We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

[Tennyson]

Stop the nonsense. It's not even debatable....the Article One, Section 8 contains the listed enumerated powers delegated to congress....


Article I of the Constitution defines the role of Congress, the federal legislative branch. Section 8 contains the enumerated powers of the federal government delegated to Congress....
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...tive-branch-the-enumerated-powers-sections-8/

Article 1, Section 8 includes the listed powers that are vested to Congress, which are referred to as the Enumerated Powers....
https://constitution.laws.com/enumerated-powers

The Enumerated powers (also called Expressed powers, Explicit powers or Delegated powers) of the United States Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States)


The powers of Congress are enumerated in several places in the Constitution. The most important listing of congressional powers appears in Article I, Section 8 which identifies in seventeen paragraphs many important powers of Congress....
The Powers of Congress.


Definition of Enumerated Powers
Noun
Specific powers granted to Congress as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
https://legaldictionary.net/enumerated-powers/





Geeeeeez. :roll:

Feel free to make an actual argument that rebuts what I stated. How you feel about and wish the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8 is not an argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you saying that the only way that someone can exercise their Fourth Amendment right of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is if they do it in a group?

Are you saying that the only way that someone can exercise their First Amendment right of "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is if they ask for redress as a group?

The Body Politic can; just like well regulated militia are necessary.

 

[TurtleDude]

Are you saying that the only way that someone can exercise their Fourth Amendment right of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is if they do it in a group?

Are you saying that the only way that someone can exercise their First Amendment right of "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is if they ask for redress as a group?

he's spewing lies. in fact its been settled law that such rights are individual. You have a right to free speech, a right against unreasonable searches seizures etc.

 

[Moot]

So you agree that the intent of the Founder's was to establish an individual right. What you now argue is that intent has changed in modern times. Intent cannot change; interpretation can. So what we debate then is whether we should adhere to the Founder's intent, and keep it an individual right, or abandon that and re-interpret the Second Amendment as a collective right. In other words, for all practical purposes, eliminate the right of individuals to own guns. That is your argument in a nutshell. And I do mean nutshell.

No, I don't agree and your argument is a strawman in a weasel's nutsack...and I do mean nutsack. So if you want to debate then don't change my argument.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, I don't agree and your argument is a strawman in a weasel's nutsack...and I do mean nutsack. So if you want to debate then don't change my argument.

the second amendment has always been about preventing the federal government from interfering with individual rights

 

[Moot]

Feel free to make an actual argument that rebuts what I stated. How you feel about and wish the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8 is not an argument.

Says the guy who doesn't understand what "Congress shall have the power" means. If you don't understand those five simple words...there isn't much hope that you'll understand the other 4,500 words in the Constitution, either.

Sorry, I don't have a lot of patience for willful ignorance like yours.

 

[TurtleDude]

Says the guy who doesn't understand what "Congress shall have the power" means. If you don't understand those five simple words...there isn't much hope that you'll understand the other 4,500 words in the Constitution, either.

Sorry, I don't have a lot of patience for willful ignorance like yours.

nor I have yours. where did the federal government properly get any power to prohibit citizens from owning certain types of firearms

 

[Moot]

the second amendment has always been about preventing the federal government from interfering with individual rights

Heller gave the second amendment new meaning in 2008. Before that, it was always about preventing the federal government from replacing the state militias with a standing army.




.

 

[Tennyson]

Says the guy who doesn't understand what "Congress shall have the power" means. If you don't understand those five simple words...there isn't much hope that you'll understand the other 4,500 words in the Constitution, either.

Sorry, I don't have a lot of patience for willful ignorance like yours.

Feel free to address the history in my post and how the language ended up to not grant power and feel free to present one iota of evidence by a Framer that contradicts the Framers who stated that the first clause was not a grant of power. You can also throw in an argument against the grammar not granting power as well.

 

[Tennyson]

Heller gave the second amendment new meaning in 2008. Before that, it was always about preventing the federal government from replacing the state militias with a standing army.




.

That actually never happened before Heller. Heller would be irrelevant as it regarded a federal territory. If Heller did that, McDonald v City of Chicago would have never happened.

 

[TurtleDude]

Heller gave the second amendment new meaning in 2008. Before that, it was always about preventing the federal government from replacing the state militias with a standing army.




.

where do you come up with that nonsense?

 

[Moot]

nor I have yours. where did the federal government properly get any power to prohibit citizens from owning certain types of firearms

Nor do I for yours. The States had the power to regulate arms for private citizens before the Constitution was written...or did you think the people lived simply by the laws of nature?

 

[Moot]

where do you come up with that nonsense?

From academic sources...something you seem to know little about.

 

[Moot]

That actually never happened before Heller. Heller would be irrelevant as it regarded a federal territory. If Heller did that, McDonald v City of Chicago would have never happened.

Ugh...you are the most clueless poster I've seen on DP in a long while.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nor do I for yours. The States had the power to regulate arms for private citizens before the Constitution was written...or did you think the people lived simply by the laws of nature?

I have said this 100 times or more on this board. That is why the founders didn't give the federal government any such power. You'd be hard pressed to find cases where the founders wanted concurrent jurisdiction

 

[Tennyson]

Ugh...you are the most clueless poster I've seen on DP in a long while.

Does that mean you are going to explain how federal land is treated the same as a state in the context of the Constitution and produce the Supreme Court cases before Heller to support your argument?

 

[TurtleDude]

From academic sources...something you seem to know little about.

how about finding them. I know the leading law professors on constitutional issues deny your claims and none of the nine justices in the Heller decision supported your nonsense

Lets see

Yale's top professor-Akhil Reed Amar doesn't believe your version
Laurence Tribe of Harvard-Doesn't believe your version
William Van Alstyne of Duke doesn't believe your version
Eugene Volokh of UCLA doesn't believe your version
Steven Calabresi of North Western Doesn't believe your version
Lee Liberman Otis of Georgetown Lw doesn't believe your version
David Kopel-formerly of NYU Law doesn't believe your version
Russell Osgood, former Dean of Cornell Law doesn't believe your version
Peter Keisler, former Acting US Attorney General doesn't believe your version
John Ashcroft, former US Attorney General doesn't believe your position
Paul Clement, former US Solicitor General doesn't believe your version

now who supports your claim?

 

[jet57]

you are lying-his only fault was paying homage to the FDR nonsense. The second amendment has always been an individual right. that was never ever questioned until the treasonous FDR administration ignored the tenth and second amendment and even his pet monkey court couldn't come out and say in Miller that it was a collective right

what do you pretend the founders' intent was

and again Scalia could not change their intent

:lamo

"The second amendment is not an unlimited right"


:lamo

 

[Moot]

I have said this 100 times or more on this board. That is why the founders didn't give the federal government any such power. You'd be hard pressed to find cases where the founders wanted concurrent jurisdiction

Yes, yours was a trick question(s)...saw it a mile away. lol

Sooo, we both agree the second amendment does not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms...is that right?


United States v. Cruikshank
Primary Holding: The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not to be found in the Second Amendment.


"...The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/#annotation

 

[Moot]

how about finding them. I know the leading law professors on constitutional issues deny your claims and none of the nine justices in the Heller decision supported your nonsense

Lets see

Yale's top professor-Akhil Reed Amar doesn't believe your version
Laurence Tribe of Harvard-Doesn't believe your version
William Van Alstyne of Duke doesn't believe your version
Eugene Volokh of UCLA doesn't believe your version
Steven Calabresi of North Western Doesn't believe your version
Lee Liberman Otis of Georgetown Lw doesn't believe your version
David Kopel-formerly of NYU Law doesn't believe your version
Russell Osgood, former Dean of Cornell Law doesn't believe your version
Peter Keisler, former Acting US Attorney General doesn't believe your version
John Ashcroft, former US Attorney General doesn't believe your position
Paul Clement, former US Solicitor General doesn't believe your version

now who supports your claim?

Apparently, you do. See post #269

:lol:

 

[OpportunityCost]

:lamo

"The second amendment is not an unlimited right"


:lamo

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

The purpose of the paragraph is not to say multiple other restrictions are allowed but to define what restrictions are being left in place, and when restrictions are valid---giving the ruling a narrow definition rather than overly broad one so that neither side of the issue will revisit the decision to broaden it in either direction. Its ironic that you keep revisiting this portion of the decision, its nuance and context seem to be beyond you; your only purpose is to distort its meaning to your own dishonest terms.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, yours was a trick question(s)...saw it a mile away. lol

Sooo, we both agree the second amendment does not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms...is that right?


United States v. Cruikshank
Primary Holding: The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not to be found in the Second Amendment.


"...The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/#annotation

That is correct because the right pre-existed the 2nd amendment, the 2nd amendment states it is not to be infringed, it does not create it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16

 

[danielpalos]

the second amendment has always been about preventing the federal government from interfering with individual rights

no, it hasn't. The Second Amendment is about the security of a free State. It says so, in the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

nor I have yours. where did the federal government properly get any power to prohibit citizens from owning certain types of firearms

The police power, in the federal districts. And, solving State problems via State police power.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, yours was a trick question(s)...saw it a mile away. lol

Sooo, we both agree the second amendment does not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms...is that right?


United States v. Cruikshank
Primary Holding: The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not to be found in the Second Amendment.


"...The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/#annotation

you missed the point-the right exists free and clear of the constitution or the bill of rights. the second merely recognizes and guarantees it. doesn't CREATE IT