# You think you're pro-2nd but you're not



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.

You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

For the first 149 years in this country, no attempt was made by the Federal Government to restrict anyone not in prison or jail or a mental hospital from keeping and bearing arms.  For the next 30 years, only violent felons were banned.  Then in 1968, it became felony litterers as well.

What changed?  Was it always acceptable under the Constitution?

For the first 202 years, no background checks were required; it wasn't necessary to get the government's permission in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right. 

In Miller, the Supreme Court said that only weapons suited for military use are protected.  In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected.

Of course none of these restrictions meet the "shall not be infringed" clause.

So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"?  If you don't support "shall not be infringed" then do you really support the 2nd Amendment?  

You might actually support a limited right (privilege) for some people to keep and bear some arms but that doesn't meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment.  The Amendment requires, "shall not be infringed".

Very many gun owners here, and across the nation, talk about reasonable infringements, calling them reasonable restrictions.  Their hearts are in the right place; they're emotional about gun deaths and murdered children - more so than the gun grabbers on the left - so they ignore, or are otherwise willing to accept, reasonable infringements.

Gun owners and advocates of the right to keep and bear arms regularly talk about the emotionally-driven responses on the left while supporting gun control driven by their own emotions.  Both are wrong.  The Constitution must drive the law, not emotions.

Gun owners regularly point out that only the law-abiding obey the gun laws but then, out of emotion, support all sorts of gun control laws that have been proven to do nothing to reduce crime - but they just don't have the no-compromise commitment to their principles or to the 2nd Amendment to publicly call for the end of every infringement and to say that they're all unconstitutional.

So, I'll just say, as the title of this thread says, realizing this will be a hard pill for you to swallow and admit to yourselves, and other than perhaps one or two others on this site, perhaps one or two percent of other gun owners in the nation, no, you may be pro gun, you may like guns, but you do not support the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 19, 2022)

No laws whatsoever. And give me a fucking machine gun


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

_In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected. _

 No they didn't. They said their ruling didn't necessarily mean all guns were protected. They never said they were not though. 

 You have to keep the cases coming for job security.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...



The Supreme Court is not infallible. The Heller decision was as much a mistake as was their first ruling on Roe vs. Wade.

And Roe vs. Wade has been for all practical purposes, overturned.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> _In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected. _
> 
> No they didn't. They said their ruling didn't necessarily mean all guns were protected. They never said they were not though.
> 
> You have to keep the cases coming for job security.


That's a good point; technically they just declared that the Heller decision didn't overturn the NFA,  they intentionally and explicitly left it alone.  The outcome is the same.  They didn't protect military weapons and added the new restriction of commonly used.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> The Supreme Court is not infallible. The Heller decision was as much a mistake as was their first ruling on Roe vs. Wade.
> 
> And Roe vs. Wade has been for all practical purposes, overturned.


That's very true.  People hold Scalia up as a gun-rights Justice - and he certainly did a lot for gun rights as they stand today but, overall, he was a gun controller, just less so than many others.


----------



## JohnDB (Jul 19, 2022)

I was born to own a firearm.

God made me with this desire to have a firearm. 

Those that don't like firearm possession have a secret desire to own a firearm. They are actually firearm curious. 

What I own in the privacy of my own home is nobody's business. 

We need more education to stop gun ownership discrimination.  

We need to teach gun safety in schools so that young people can understand that gun ownership is safe, natural, and normal....

Children need counseling for when they decide that they need to own a gun...so that they can fully explore their feelings on Semi-auto, revolver,  magazines, handguns, and rifles.  We don't want them to feel discrimination for their choices.


----------



## 1srelluc (Jul 19, 2022)

The NFA is as unconstitutional as RvW was but good luck getting a case before SCOTUS that they will take.....Machine guns are scary. 

And no, _violent_ felons should not have access to guns upon discharge....Ever. Work around them and you will understand why. 

That said there is no reason a non-violent felon of sound mind should not have all federal/state rights restored upon their discharge.


----------



## Jaxson (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


I want rocket launchers, and mines, lots of mines. Bazookas, and of course some guns for my 6 and 8 year old kids to go to school with.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 19, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> The NFA is as unconstitutional as RvW was but good luck getting a case before SCOTUS that they will take.....Machine guns are scary.
> 
> And no, _violent_ felons should not have access to guns upon discharge....Ever. Work around them and you will understand why.
> 
> That said there is no reason a non-violent felon of sound mind should not have all federal/state rights restored upon their discharge.


One can petition for return of rights to I believe treasury secretary.


----------



## Delldude (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


The public lets these things happen.
They gleefully bent over and spread 'em for TSA 4th violations....then they lined up for masks and needles.
What else did I miss?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 19, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> No laws whatsoever. And give me a fucking machine gun


Thomas Jefferson said

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”​


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Thomas Jefferson said
> 
> “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”​


Cool story bro. Get an amendment.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 19, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> I want rocket launchers, and mines, lots of mines. Bazookas, and of course some guns for my 6 and 8 year old kids to go to school with.


me too!


----------



## Delldude (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Thomas Jefferson said
> 
> “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”​


So much for going back to muskets.


----------



## Delldude (Jul 19, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> I want rocket launchers, and mines, lots of mines. Bazookas, and of course some guns for my 6 and 8 year old kids to go to school with.


I wanna nuke, just a little one.


----------



## Circe (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I agree: I don't like all this licensing and classes and such idiocy. 

I just read that Indiana allows anyone over 18 (I think it was) to carry guns in public; the implication was no licensing, but I don't know if that was just a mistake by a lazy reporter. Does anyone know?


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

Circe said:


> Yeah, I agree: I don't like all this licensing and classes and such idiocy.
> 
> I just read that Indiana allows anyone over 18 (I think it was) to carry guns in public; the implication was no licensing, but I don't know if that was just a mistake by a lazy reporter. Does anyone know?



 You don't need any permission in WV.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Thomas Jefferson said
> 
> “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”​


Way to take that quote completely out of context.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 19, 2022)

Delldude said:


> I wanna nuke, just a little one.


You have $100 billion?

Whole countries can't even get nukes.

Nice red herring. You're not proving anything.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Thomas Jefferson said
> 
> “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”​



That settles it. With all these changing manners and increase in crime, I need a machine gun too.


----------



## Woodznutz (Jul 19, 2022)

Jaxson said:


> I want rocket launchers, and mines, lots of mines. Bazookas, and of course some guns for my 6 and 8 year old kids to go to school with.


Check out Amazon. They have everything else.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 19, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Check out Amazon. They have everything else.



Amazon's great, but their shipping is pretty high.

It would just be much cheaper to post some really radical shit on here, and the FBI would gladly deliver those rocket launchers, mines, and bazookas right to your door for free.

The one FBI guy I talked to the other day said he'd bring me some Plutonium, but I'm still waiting.


----------



## Woodznutz (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> That's a good point; technically they just declared that the Heller decision didn't overturn the NFA,  they intentionally and explicitly left it alone.  The outcome is the same.  They didn't protect military weapons and added the new restriction of commonly used.


Heller then was largely moot as thousands of _actions/barrels_ from such as Mauser, Enfield, Springfield, and other military rifles have been 'sporterized' over the years.


----------



## Woodznutz (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Amazon's great, but their shipping is pretty high.
> 
> It would just be much cheaper to post some really radical shit on here, and the FBI would gladly deliver those rocket launchers, mines, and bazookas right to your door for free.
> 
> The one FBI guy I talked to the other day said he'd bring me some Plutonium, but I'm still waiting.


Join Amazon Prime. Shipping is free.


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


You are a bit myopic. The first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech appears to be *more* of an absolute. But it’s not.

The problem with your ability to rationally discuss these matters is that you start off with an unstated but very much ignorant premise. You seem to assume that there is zero room for interpretation. You’re wrong.

The Constitution, itself, isn’t the product of absolutists or fantasists. The Framers attempted to craft a Constitutional republic of limited power and authority including the enumeration of powers and the reservation of rights to the States and to the People.  But they *weren’t*, in that process, attempting to create a eunuch.

Similarly, official recognition of the right to freedom of speech didn’t entail any “right” to chat with the enemy in time of war to reveal troop movements. And, of course, it didn’t intend to permit falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.  This is why the recognized and guaranteed right to bear arms doesn’t apply to felons and can validly come with reasonable and limited requirements for licensing and so forth.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 19, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Way to take that quote completely out of context.



That's all you guys do is take the constitution out of context.  The bible too.  You've been doing it for a millenia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> That's all you guys do is take the constitution out of context.  The bible too.  You've been doing it for a millenia.


Assume that's true.   Then, you would appreciate me setting the record straight.

Did you know that Jefferson owned a machine gun?









						Puckle gun - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




And an "assault weapon"









						Girardoni air rifle - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




You didn't know that did you?

You quoted a guy who would probably deem you a tyrant and a traitor for your anti-gun stances.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> That settles it. With all these changing manners and increase in crime, I need a machine gun too.


Or a ccw and some practice on the range.  The cops said the hero was a "very good" marksman.


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> That's all you guys do is take the constitution out of context.  The bible too.  You've been doing it for a millenia.


🙄


----------



## Delldude (Jul 19, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Way to take that quote completely out of context.


Actually, he unwittingly shows how the founders knew about change and advancements in society and the world and the constitutions adaptability to that.


Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You have $100 billion?
> 
> Whole countries can't even get nukes.
> 
> Nice red herring. You're not proving anything.



Whole countries can't get nukes because they do not have the means to produce fissile material.

One guy wants tanks and rockets and bazookas, why can't I have a nuke?


----------



## JGalt (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Or a ccw and some practice on the range.  The cops said the hero was a "very good" marksman.



I've had a concealed carry permit since 2011. I carry a Glock G19 in a leather Milt Sparks IWB holster with two spare mags, a 350 lumen LED light, and OC spray every day. I handload my own ammo for 10 different calibers, and shoot thousands of rounds in my backyard range every year.

But nobody can really guess how he or she would react in a stressful situation like that, not even myself. I just hope to God that I never do.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Or a ccw and some practice on the range.  The cops said the hero was a "very good" marksman.



Machine guns aren't for marksmanship. They're for fun.

Some guns were just meant to be that way. Like the Hi-Point carbine: There really no practical purpose for those, other than having fun plinking at things.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.


Oh look.  The one true Scotsman.
We must be blessed.

Per you:
_-There is no line.  There's no "dangerous or unusual" clause in the Constitution, gun controller. You're a fucking idiot and completely unwilling, because you know you're unable, to defend your claim that dangerous or unusual arms, or arms not in common use, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
- There is no dangerous and unusual line in the Constitution; the line doesn't exist, gun controller.  Tell where the line comes from and what weapons you believe fall into that category, gun controller.
- There's no "except" in there._

Tell us why you believe people have the right to own and use nuclear weapons.
Oh.  You don't?
So, there must be a line between the weapons the people have the right to own and the weapons they don't.
And that line must be somewhere between firearms, which you agree we have the right to own and use,  and nuclear weapons, which you agree we do not.
Contrary to your claim, and proof of mine.


----------



## Votto (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> _In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected. _
> 
> No they didn't. They said their ruling didn't necessarily mean all guns were protected. They never said they were not though.
> 
> You have to keep the cases coming for job security.


Right, just because it blatantly says we have a right to keep and bear arms does not mean we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Meanwhile, abortion is a explicit Constitutional right.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> _In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected. _
> 
> No they didn't. They said their ruling didn't necessarily mean all guns were protected. They never said they were not though.
> 
> You have to keep the cases coming for job security.




No....Heller didn't say that....in fact, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment....


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> I've had a concealed carry permit since 2011. I carry a Glock G19 in a leather Milt Sparks IWB holster with two spare mags, a 350 lumen LED light, and OC spray every day. I handload my own ammo for 10 different calibers, and shoot thousands of rounds in my backyard range every year.
> 
> But nobody can really guess how he or she would react in a stressful situation like that, not even myself. I just hope to God that I never do.


If it ever happens to you, you'll find out those 10,000 hours paid off.  Me I'll be empty and the shooter won't be shot.  Because I didn't practice enough.  I have a Ruger 45 1911.  I'm not very accurate with it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Machine guns aren't for marksmanship. They're for fun.
> 
> Some guns were just meant to be that way. Like the Hi-Point carbine: There really no practical purpose for those, other than having fun plinking at things.


The Hi-Point Carbine is infamous for being used in the Columbine High School massacre, as Eric Harris used the weapon throughout the massacre. The first shots were fired with the Hi-Point Carbine.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> If it ever happens to you, you'll find out those 10,000 hours paid off.  Me I'll be empty and the shooter won't be shot.  Because I didn't practice enough.  I have a Ruger 45 1911.  I'm not very accurate with it.



Sometimes all the skill in the world fails and luck prevails.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The Hi-Point Carbine is infamous for being used in the Columbine High School massacre, as Eric Harris used the weapon throughout the massacre. The first shots were fired with the Hi-Point Carbine.



I had one of those a few years back. They're fun if you have a lot of ammo to waste, and they have a lifetime guarantee. But it just wasn't practical for anything besides a trunk gun for occasional plinking.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

Votto said:


> Right, just because it blatantly says we have a right to keep and bear arms does not mean we have a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Meanwhile, abortion is a explicit Constitutional right.



 Take it up with the court. Do you believe what I said isn't what they said? 

 Do you have some issue with someone discussing what happened in the ruling?


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....Heller didn't say that....in fact, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment....



 Feel free to quote that part.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> The NFA is as unconstitutional as RvW was but good luck getting a case before SCOTUS that they will take.....Machine guns are scary.
> 
> And no, _violent_ felons should not have access to guns upon discharge....Ever. Work around them and you will understand why.
> 
> That said there is no reason a non-violent felon of sound mind should not have all federal/state rights restored upon their discharge.


But no gun law will keep a violent felon from accessing a gun, don't you agree?  If a violent felon is too dangerous to be around a gun, he's too dangerous to be out of prison.  

And what about violent felons who have not been convicted?  Current laws still give them access to guns.

And what about non-violent people who might be convicted of a violent crime?  There are plenty of domestic abuse cases that fit that model.


----------



## 1srelluc (Jul 19, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> One can petition for return of rights to I believe treasury secretary.





woodwork201 said:


> But no gun law will keep a violent felon from accessing a gun, don't you agree?  If a violent felon is too dangerous to be around a gun, he's too dangerous to be out of prison.
> 
> And what about violent felons who have not been convicted?  Current laws still give them access to guns.
> 
> And what about non-violent people who might be convicted of a violent crime?  There are plenty of domestic abuse cases that fit that model.


I don't like to name call but that is about the most ignorant "argument" I've come across.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Feel free to quote that part.



Miller.....

*Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.*





__





						{{meta.fullTitle}}
					





					www.oyez.org


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Thomas Jefferson said
> 
> “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”​


The actual quote is:

"*I am* certainly *not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions.* I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. *But* I know also, that *laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."* - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816

And he's right.  If there are changes needed to the Constitution, you should work to pass amendments.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

Delldude said:


> I wanna nuke, just a little one.


Good luck with that.   Iran has spent many billion dollars and decades trying.  Go for it if you think you can get one.

Congress should really pass an amendment banning personal ownership of the materials and the explosives for nukes.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Miller.....
> 
> *Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.*
> 
> ...



 I never realized Justice McReynolds decided Heller.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> I never realized Justice McReynolds decided Heller.




Heller cited Miller...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> I never realized Justice McReynolds decided Heller.


"Heller didn't say that....in fact*, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment...."*

"Feel free to quote that part."

Thus, the except form *Miller*


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Heller cited Miller...



 The justices that decided Heller stated it didn't necessarily cover all arms. They didn't say it didn't but they were specific to note to not assume it did.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Heller didn't say that....in fact*, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment...."*
> 
> "Feel free to quote that part."
> 
> Thus, the except form *Miller*



_ The  Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. _



			https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> The justices that decided Heller stated it didn't necessarily cover all arms.


If fact, they literally said the 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.

In 1939, what do you suppose this included?
In 2022, what do you suppose this includes?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> _ The  Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. _
> 
> 
> https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm


v Bruen:
_...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the *Constitution presumptively protects that conduct*.  To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.  *Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation*.  Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”_


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> If fact, they literally said the 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.
> 
> In 1939, what do you suppose this included?
> In 2022, what do you suppose this includes?



 They never said that. What it might mean to a new case in 2022 could mean something entirely different. As I was clear to note, they didn't rule it didn't include all arms, they ruled to not assume it did.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> v Bruen:
> _...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the *Constitution presumptively protects that conduct*.  To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.  *Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation*.  Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”_



 We are discussing HELLER.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> They never said that.


_In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense_

The clear and obvious takeaway:
The 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.



pknopp said:


> What it might mean to a new case in 2022 could mean something entirely different.


I'm sorry -- I wasn't clear:
In 1939, what weapons do you suppose this included?
In 2022, what weapons do you suppose this includes?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> We are discussing HELLER.


In case you were not aware, _Bruen _expands and clarifies _Heller_.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> _In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense_
> 
> The clear and obvious takeaway:
> The 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.
> ...



 It matters NONE what I think. I've stated many times I believe a person should be able to own anything the government does, but in discussing a supreme court case, what was ruled is what was ruled, and my opinion means nothing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> It matters NONE what I think. I've stated many times I believe a person should be able to own anything the government does, but in discussing a supreme court case, what was ruled is what was ruled, and my opinion means nothing.


Side........ step.
But OK.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Side........ step.
> But OK.



 I side stepped nothing. You (like so many others) assumed because I stated what the court said, I agreed with them. I did not necessarily and I say necessarily because they did not actually rule anything off limits. They only ruled to not assume it wasn't.

 Because I'm simply factually stating what they ruled does NOT necessarily mean I agree with them.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Good luck with that.   Iran has spent many billion dollars and decades trying.  Go for it if you think you can get one.
> 
> Congress should really pass an amendment banning personal ownership of the materials and the explosives for nukes.


But if they can own it, gun owners want to own it.  Don't forget one of the arguments for why we need guns is to fight off a government that gets to big for it's britches.  

You want assault rifles because you know your government is armed with these assault rifles.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> If fact, they literally said the 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.
> 
> In 1939, what do you suppose this included?
> In 2022, what do you suppose this includes?




Something that goes rat a tat tat......and comes with big drums...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Something that goes rat a tat tat......and comes with big drums...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> That settles it. With all these changing manners and increase in crime, I need a machine gun too.


...or we will die and go to Valhalla!!!


----------



## night_son (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...



Excellent post. 

I consider the same thoughts every time I visit my local gun stores and overhear their employees discussing background check failures and other common reasons for gun right restrictions, such as customers who visit local shooting ranges with foregrips and stocks on their AR pistols, which of course automatically turns said AR pistols into short barreled rifles and subjects them to government tax stamps. I truly despise any FFL or rangemaster who would report such NFA violations to law enforcement; such so-called second amendment gurus are fucking traitors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> The Supreme Court is not infallible. The Heller decision was as much a mistake as was their first ruling on Roe vs. Wade.
> 
> And Roe vs. Wade has been for all practical purposes, overturned.


The court stated that weapons in common use were protected meaning those military style weapons


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are a bit myopic. The first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech appears to be *more* of an absolute. But it’s not.
> 
> The problem with your ability to rationally discuss these matters is that you start off with an unstated but very much ignorant premise. You seem to assume that there is zero room for interpretation. You’re wrong.
> 
> ...


Rules of war aren't in the Constitution, they're included by common law.  It's treason to share troop movements with the enemy and treason is in t he Constitution.

And there's no room for interpretation of the explicit limitations in the Constitution.  

The 4th Amendment, for instance, protects from unreasonable search and seizures but it defines neither reasonable nor unreasonable.  But the use of the word unreasonable proves that the Founders were aware of the concept of reasonable and able to specify it when it was their intent.  The result is that the 4th must be interpreted but must be interpreted based on original intent but applied to modern technology.

The 8th Amendment doesn't define excessive bail so it has to be interpreted.  We don't apply the same dollar amounts to bail that they did in 1791 but we still apply the level of consideration for what's excessive.   For instance 500,000 for the bodega owner in NYC was excessive and it was lowered to 50K.

On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment has no such vagueness.  It says "Shall not be infringed".  You can interpret that all day long, for 231 years, and it still means "Shall not be infringed".  As I proved to you, the Founders understood the concept of reasonable exceptions, as they used it in the 4th Amendment.  Had they meant to except reasonable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, they would have included the same thing in the 2nd Amendment, such as, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed."  Had they said that, then you might be right but that's not what they said.

The Framers actually weren't _attempting_ to create a republic of limited power and authority; they actually DID create a republic of limited power and authority.

And though they didn't explicitly authorize yelling fire in a theater, they did explicitly forbid Congress from making it illegal, thus, to this very day, there is no Federal law forbidding yelling fire in a theater, is there? 

Are you suggesting that the Founders would have agreed to getting government permission and paying a fee in order to vote?  Or getting government permission to speak out against the government? 

Maybe you believe that the Founders would have accepted a court fee to have your attorney with you in a trial?  Or perhaps a fee in order to have a trial in the first place?  If you choose not to pay the fee then the judge makes the ruling of guilt or innocence.

If the right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to felons, then wouldn't that apply to all rights?   There's no specific exception in the 2nd Amendment about felons so it must be inferred so wouldn't it be inferred for all rights?  If you're a convicted felon then the next time you're charged with a crime, no lawyer, no jury.  If you're a convicted felon, you can be held in chains and beaten daily for 10 years sentence because cruel and inhuman no longer applies to you.  So no trial, no jury, and daily beatings for once-convicted felons.  Got it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Assume that's true.   Then, you would appreciate me setting the record straight.
> 
> Did you know that Jefferson owned a machine gun?
> 
> ...



"I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

(Jefferson discussing the fight over the establishment of one form of Christianity in the U.S. to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800)


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh look.  The one true Scotsman.
> We must be blessed.
> 
> Per you:
> ...


Most gun murders are committed by people with less training and practice than you have.  I posted a video of a shootout with the cops where well over a hundred rounds were fired at less than 10 yards, multiple bad guys, multiple cops, and not a single person hit,  amazingly, not even a bystander.

Training doesn't always make the day and lack of training doesn't always mean you can't hit what you're aiming for.  You might still save yourself or others.  

But you owe it to yourself and others to get out and do some practicing.

And knowing you're not an expert shot, even in an emergency, try to take your time.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I don't like to name call but that is about the most ignorant "argument" I've come across.


How so?  What part?  Because calling something ignorant without any argument against it is far more ignorant.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> If fact, they literally said the 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.
> 
> In 1939, what do you suppose this included?
> In 2022, what do you suppose this includes?


You've argued many times that the 2nd Amendment does NOT protect military weapons and only protects those in common use. 

Scalia said common use.  Miller said Military.  The Constitution says both.  What do you say?


----------



## JGalt (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The court stated that weapons in common use were protected meaning those military style weapons



Ooops. I fucked up.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> v Bruen:
> _...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the *Constitution presumptively protects that conduct*.  To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.  *Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation*.  Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”_


Yet for the first 147 years there was no historic ban on any felon owning a gun outside of the prison environment.  For the first 177 years there was no historic ban on any non-violent felon owning a gun outside the prison environment.  But you insist that banning felons is acceptable.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"?


Yes.

If one supports the Second Amendment then he supports Second Amendment case law; the Constitution exists solely in the contexts of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

Firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the Supreme Court are perfectly lawful and neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Measures such as background checks and licensing requirements neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Indeed, to lie about background checks or licensing requirements ‘violating’ or ‘infringing upon’ the Second Amendment is to be an enemy of the Second Amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Yet for the first 147 years there was no historic ban on any felon owning a gun outside of the prison environment.  For the first 177 years there was no historic ban on any non-violent felon owning a gun outside the prison environment.  But you insist that banning felons is acceptable.  You can't have it both ways.


Banning felons is not ok if the government said they did their time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yes.
> 
> If one supports the Second Amendment then he supports Second Amendment case law; the Constitution exists solely in the contexts of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


Wrong just an outright uninformed lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Ooops. I fucked up.


The courts have always ruled military style weapons are protected by the second amendment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

night_son said:


> Excellent post.
> 
> I consider the same thoughts every time I visit my local gun stores and overhear their employees discussing background check failures and other common reasons for gun right restrictions, such as customers who visit local shooting ranges with foregrips and stocks on their AR pistols, which of course automatically turns said AR pistols into short barreled rifles and subjects them to government tax stamps. I truly despise any FFL or rangemaster who would report such NFA violations to law enforcement; such so-called second amendment gurus are fucking traitors.


Most of the very loudest, self-proclaimed, defenders of the 2nd Amendment are actually very enthusiastic gun controllers.  Many fake gun rights defenders here are to the 2nd Amendment what Ray Epps is to peaceful protest.

For their own protection, a range cannot ignore illegal (even if constitutionally protected) activity on their property.  But their assumption if they see a short-barrelled rifle is that it's permitted.  When I park my car in their parking space, they don't check my insurance or my driver's license.  When I use my long-barrelled rifle, they don't demand proof that I'm not a felon.  

I agree with you.  The gun store should follow the law and not exceed the law.  The range should follow the law and not exceed the law.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Banning felons is not ok if the government said they did their time.



 Banning their right to own a gun can indeed be a part of the sentence. 8 years in prison and a ban on owning a gun. There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop that as long as it was done through due process. 

 Whether we should is a seperate question.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The court stated that weapons in common use were protected meaning those military style weapons


Military style?  Like M-16s?  Or like AR-15s?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Banning their right to own a gun can indeed be a part of the sentence. 8 years in prison and a ban on owning a gun. There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop that as long as it was done through due process.
> 
> Whether we should is a seperate question.


No if the are freed and have paid their debt they should have all their rights. Other than that they should remain in prison.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Military style?  Like M-16s?  Or like AR-15s?


Yes  military style weapons are protected. Oh and fyi no law prevents you from buying an M16


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No if the are freed and have paid their debt they should have all their rights. Other than that they should remain in prison.



 Again, the ban can be a part of the sentence. Just the same as sexual offenders must register anywhere they move to. They may have served the jail part of the sentence but that doesn't mean that's it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Again, the ban can be a part of the sentence. Just the same as sexual offenders must register anywhere they move to. They may have served the jail part of the sentence but that doesn't mean that's it.


You're just arguing for argument sack


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're just arguing for argument sack



 Sexual offenders aren't restricted even after they serve their sentence?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Sexual offenders aren't restricted even after they serve their sentence?


They should get their rights back if the government said they paid their debt to society.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yes.
> 
> If one supports the Second Amendment then he supports Second Amendment case law; the Constitution exists solely in the contexts of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


Totally false, every word, every punctuation.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment means supporting the Constitution, not the Court.  

And unconstitutional laws are not perfectly lawful - even if enforced at the end of a government barrel.  The Supremacy Clause clearly states that only those laws that follow the Constitution are the law of the land.

But I'm glad we won't be hearing any more about Roe from you since case law says it's back in the States.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control. Most gun owners on this site, support gun control. As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.


Nonsense.

You’re not an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner unless you acknowledge and follow Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s perfectly appropriate and warranted for an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner to agree with certain firearm regulatory measures, provided those measures haven’t been invalidated by the courts.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> They should get their rights back if the government said they paid their debt to society.



That's certainly a valid position to take.


----------



## Circe (Jul 19, 2022)

Certainly not! They'll just go diddle little boys again, or whatever their perversion is.

Consider the priests ---- they NEVER stopped, wherever they moved them, they would just do it again to other victims, by the thousands and thousands, all over the world.


Organized crime.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

Circe said:


> Certainly not! They'll just go diddle little boys again, or whatever their perversion is.
> 
> Consider the priests ---- they NEVER stopped, wherever they moved them, they would just do it again to other victims, by the thousands and thousands, all over the world.
> 
> ...


They shouldn't be released but if the government says a person has paid their debt to society they should get their rights back. That in itself would stop a lot of repeat offenders


----------



## Circe (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> You’re not an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner unless you acknowledge and follow Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and warranted for an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner to agree with certain firearm regulatory measures, provided those measures haven’t been invalidated by the courts.


I disagree. All these many, many, many licenses, regulations, etc., etc., are a way to nickle and dime gun ownership to death. There should be NO, that's *NO* barriers to owning or carrying.


AFTER ALL, There sure are no barriers to what the bazillion criminals do with guns!!! Why against the honest people???!


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wrong just an outright uninformed lie.


It's an informed lie; he knows better but lies anyway.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....Heller didn't say that....in fact, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment....


This is a lie.

_Heller_ concerned solely the District’s handgun ban; no other class of firearm was subject to review – including military weapons.

The _Heller_ Court reaffirmed _Miller’s_ holding that there are weapons entitled to Constitutional protections and weapons that are not:

_“Miller_ stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.”






						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




The _Heller_ Court made no determination as to what weapons were within the scope of the Second Amendment, save that for handguns; indeed, the Court has yet to make such a determination other than handguns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> But no gun law will keep a violent felon from accessing a gun, don't you agree?  If a violent felon is too dangerous to be around a gun, he's too dangerous to be out of prison.
> 
> And what about violent felons who have not been convicted?  Current laws still give them access to guns.
> 
> And what about non-violent people who might be convicted of a violent crime?  There are plenty of domestic abuse cases that fit that model.


Having nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is ‘pro’- or ‘anti’- Second Amendment.

That a law might be ineffective doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional; this is a political argument, not legal.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> The justices that decided Heller stated it didn't necessarily cover all arms. They didn't say it didn't but they were specific to note to not assume it did.


The _Heller_ Court didn’t decide anything about what weapons the Second Amendment did or did not cover – again, save for handguns.

What weapons the Second Amendment did or did not cover wasn’t even subject to review in _Heller_.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> _Heller_ concerned solely the District’s handgun ban; no other class of firearm was subject to review – including military weapons.
> 
> ...


Heller reaffirmed miller and Miller stated that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it would need to reasonable expectations to the efficiency of a militia. Meaning those AR 15s


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The _Heller_ Court didn’t decide anything about what weapons the Second Amendment did or did not cover – again, save for handguns.
> 
> What weapons the Second Amendment did or did not cover wasn’t even subject to review in _Heller_.


If it reaffirmed miller it most certainly did.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Rules of war aren't in the Constitution, they're included by common law.  It's treason to share troop movements with the enemy and treason is in t he Constitution.
> 
> And there's no room for interpretation of the explicit limitations in the Constitution.
> 
> ...


Originalist hogwash.

There is no such thing as ‘too much’ interpretation of the Constitution.

No right is absolute or unlimited, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with the will of the people and Constitutional case law.

The courts determine when government has acted in accordance with the Constitution based on that case law; when government oversteps its authority, the courts invalidate the unlawful acts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Originalist hogwash.
> 
> There is no such thing as ‘too much’ interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> ...


So you believe the 13th amendment did not end slavery?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Yet for the first 147 years there was no historic ban on any felon owning a gun outside of the prison environment.  For the first 177 years there was no historic ban on any non-violent felon owning a gun outside the prison environment.  But you insist that banning felons is acceptable.  You can't have it both ways.


Prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is Constitutional – whether its acceptable or not is irrelevant; it’s another political, not legal, argument.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The court stated that weapons in common use were protected meaning those military style weapons


This is a lie.

The Court has made no such determination.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Military style?  Like M-16s?  Or like AR-15s?


It’s doesn’t matter – he’s lying; the Court has made no such ruling.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Totally false, every word, every punctuation.
> 
> Supporting the 2nd Amendment means supporting the Constitution, not the Court.
> 
> ...


Totally false, every word, every punctuation.

Again, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The courts determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment – not message board posters.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Machine guns aren't for marksmanship. They're for fun.
> 
> Some guns were just meant to be that way. Like the Hi-Point carbine: There really no practical purpose for those, other than having fun plinking at things.


Wrong. Suppressive fire is the primary purpose of full auto fire. Which makes it next to useless for a lone actor...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> The Court has made no such determination.


No it's not a lie. Yes in common use those are the exact words used in Miller Heller Buren


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s doesn’t matter – he’s lying; the Court has made no such ruling.


Nope but you have a history of lying just like you are right now.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Again, the ban can be a part of the sentence. Just the same as sexual offenders must register anywhere they move to. They may have served the jail part of the sentence but that doesn't mean that's it.


Yeah. Actually it does. Until you can actually control a person out of your custody...


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Rules of war aren't in the Constitution, they're included by common law.  It's treason to share troop movements with the enemy and treason is in t he Constitution.
> 
> And there's no room for interpretation of the explicit limitations in the Constitution.
> 
> ...


Wrong. 

Not a single rational person accepts your silly view on Constitutional law. If the 1st Amendment isn’t absolute (it isn’t) then there is no reason to assume that the 2d Amendment is either.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Banning their right to own a gun can indeed be a part of the sentence. 8 years in prison and a ban on owning a gun. There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop that as long as it was done through due process.
> 
> Whether we should is a seperate question.


Wrong.  You completely miss the intent of the due process clauses - both of them.

The due process clauses grants no power to the government; it protects us from the government.  It requires that, when the Constitution already allows the Government to take something from you, such as life, liberty, property, then they must provide due process before doing it.

By your flawed definition, the government could strip your right to due process using due process and then could take any right they wanted without due process, without trial, without any constitutional protections at all.



_*Although the phrase “due process of law” first appeared in the fourteenth century with a very narrow and technical meaning involving the service of appropriate writs, the American Founding generation likely identified the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause with the clauses, prevalent in state constitutions in 1791, that required governmental deprivations of life, liberty, or property to conform to “the law of the land,” as well as appropriate notice and ability to defend oneself in court.*_*There are certain respects in which “due process of law,” understood as equivalent to “the law of the land,” uncontroversially regulates the substance of governmental action. Most obviously, the core meaning of “law of the land” provisions, dating back to the Magna Carta, is to secure the principle of legality by ensuring that executive and judicial deprivations are grounded in valid legal authority. In this respect, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause limits the substance of executive or judicial action by requiring it to be grounded in law.*








						The Heritage Guide to the Constitution
					

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.




					www.heritage.org
				









__





						What Did The Founders Mean by 'Due Process of Law?'
					

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution each have a Due Process Clause. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibited the federal government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law...




					www.americanthinker.com
				







__





						History of the Due Process Clause, Sample of Essays
					

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes a clause called Due Process Clause and it is stated in the passage “no person… shall be




					educheer.com
				











						5th Amendment Due Process Clause
					

The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees that the government must obey written laws. It promises that your life, liberty and property will be protected, but what does that mean exactly?



					www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Wrong.  You completely miss the intent of the due process clauses - both of them.
> 
> The due process clauses grants no power to the government; it protects us from the government.  It requires that, when the Constitution already allows the Government to take something from you, such as life, liberty, property, then they must provide due process before doing it.
> 
> By your flawed definition, the government could strip your right to due process using due process and then could take any right they wanted without due process, without trial, without any constitutional protections at all.



 Nothing I said has anything to do with what you said. To strip our right to due process would take a Constitutional Amendment.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Nothing I said has anything to do with what you said. To strip our right to due process would take a Constitutional Amendment.


There goes your felony clause which was implemented to strip uppity blacks of the ability to buy guns after the Black Panthers brandished theirs on the courthouse steps in Commiefornia... 
You're just suffering from normalcy bias. This is exactly the thing our founders wanted to protect us from. Being unpersoned, by the state.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

Vastator said:


> There goes your felony clause which was implemented to strip uppity blacks of the ability to buy guns after the Black Panthers brandished theirs on the courthouse steps in Commiefornia...
> You're just suffering from normalcy bias. This is exactly the thing our founders wanted to protect us from. Being unpersoned, by the state.



 Nothing I've stated has anything to do with any sort of bias. I'm simply stating simple facts. Facts have no bias.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Nothing I've stated has anything to do with any sort of bias. I'm simply stating simple facts. Facts have no bias.


It actually does. "Normalcy" bias.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Not a single rational person accepts your silly view on Constitutional law. If the 1st Amendment isn’t absolute (it isn’t) then there is no reason to assume that the 2d Amendment is either.



The Constitution must be taken as absolute.  It created the government and both empowered and restricted government.  If the Government can operate beyond the power that was given in the Constitution, from where do they get  that power or authority?  Blue blood?  Birth?  Deep State? Some natural power or authority to govern based on a natural state of people to be governed?

While you pretend to be a small-government libertarian, you insist that it is the natural right of government to rule.  You fail to understand the most fundamental nature of our government: the people surrendered a explicit and limited set of liberties for a limited and explicit set of small government functions.  Only by tyranny can those in government claim to have more authority than what the people allowed.  And from where do we determine what they allowed?  By the very literal and original interpretation of the Constitution.

You understand only being governed and nothing at all about being free.


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The Constitution must be taken as absolute.  It created the government and both empowered and restricted government.  If the Government can operate beyond the power that was given in the Constitution, from where do they get  that power or authority?  Blue blood?  Birth?  Deep State? Some natural power or authority to govern based on a natural state of people to be governed?
> 
> While you pretend to be a small-government libertarian, you insist that it is the natural right of government to rule.  You fail to understand the most fundamental nature of our government: the people surrendered a explicit and limited set of liberties for a limited and explicit set of small government functions.  Only by tyranny can those in government claim to have more authority than what the people allowed.  And from where do we determine what they allowed?  By the very literal and original interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> You understand only being governed and nothing at all about being free.


Nope. Nothing is absolute. 

You understand nothing.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes  military style weapons are protected. Oh and fyi no law prevents you from buying an M16


If it's taxed and requires special permission it is infringed.  Infringed does not require banned.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The Constitution must be taken as absolute.  It created the government and both empowered and restricted government.  If the Government can operate beyond the power that was given in the Constitution, from where do they get  that power or authority?  Blue blood?  Birth?  Deep State? Some natural power or authority to govern based on a natural state of people to be governed?
> 
> While you pretend to be a small-government libertarian, you insist that it is the natural right of government to rule.  You fail to understand the most fundamental nature of our government: the people surrendered a explicit and limited set of liberties for a limited and explicit set of small government functions.  Only by tyranny can those in government claim to have more authority than what the people allowed.  And from where do we determine what they allowed?  By the very literal and original interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> You understand only being governed and nothing at all about being free.


BAM!!!


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Nope. Nothing is absolute.
> 
> You understand nothing.


Death is absolute... And what is "government" boiled down to its essence? It is the the implied, or explicicit use of force, to coerce the behavior of a given mass of people. 
So it really just comes down to "who, is more deadly"? Some things never change..


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

Vastator said:


> Death is absolute... And what is "government" boiled down to its essence? It is the the implied, or explicicit use of force, to coerce the behavior of a given mass of people.
> So it really just comes down to "who, is more deadly"? Some things never change..


Death may or may not be absolute. 

And libertarians tend to assume that government means the right to use force. But I disagree with that formulation. 

Neither of your would-be points says that the Constitution demands absolutes.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Death may or may not be absolute.
> 
> And libertarians tend to assume that government means the right to use force. But I disagree with that formulation.
> 
> Neither of your would-be points says that the Constitution demands absolutes.


Show me someone who contests the permanance of "death"...


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

Vastator said:


> Show me someone who contests the permanance of "death"...


Christians.  I believe Hindus. Maybe others.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


I should be able to buy any weapon I want 
Our civil rights are severely violated and curtailed 


Shit you can get aks and hand grenades Ahhhhhnd Rpgs in western Europe dirt cheap 
I think they're all illegal .........errrrr derp 
I want an rpg ....I DEMAND my rights restored


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Christians.  I believe Hindus. Maybe others.


So... Ready to stone to death your own daughter? Should she fuck Tommy tbe quarterback, without the Patriarchs permission? Pick a side...


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

Vastator said:


> So... Ready to stone to death your own daughter? Should she fuck Tommy tbe quarterback, without the Patriarchs permission? Pick a side...


I’m not sure you understand what anything on this topic is about.

Can you tell me wtf stoning anybody to death has to do with either  topic?


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

Vastator said:


> It actually does. "Normalcy" bias.



 Word vomit. Nothing else. You just ramble and don't say a word where you disagree with me.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Word vomit. Nothing else. You just ramble and don't say a word where you disagree with me.


I said, what I said. Whether you can justify a cogent response is o. You. Not me...


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

Vastator said:


> I said, what I said. Whether you can justify a cogent response is o. You. Not me...



 Since you didn't actually say anything, no I can not come up with a response.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Since you didn't actually say anything, no I can not come up with a response.


Lol!!!


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Having nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is ‘pro’- or ‘anti’- Second Amendment.
> 
> That a law might be ineffective doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional; this is a political argument, not legal.



It's not constitutional at all.  Arguing in its defense, by the left and the right, is the political argument.  Arguing for a feels-good-but-useless law is purely political. 

To argue that the ban on felony litterers is constitutional is to argue that the Constitution is no more than a suggestion and has no power to actually limit government.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately our current government , particularly the Democrats -- don't give a shit about any of that ....they just want to take our guns.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 19, 2022)

the other mike said:


> Unfortunately our current government , particularly the Democrats -- don't give a shit about any of that ....they just want to take our guns.


And we might as well catch the chase it's not just the Democrats ....it's a rogue federal government ,for lack of a better description.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Heller reaffirmed miller and Miller stated that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it would need to reasonable expectations to the efficiency of a militia. Meaning those AR 15s



Can you quote from Heller where they affirmed Miller?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

Vastator said:


> Wrong. Suppressive fire is the primary purpose of full auto fire. Which makes it next to useless for a lone actor...



Where full-auto is really useless is in the hands of the police.

But it doesn't matter how useless it is in private hands; it is unconstitutional to infringe on the right to keep and bear them.  

If there's a plane-load of Chinese paratroopers in the field behind you, you might wish you had a belt-fed squad gun (isn't that what they're called?) with a hundred thousand rounds.

What Miller and Heller both miss, in their attempts to justify their pre-disposed outcomes, is that the militia needs to have every terrible implement of war - just as the Founders wrote.  

In order to be prepared to do the job called for in the Constitution, the militia needs more than their hunting rifles or their AR-15s.  The 2nd Amendment protects the military weapons, the personal weapons, the cannons and artillery, and more.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Nothing I said has anything to do with what you said. To strip our right to due process would take a Constitutional Amendment.



You said the Court can strip their right as part of sentencing as long as they got due process.  They can't.  Because the Constitution forbids them from taking their right to keep and bear arms.

For Due Process to allow the government to take or infringe on any right, consider whether the right could be stripped without due process had the due process clauses not been in the 5th and 14th Amendments.  

If the Constitution doesn't allow them to take the right if due process was never mentioned in the Constitution as amended, then they cannot take the right using due process since the due process is mentioned.

Due process does nothing to empower the Government to do anything.  It protects the people from the abuse of government powers by not giving them their day in court.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You said the Court can strip their right as part of sentencing as long as they got due process.  They can't.  Because the Constitution forbids them from taking their right to keep and bear arms.


 
 No it doesn't and you can say they can't but we can point out where they do all the time. No, that doesn't necessarily make it right but the Constitutions only stipulation is against cruel and unusual. 



woodwork201 said:


> For Due Process to allow the government to take or infringe on any right, consider whether the right could be stripped without due process had the due process clauses not been in the 5th and 14th Amendments.


 
 There would be no way for the courts to do so but since they are there, there is.



woodwork201 said:


> If the Constitution doesn't allow them to take the right if due process was never mentioned in the Constitution as amended, then they cannot take the right using due process since the due process is mentioned.
> 
> Due process does nothing to empower the Government to do anything.  It protects the people from the abuse of government powers by not giving them their day in court.



 Odd, we can completely remove one's Constitutional right to free travel through due process.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 19, 2022)

JGalt said:


> That settles it. With all these changing manners and increase in crime, I need a machine gun too.


Shooting machine guns is fun.  However, the ammo will put you into the poorhouse very quickly.  For instance, fifty caliber BMG ammo is $3.00 a round and it’s easy to fire sixty rounds a minute.  That’s a  hundred eighty bucks a minute.  I don’t know about you, but that’s too rich for my blood.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Nope. Nothing is absolute.
> 
> You understand nothing.



In other words, you can't tell from where the government of the people, by the people, for the people, got the authority and power to act outside of the Constitution.  Got it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Death may or may not be absolute.
> 
> And libertarians tend to assume that government means the right to use force. But I disagree with that formulation.
> 
> Neither of your would-be points says that the Constitution demands absolutes.



It's not what the Constitution demands; it's what the Constitution permits.  How does the government get the power to do anything if not from the Constitution?


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> In other words, you can't tell from where the government of the people, by the people, for the people, got the authority and power to act outside of the Constitution.  Got it.


How does any of that bleating bullshit make sense even to an utter retard such as you?

Man alive are you stupid. 🤣😂


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It's not what the Constitution demands; it's what the Constitution permits.  How does the government get the power to do anything if not from the Constitution?


The authority of our government to do anything comes from the Constitution. The Constitution demands certain things too. Are you so fully retarded that you can’t comprehend that much?  🤣🤣😂🤣😂


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Still waiting for you to address post #34, Scotsman.
> What are you afraid of?



There's nothing to address.  You made up a line that doesn't exist and you want me to accept your premise.  You made it up in response to my question to you, which you haven't answered.  You said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect weapons more dangerous than guns but you won't say what those weapons are that you think the  2nd Amendment does not protect.  You're games about a line and your stalking/trolling, don't get the question answered.  Either answer it or let it go. 

You're just proving that you are the gun controller I've already proven you are and you're diverting by repeatedly, stalking, with the same question, over and over again, in multiple threads, in an attempt to divert from your support of gun control.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> The authority of our government to do anything comes from the Constitution. The Constitution demands certain things too. Are you so fully retarded that you can’t comprehend that much?  🤣🤣😂🤣😂



We're getting somewhere; you answered the question.  Now that you admit that the government only has the authority granted it in the Constitution, please tell us where in the Constitution is the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

It's OK that you want gun control; it's an opinion and we all have opinions.  I'm not arguing that you're not entitled to support gun control; the point in this thread, as stated in the title and you chose to participate, is that you think you're pro 2nd Amendment but you are not.  Just admit it that you like guns but, to you, they're a privilege that can be reasonably infringed by the Government - not because the Constitution permits it but because you want it.  

All I'm looking for is for gun controllers on the right to admit that they're actually gun controllers with more in common with Bloomberg's AnyTown organization than with the Founding Fathers.


----------



## night_son (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> There's nothing to address.  You made up a line that doesn't exist and you want me to accept your premise.  You made it up in response to my question to you, which you haven't answered.  You said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect weapons more dangerous than guns but you won't say what those weapons are that you think the  2nd Amendment does not protect.  You're games about a line and your stalking/trolling, don't get the question answered.  Either answer it or let it go.
> 
> You're just proving that you are the gun controller I've already proven you are and you're diverting by repeatedly, stalking, with the same question, over and over again, in multiple threads, in an attempt to divert from your support of gun control.



A key and terminal deficit present in the thinking of many so-called American gun _guys_ is their eagerness to show pride in following highly restrictive gun laws, such as NFA tax stamp extortion. These personality types will brag endlessly about their ability to jump through hoops of red tape and Second Amendment infringements as if doing so is some kind of right of passage or badge of honor. Many if not all such FFL holders are true judas goats, leading American gun owners into the clutches of the ATF. One can easily identify them by their oversized t-shirts bearing slogans such as _shall not be infringed _or _Molon labe_ or some such bullshit, topped off with ball caps and wrap around sunglasses, as they LARP navy seals and green berets over at their nearest grocery store. Those who wish to end or modify the Second Amendment are true believers while the vast majority of those who claim to live it are certainly not.


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> We're getting somewhere; you answered the question.  Now that you admit that the government only has the authority granted it in the Constitution, please tell us where in the Constitution is the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> It's OK that you want gun control; it's an opinion and we all have opinions.  I'm not arguing that you're not entitled to support gun control; the point in this thread, as stated in the title and you chose to participate, is that you think you're pro 2nd Amendment but you are not.  Just admit it that you like guns but, to you, they're a privilege that can be reasonably infringed by the Government - not because the Constitution permits it but because you want it.
> 
> All I'm looking for is for gun controllers on the right to admit that they're actually gun controllers with more in common with Bloomberg's AnyTown organization than with the Founding Fathers.


I’ve always maintained that our republic’s governmental authority stems from our Constitution. So, we’ve “gotten” to where I always was !  😎

What doors like you fail to comprehend with your shallow thinking and silly rhetoric is that there is a major and real difference between restricting a right (which doesn’t happen) and putting valid and recognized limitations in it. For example

I’m gonna have to guess.  But I will *assume* that *even* *you* recognize the authority of the governments (Federal and states’) to deny the right of convicted felons to be armed. Are they not citizens?  Are they not “people?”  

Or am I wrong?  Are you perhaps one of those who claim that even convicted felons have a Constitutional “right” to bear arms that can’t be subjected to any restraints?

Are gun licenses and permits and registrations in your hunks estimation all a violation of the 2d Amendment ?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

pknopp said:


> No it doesn't and you can say they can't but we can point out where they do all the time. No, that doesn't necessarily make it right but the Constitutions only stipulation is against cruel and unusual.



What does cruel and  unusual have to do with this conversation?

So you accept the government's abuses of power as evidence that it's permitted?  It's one thing to suffer it because we must, as even Jefferson and the Founders said in the Declaration of Independence, but to say it's OK just because they do it, to ever quit saying it is NOT OK even if they do it, is a level of submission I will not do. 

Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams, 1776



pknopp said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huh?  I have no clue what you're trying to say; do you?  Are you suggesting that it's impossible for the Courts to exceed their authority; that if they do it that is proof it's allowed?



pknopp said:


> Odd, we can completely remove one's Constitutional right to free travel through due process.


The Constitution allows for the arrest and imprisonment of criminals.  It's very explicit.  The power to do that doesn't come from the Due Process clause; it comes from 5th Amendment Grand Jury clause, not the Due Process Clause.

*No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,*​
So, apply the test I told you to this clause. If Due Process was never mentioned, the Grand Jury clause acknowledges the government's power to hold criminals but requires that the government get an indictment by a grand jury.

Then the 6th Amendment acknowledges that the government is able to try a criminal and protects the accused by setting some limits on the government's authority:
​*In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.*​
And then, in the 8th Amendment, the Constitution acknowledges that the government has the authority to punish convicted criminals but protects the convicted from cruel and unusual punishment:

*Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted*​
So, locking up a prisoner, taking away their freedom to travel as you gamed it, is allowed by the Constitution, whether or not there's a due process clause.  Since the government otherwise has the constitutional authority, then the due process clause requires that they follow the law and due process.  In a criminal trial, that would include things such as discovery, disclosure, jury selection process, etc., and probably much more. 

But Due Process didn't give the Government one iota of power or authority to indict, try, convict, or punish the accused; instead, due process ensured that the government gave the accused, well... due process.

Now that I've educated you on what Due Process actually is, tell how does the government, had due process not been mentioned in the Constitution as amended, get the power or authority to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

night_son said:


> A key and terminal deficit present in the thinking of many so-called American gun _guys_ is their eagerness to show pride in following highly restrictive gun laws, such as NFA tax stamp extortion. These personality types will brag endlessly about their ability to jump through hoops of red tape and Second Amendment infringements as if doing so is some kind of right of passage or badge of honor. Many if not all such FFL holders are true judas goats, leading American gun owners into the clutches of the ATF. One can easily identify them by their oversized t-shirts bearing slogans such as _shall not be infringed _or _Molon labe_ or some such bullshit, topped off with ball caps and wrap around sunglasses, as they LARP navy seals and green berets over at their nearest grocery store. Those who wish to end or modify the Second Amendment are true believers while the vast majority of those who claim to live it are certainly not.


Another trait is blind and unconditional support for law enforcement, not just for public safety but the cop is always right. And over-the-top support for law and order.  If it's the law, it is to be followed because it's the law.  Absolute support for the police and law and order and then claim nothing, including the Constitution, is absolute.

I support the cops when they're right.  I want them to go home safe every day - even when they're not perfect, human in fact, and maybe yelled at someone and violated someone's rights that day. 

I support law and order; it's a key tenet of society.  And I obey the law almost always.  But not because the law is always right or is right because it's the law.  I weigh the risks, the consequences, and the benefits, and I find that, in most things, it's better to go along.  But going along isn't acceptance or even submission; it's going along.

Your post, and I think my points in this post about the absolute law and order and back the blue attitudes all go together and describe the chest pounding egotistical gun owners who think that they support the 2nd Amendment but do not.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 19, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I’ve always maintained that our republic’s governmental authority stems from our Constitution. So, we’ve “gotten” to where I always was !  😎
> 
> What doors like you fail to comprehend with your shallow thinking and silly rhetoric is that there is a major and real difference between restricting a right (which doesn’t happen) and putting valid and recognized limitations in it. For example
> 
> ...


You assume incorrectly.  The government has no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  And, as you've see, the started with violent felons, then all felons, then some misdemeanors.. incrementalism.

Are voting licenses legal?  Is it legal to require a permit from the government to speak against the government?  A press license?  

If the government can take the right to self defense forever from a person because of a past crime, can they take other rights?  Like even the right to a trial or an attorney?  And if not, why not?  What language in the Constitution would make taking their right to keep and bear arms different from taking their right to a jury trial or a lawyer?


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...



All valid points.  Put succinctly, the 2nd Am. is dying at the hands of government a death of a thousand cuts.  The Constitution is meant to RESTRICT government, not people, and factions within are just sick of that and want to turn it around in a way the general public isn't aware of until too late.

What we really need is not gun restrictions, but tighter restrictions on government and the kind of mewling idiot babies they are cranking out in their government run schools which go out and abuse firearms irresponsibly in senseless violent crime.


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You assume incorrectly.  The government has no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  And, as you've see, the started with violent felons, then all felons, then some misdemeanors.. incrementalism.
> 
> Are voting licenses legal?  Is it legal to require a permit from the government to speak against the government?  A press license?
> 
> If the government can take the right to self defense forever from a person because of a past crime, can they take other rights?  Like even the right to a trial or an attorney?  And if not, why not?  What language in the Constitution would make taking their right to keep and bear arms different from taking their right to a jury trial or a lawyer?


Your analysis is flawed by your ignorant presumptions.

If you’re actually suggesting that the government can’t deny a felon the “right” to possess a gun, you’re simply ignorant and beyond having any hope of grasping the subject matter here.

If the right of a person to endanger people by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected free speech, then your position is that our Constitution IS some irrational suicide pact. You’re wrong. It isn’t.

And if your contention is that the Constitution means that the government can’t deny a felon the right to possess a gun, because a gun is a “right,” then your argument equally suggests that the government can’t put a felon behind bars because prisons deny people their right to liberty.

You are simply too fully ignorant of how the law works; and your grasp of what our Constitution means is irredeemably flawed.   It’s child like but very much incomplete and incorrect.


----------



## night_son (Jul 20, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> All valid points.  Put succinctly, the 2nd Am. is dying at the hands of government a death of a thousand cuts.  The Constitution is meant to RESTRICT government, not people, and factions within are just sick of that and want to turn it around in a way the general public isn't aware of until too late.
> 
> What we really need is not gun restrictions, but tighter restrictions on government and the kind of mewling idiot babies they are cranking out in their government run schools which go out and abuse firearms irresponsibly in senseless violent crime.



Excellent observations. 

As a middle school age kid during the mid-1980's I participated in a hunting and gun club at my rural public school. The teacher who ran the club instructed us to bring our hunting rifles and shotguns to school and store them, along with ammunition, in our lockers. On club days, after school, the teacher would take us out to the edge of the woods, after instructing us on firearm safety in a classroom, where we would target practice against a large grass covered berm. 

Can you even imagine such a thing? The rifle I brought to school for use in the club was 7.92x57mm German Mauser bolt action, one of two nearly identical weapons my grandfather had come home with from WWII Europe. Technically, it was a weapon of war used to deadly effect for years against American and Allied forces. I kept it in a leather gun boot in my middle school locker. 

Never once did the thought of using that old Mauser to harm other students enter my mind. One of my friends at the time, whose father was a dedicated hunter, brought a semi-auto .308 to school for the same club. Did he ever try to gun down fellow students? Of course not. 

_Something _drastically changed, in both the minds of our youth _and_ the gears of our government, in the intervening forty plus odd years since I participated in that hunting and gun club, of which there probably thousands of similar afterschool activities across America at the time. 

My friends and I, back then, were also afforded great trust and freedom by our parents to target shoot and hunt on my grandfather's land—with rifles and handguns of all kinds—without a bit of supervision. Two of the weapons we fooled around with were a Belgian semi-auto pistol and a broom handle Mauser pistol capable of fully automatic fire. 

Once again, we never entertained the thought of shooting each other or anyone else—although we did rain hell on squirrels, groundhogs, rabbits and other critters. 

_Something_ changed; something unfathomable yet knowable—although knowing it must be the most inconvenient truth of all time.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 20, 2022)

night_son said:


> Never once did the thought of using that old Mauser to harm other students enter my mind. One of my friends at the time, whose father was a dedicated hunter, brought a semi-auto .308 to school for the same club. Did he ever try to gun down fellow students? Of course not.


Of course not.  You weren't crazy.  Those guns were used in wartime to kill the enemy because it WAS a war.



night_son said:


> _Something _drastically changed, in both the minds of our youth _and_ the gears of our government


Of course.  Government got into the business of social engineering, and their European-socialist fore-bearings make gun ownership a forbidden thing.  They took God and morality and family out of the equation, now the government raises kids, and kids now have lost all value for human life much less the resilience to stand up and compete in the world so take it out on others.



night_son said:


> Once again, we never entertained the thought of shooting each other or anyone else—


Think about it:  an intelligent person kills for personal gain, if possible, they steal a million dollars without anyone noticing!  When is the last time you heard of someone killing 17 people to steal a collection of Van Goghs or Michelangelo paintings?

Then look at these kid school shooters who go in and murder a whole classroom-- -- why?  What did they gain?  Not only do they not get rich or famous or anything out of so horrific an act, they usually end up killing themselves!  That is the act of an insane person who hates life, hates living, and just wants to die in a final act of revenge.  The question is:  what are these schools doing to these kids to so affect them so?  The issue is not the guns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 20, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Can you quote from Heller where they affirmed Miller?


. The majority also found that _United States_ v. _Miller_ supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision. (In _Miller_, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”) Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the _central component_” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home. 








						District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts
					

District of Columbia v. Heller,  case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess  firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## pknopp (Jul 20, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> What does cruel and  unusual have to do with this conversation?
> 
> So you accept the government's abuses of power as evidence that it's permitted?  It's one thing to suffer it because we must, as even Jefferson and the Founders said in the Declaration of Independence, but to say it's OK just because they do it, to ever quit saying it is NOT OK even if they do it, is a level of submission I will not do.
> 
> ...



 We will just arm those in prison I suppose.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 20, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Assume that's true.   Then, you would appreciate me setting the record straight.
> 
> Did you know that Jefferson owned a machine gun?
> 
> ...


Nonsense.  What he was saying is times change.  So the constitution needs to change with the times.  New inventions, discoveries, ways of thinking, could cause our future society to add something to the constitution.

Wasn't this recent Supreme Court decision rare in American history where a right was taken away?









						Fact check: Has the Supreme Court ever taken away a constitutional right? :: WRAL.com
					

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, is one of many Democrats concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark abortion rights decision Roe vs. Wade. In an interview, Baldwin said the court "has never taken away a constitutional right." PolitiFact checks that claim.




					www.wral.com


----------



## pknopp (Jul 20, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh look.  The one true Scotsman.
> We must be blessed.
> 
> Per you:
> ...



 Just because.........the only roadblock I see is an inability for people to have the ability, funds, etc in owning a nuclear weapon.

 So I believe people have the right they don't have a right for someone to give them one or too store it in an unsafe matter and the rest.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 20, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Just because.........the only roadblock I see is an inability for people to have the ability, funds, etc in owning a nuclear weapon.
> So I believe people have the right they don't have a right for someone to give them one or too store it in an unsafe matter and the rest.


Um...   wut?


----------



## pknopp (Jul 20, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Um...   wut?



 What is "I believe people have the right" don't you understand?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 20, 2022)

pknopp said:


> What is "I believe people have the right" don't you understand?


You believe people have a right to own a nuclear weapon.
Ok.  Why?
And, do you believe the 2nd Amendment protects that right from infringement?
If so, why?


And thank you for being honest -- that puts you at least a full step ahead of the Scotsman.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 20, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You believe people have a right to own a nuclear weapon.
> Ok.  Why?
> And, do you believe the 2nd Amendment protects that right from infringement?
> If so, why?
> ...



 The 2nd Amendment was put in place for multiple reasons. One big one was for the people to be able to protect themselves from their government if need be.

That can't be done if one side is stopping the other from being on a level playing field.

 Now there are other considerations which will keep the people from having one. The ability to make one. The costs to making one. The government would have the right to make sure it was stored in a safe manner so few if any could own one even though I believe they should be able to.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> If you’re actually suggesting that the government can’t deny a felon the “right” to possess a gun, you’re simply ignorant and beyond having any hope of grasping the subject matter here.


If the government can deny a felon the right to possess a gun, please show where in the Constitution they get that power.  You said yourself that you believe they get all their power from the Constitution so show where they get the power.  

The problem is that you can't.  You keep ignoring that.



BackAgain said:


> If the right of a person to endanger people by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected free speech, then your position is that our Constitution IS some irrational suicide pact. You’re wrong. It isn’t.



Show me the Federal law making it illegal to yell fire in a theater.  There isn't one.  If yelling fire in a theater is such a deadly, suicidal,  thing to do, shouldn't there be a law?  Why do you suppose there's no such law?



BackAgain said:


> And if your contention is that the Constitution means that the government can’t deny a felon the right to possess a gun, because a gun is a “right,” then your argument equally suggests that the government can’t put a felon behind bars because prisons deny people their right to liberty.



Wrong.  I already posted it from the Constitution.  The Constitution explicitly allows for the arrest, indictment, and punishment of criminals and explicitly mentions taking their liberty, even their life, as part of the process. 

And before you stupidly respond that there's the proof they can take guns because they can take liberty, let me point out that taking the guns is explicitly forbidden.  The government can take the life of a criminal but cannot take the criminal's guns.  It's explicit.



BackAgain said:


> You are simply too fully ignorant of how the law works; and your grasp of what our Constitution means is irredeemably flawed. It’s child like but very much incomplete and incorrect.


You keep telling me about what the Constitution allows but you've yet to quote a single bit of the Constitution to back up a  thing you have said.  It is you that has no grasp of the Constitution.  You have your desires and wishes for government control over the population but you you can't back any of it up with knowledge or understanding of the Constitution.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> If the government can deny a felon the right to possess a gun, please show where in the Constitution they get that power.  You said yourself that you believe they get all their power from the Constitution so show where they get the power.
> 
> The problem is that you can't.  You keep ignoring that.
> 
> ...



 Do those in prison have a right to own a gun?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

night_son said:


> Excellent observations.
> 
> As a middle school age kid during the mid-1980's I participated in a hunting and gun club at my rural public school. The teacher who ran the club instructed us to bring our hunting rifles and shotguns to school and store them, along with ammunition, in our lockers. On club days, after school, the teacher would take us out to the edge of the woods, after instructing us on firearm safety in a classroom, where we would target practice against a large grass covered berm.
> 
> ...



What a great story; thank you for telling it.

What changed is that the schools started to teach children that they are evil because of their skin color.  They taught the black and brown children that white children hate them.  They taught the white children to hate themselves.  The white children who didn't buy in and hate themselves found, though, that all the other kids, white, black, or brown, had been taught to hate them.

Schools teach hate.  That's the number one topic.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> . The majority also found that _United States_ v. _Miller_ supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision. (In _Miller_, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”) Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the _central component_” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quoting or referencing Miller isn't the same thing as upholding Miller.  

By the way, you're quoting from the summary, not the decision written by Scalia.  But you'll find the same thing in the decision: they quote it and reference but do not epxlicitly uphold it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

pknopp said:


> The 2nd Amendment was put in place for multiple reasons. One big one was for the people to be able to protect themselves from their government if need be.
> 
> That can't be done if one side is stopping the other from being on a level playing field.
> 
> Now there are other considerations which will keep the people from having one. The ability to make one. The costs to making one. The government would have the right to make sure it was stored in a safe manner so few if any could own one even though I believe they should be able to.



Which is why I have said that Congress should pass an amendment, and submit to the States, making it illegal to possess the specific types of nuclear materials necessary to make a nuclear weapon.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Which is why I have said that Congress should pass an amendment, and submit to the States, making it illegal to possess the specific types of nuclear materials necessary to make a nuclear weapon.


No need strategic weapons are not allowed. The Constitution specifically outlaws the owning of armed ships the only strategic weapon at the time.


----------



## badbob85037 (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The fact is, most gun owners support gun control.  Most gun owners on this site, support gun control.  As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
> 
> You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


Look clown your bull shit don't work on me because that is what it is, bull shit. At least try to think up your own bull shit instead of using that old Brady Center crap. It was a lie the first time they said it and it's a lie now when you say it.   What's next 'You are 47 times likely to shoot a family member than a bad man. Or 'children dying from guns is skyrocketing'. Why don't you get you a map and all the places with crime topping the charts color it red. Now color all the places restricting their citizens from guns blue. Now you have a purple map. Try pulling your head out and get a clue even if you have to buy it!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 21, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No need strategic weapons are not allowed.


No no -- the Scotsman believes there is "no line" as to what weapons the 2nd protects.
That is, he believes you have a right to nukes, and the 2nd protects that right from infringement.
Ask him.
He'll tell you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Quoting or referencing Miller isn't the same thing as upholding Miller.
> 
> By the way, you're quoting from the summary, not the decision written by Scalia.  But you'll find the same thing in the decision: they quote it and reference but do not epxlicitly uphold it.


Yes it is it's called precedent.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> But if they can own it, gun owners want to own it.  Don't forget one of the arguments for why we need guns is to fight off a government that gets to big for it's britches.
> 
> You want assault rifles because you know your government is armed with these assault rifles.


Well, I don't want anyone using a nuke against the government or the government against the people.  There should be an amendment to prevent it but I'm not worried about it in any case.  Highly motivated national governments have spent tens of billions of dollars over decades and haven't been able to get one so I'm not too worried that random Americans are going to get one.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Well, I don't want anyone using a nuke against the government or the government against the people.  There should be an amendment to prevent it but I'm not worried about it in any case.  Highly motivated national governments have spent tens of billions of dollars over decades and haven't been able to get one so I'm not too worried that random Americans are going to get one.


I invented a laser I can cut anyone in half with it. I could go to a stadium and kill everyone. But I carry it only for protection. Want one? I sell them for $20.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Well, I don't want anyone using a nuke against the government or the government against the people.  There should be an amendment to prevent it but I'm not worried about it in any case.  Highly motivated national governments have spent tens of billions of dollars over decades and haven't been able to get one so I'm not too worried that random Americans are going to get one.


And thus, you agree:
The people have the right to own and use nukes; said amendment is protected by the 2nd.
Just like I said.
Good work Scotsman.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No need strategic weapons are not allowed. The Constitution specifically outlaws the owning of armed ships the only strategic weapon at the time.


Can you quote that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Can you quote that?


No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

article 1 section 10








						U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
					

The original text of the United States Constitution and its Amendments.




					constitution.congress.gov


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> article 1 section 10
> 
> ...


That is a restriction on the States and not on private individuals.









						Private ships of war: An economical solution
					

Privately owned warships are so deeply at the heart of American maritime tradition that a reference to them is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. With their own contract crews who rushed to the fight for independence during the American Revolution and in defense of the nation during the War of 181




					centerforsecuritypolicy.org
				






			https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3186&context=mulr;Compacts
		



There's been very little challenge to any part of the Compact Clause and none at all about warships.  Today, current law, constitutional or not, wouldn't allow ownership of a warship because the weapons would all be controlled by the NFA but, at least up to the end of the war of 1812 and beyond, there were most assuredly private warships.


----------

