed with one another - IOW, you're pointing out something meanigless, trivial, and legally irrelevant.

Not a surprise. Carry on.

 

[Republic Now!]

Do people still argue that "collective right" nonsense?

I had to do a paper on the topic awhile back, and I dismissed the collective right argument as too weak to present.

 

[haymarket]

I see.

So, after being corrected, and refusing to cite the SCotUS rulings overturned by Heller (of which there are none), you're -actually- pointing out that the court, in Heller, went against the holdings of seven the nine circuit courts, not all of whom agreed with one another - IOW, you're pointing out something meanigless, trivial, and legally irrelevant.

Not a surprise. Carry on.

You seem to be either confused or are intentionally making stuff up.

Where did anyone state that Heller OVERTURNED previous decisions? You just made that up and now are dragging it out as a strawman preteinding that somebody needs to provide evidence for something which was never alleged in the first place. That is blatant intellectual dishonesty.

My point was accurate: for two full centuries no federal court found that the right to keep and bear arms was disconnected and independent from the clause describing its connection to the militia. And we have the cases you yourself cited as proof of that. thank you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Do people still argue that "collective right" nonsense?

I had to do a paper on the topic awhile back, and I dismissed the collective right argument as too weak to present.

which is why no credible constitutional scholars even use it anymore. The current alternative is the claim that it is an individual right that has to be exercised collectively

The odious Lautenberg amendment killed the state militia argument because if the state militia advocates were right, then a federal law disarming RETROACTIVELY those who had been found guilty of MISDEMEANOR DV offenses including NATIONAL GUARDSMEN and STATE POLICE OFFICERS, the governor of that state could have told the feds that the LA did not apply to those individuals

 

[TurtleDude]

You seem to be either confused or are intentionally making stuff up.

Where did anyone state that Heller OVERTURNED previous decisions? You just made that up and now are dragging it out as a strawman preteinding that somebody needs to provide evidence for something which was never alleged in the first place. That is blatant intellectual dishonesty.

My point was accurate: for two full centuries no federal court found that the right to keep and bear arms was disconnected and independent from the clause describing its connection to the militia. And we have the cases you yourself cited as proof of that. thank you.

Stevens fuzzy dissent tried to claim that poorly reasoned outcome based CoA decisions that were based on an ERRONEOUS reading of Cruikshank should have created precedent binding on the Majority. It was an idiotic argument that Scalia eviscerated but it is one that statists make nonetheless

Cruikshank of course noted that the second amendment DID NOT CREATE a right to keep and bear arms-the morons who wanted to control guns claimed that meant that there was no right rather than honestly noting that the AMENDMENT MERELY RECOGNIZED A PRE EXISTING NATURAL RIGHT

 

[H. Lee White]

You seem to be either confused or are intentionally making stuff up.

Irony so thick you need a continental engineer to clear it...

My point was accurate: for two full centuries no federal court found that the right to keep and bear arms was disconnected and independent from the clause describing its connection to the militia. And we have the cases you yourself cited as proof of that. thank you.

Yes - you're pointing out that the court, in Heller, went against the holdings of seven the nine circuit courts, not all of whom agreed with one another - IOW, you're pointing out something meanigless, trivial, and legally irrelevant.

 

[Harshaw]

Stevens fuzzy dissent tried to claim that poorly reasoned outcome based CoA decisions that were based on an ERRONEOUS reading of Cruikshank should have created precedent binding on the Majority. It was an idiotic argument that Scalia eviscerated but it is one that statists make nonetheless

Statists never worry about "precedent" which keeps them from doing what they want. The huge CCoA circle-jerk from Marin on down should prove this.

 

[lizzie]

The fact is that my main over all arching point - that the ruling of federal courts that the Second Amendment is a personal right disconnected from the militia - is a very very modern development and not at all consistent with the previous 200 years.

Just because it may be a modern development, it is not a new concept at all, and was assumed as an individual right shortly after the revolution. The lack of a federal judge deeming it so, does not invalidate it. English Common Law and the English Declaration of Rights, which were taken into consideration by the founders, when our founding documents were conceived and written, and did include the right of individuals to defend themselves.

Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11

Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions