How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?

[Jaxson]

Jaxson, I hate to give you bad news but your 2nd amendment rights have been stomped on for centuries.
It is the right to "bear arms" not guns. They are not talking body parts. They intended it to have the right to bear weapons of war.
Fight for all weapons of war if you want to fight for the 2nd amendment.

I do fight for all weapons, according to the 2nd, I think we should be allowed to have nukes...

 

[Jaxson]

You seem to be a waste of time. Bye.

Your concession is duly noted. What a baby you are, lol.

 

[woodwork201]

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

Roe v. Wade.

 

[woodwork201]

So the 13 amendment can be abridged for various reasons? How about the 19th amendment? How about the 15th amendment? You don't get a fair trial you don't get a right to representation.

M14 Shooter and others have made that argument: that the government can take away any right you have as long as they have a court hearing first for due process. In fact, with due process, they can take away the right to due process so from that point on, the government doesn't even need due process to strip the rest of your rights.

According to him, and others on this board, a right stripped is as if it never existed. It's not a violation of a right, not an infringement of the 2nd, not a violation of right to trial, not a violation of right to representation, if the right was stripped by the government. It seems that a stripped right is as if it never were and you can't infringe on a right that never was.

Seriously, M14 Shooter has made that claim multiple times and vociferously defends it. There are no rights that are protected by the Constitution. None. Not even one.

I can post it all again, if you doubt me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

M14 Shooter and others have made that argument: that the government can take away any right you have as long as they have a court hearing first for due process. In fact, with due process, they can take away the right to due process so from that point on, the government doesn't even need due process to strip the rest of your rights.

According to him, and others on this board, a right stripped is as if it never existed. It's not a violation of a right, not an infringement of the 2nd, not a violation of right to trial, not a violation of right to representation, if the right was stripped by the government. It seems that a stripped right is as if it never were and you can't infringe on a right that never was.

Seriously, M14 Shooter has made that claim multiple times and vociferously defends it. There are no rights that are protected by the Constitution. None. Not even one.

I can post it all again, if you doubt me.

You got it as backwards or, you don't know what the 13 amendment is. You cannot be made a slave not even by the courts. You can only be made a slave when you do not have the means to fight.

 

[flan327]

We should be allowed to have nukes. Anything less is an infringement.

Do you actually think you are FUNNY?

 

[flan327]

M14 Shooter and others have made that argument: that the government can take away any right you have as long as they have a court hearing first for due process. In fact, with due process, they can take away the right to due process so from that point on, the government doesn't even need due process to strip the rest of your rights.

According to him, and others on this board, a right stripped is as if it never existed. It's not a violation of a right, not an infringement of the 2nd, not a violation of right to trial, not a violation of right to representation, if the right was stripped by the government. It seems that a stripped right is as if it never were and you can't infringe on a right that never was.

Seriously, M14 Shooter has made that claim multiple times and vociferously defends it. There are no rights that are protected by the Constitution. None. Not even one.

I can post it all again, if you doubt me.

Don’t bother

Posting a lie 1000 times doesn’t make it TRUE

 

[woodwork201]

You got it as backwards or, you don't know what the 13 amendment is. You cannot be made a slave not even by the courts. You can only be made a slave when you do not have the means to fight.

Don't tell me; I think the Constitution is absolute and there are zero exceptions. Some people, though, think that if there's a court hearing for due process any right could be stripped - so that must include the 13th Amendment.

You mentioned the 13th and that's why I point this out.

According to some on this site who claim to be supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, any new technology weapon, because it's not yet in common use, can be banned. Any protected right, including the 2nd Amendment protections, and surely then also the 13th Amendment protections, can be stripped with due process.

But, according to those same people, even due process is not required in order to strip your 2nd or 13th Amendments because they can strip your protected right to due process. Once that's been stripped then it's like you never had it; taking any other right without due process is not a violation of the 5th or 14th Amendment due process rights because the due process right was stripped. A stripped right cannot be infringed. He said it; not me.

 

[woodwork201]

Don’t bother

Posting a lie 1000 times doesn’t make it TRUE

Do you mean by that that I'm lying and that M14 didn't say it? This is the Internet and what's said on the Internet stays on the Internet - unless or until some mod deletes it but what he said, to my best knowledge, hasn't be deleted. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll post what was said and if you still say I'm lying, well that would be a lie on your part.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't tell me; I think the Constitution is absolute and there are zero exceptions. Some people, though, think that if there's a court hearing for due process any right could be stripped - so that must include the 13th Amendment.

You mentioned the 13th and that's why I point this out.

According to some on this site who claim to be supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, any new technology weapon, because it's not yet in common use, can be banned. Any protected right, including the 2nd Amendment protections, and surely then also the 13th Amendment protections, can be stripped with due process.

But, according to those same people, even due process is not required in order to strip your 2nd or 13th Amendments because they can strip your protected right to due process. Once that's been stripped then it's like you never had it; taking any other right without due process is not a violation of the 5th or 14th Amendment due process rights because the due process right was stripped. A stripped right cannot be infringed. He said it; not me.

So slavery can be sanctioned by the government even though the 13th amendment says it can't? The second amendment is absolute like all other rights.

 

[woodwork201]

Don’t bother

Posting a lie 1000 times doesn’t make it TRUE

Here's page 1 of 8 from the search results on M14 claiming that any right can be removed through a court hearing for due process.

There's a reason current law requires the adjudication of mentally infirm -- the constitution requires due process
Due process = the state goes before a court and proves cause before taking away your rights.
Your idea, above, does not do that.

All rights can be removed through due process., and all rights have limitations.
If that, to you, means a right is not actually a right, but a privilege, then you must believe you have -no- rights.

The state, though its power to legislate criminal acts and enforce the laws so made, has the power to strip those who break those laws of their rights - life , liberty and property .
The 5th Amendment states that this may only be done when the state strips those rights through due process.
As the 5th Amendment creates this condition, stripping someone of those rights does not violate the constitution.
As such, they -can- be taken through due process.

The 2nd protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Unless someone has had their right to keep and bear arms removed thru due process, they are of 'the people"; AR15s are 'arms"
So, denying someone the right to own an AR15 by simply labeling them a paranoid schizophrenic, you violate the 2nd.

"The people".
Not everyone in the US is part of "the people".
Further, rights can be removed thought due process; it is impossible to infringe on a right someone does not have.

So, I ask again:
How do you get past "shall not be infringed"?

The constitution allows the state to remove rights and liberties through due process.
The state, through due process, removed the rights of criminals, etc, to own a gun.
To vote, as well.

None of your examples prove your point - the fact someone did not choose to remove a right thru due process doe snot mean a right cannot be removed though due process.

You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.

Rights may be removed thru due process.
The state cannot infringe on a right someone does not have.

Still claiming that I'm lying? Page 2 of 8 coming in a few minutes.

It's 100% clear that he says and argues that any right can be taken through due process.

For others, really leftists or conservatives, you either agree that ALL rights can be taken, meaning that constitutional protections mean nothing, through due process which he defines as a court hearing in the first quoted post above, or you don't believe that due process gives total power to the government to take any right, even protected rights and that the government is not at all bound by any constitutional protection of rights or other limitation of power.

 

[woodwork201]

So slavery can be sanctioned by the government even though the 13th amendment says it can't? The second amendment is absolute like all other rights.

You're not reading before you respond. I am saying that there are some posters here who believe that you can be made a slave as long as you had a court hearing before being sold into slavery. There are some here that believe that you can be stripped of any constitutionally protected right, including the right to keep and bear arms, by simply a court hearing.

I'm on your side. I believe that the Constitutional is absolute and that they can no more strip your right to keep and bear arms by a court hearing than they can make you a slave by a court hearing.

They can no more strip your right to keep and bear arms if you're a felon who has been released from prison than they can put you into forced labor if you're a felon who has been released from prison.

The Constitution is absolute, I think we're in agreement on this. Are we?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're not reading before you respond. I am saying that there are some posters here who believe that you can be made a slave as long as you had a court hearing before being sold into slavery. There are some here that believe that you can be stripped of any constitutionally protected right, including the right to keep and bear arms, by simply a court hearing.

I'm on your side. I believe that the Constitutional is absolute and that they can no more strip your right to keep and bear arms by a court hearing than they can make you a slave by a court hearing.

They can no more strip your right to keep and bear arms if you're a felon who has been released from prison than they can put you into forced labor if you're a felon who has been released from prison.

The Constitution is absolute, I think we're in agreement on this. Are we?

I'm not reading your garbage because you lack the experience and knowledge. You found this really Kool book that makes you believe what you're talking about.

 

[woodwork201]

Don’t bother

Posting a lie 1000 times doesn’t make it TRUE

Here's page 1 of 7 from search results for M14 Shooter claiming that the 2nd Amendment only protects guns in common use and that an arm is not an arm if it's not in common use AND, that if the Congress or Court restricts a weapon until it is out of common use then, suddenly, it is no longer in common use so it can now be infringed at will.

We get them becaue they are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus, "bearable arms"

"Arms" unquestionably includes any and all firerams in common use for traditionally lawful purposes; it is impossible for you to soundly argue otherwise.

Your subjective and arbitrary opinion does not change the fact that 2nd protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms" - those in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.

"Bearable arms" = those firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.

You said:
You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?
I said
Yes - "bearable arms ". Firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
I then asked:
Where - in terms of firearms protected by the 2nd - do you think this draws the line - and why?
Well?

They are firearms in common use for the traditional lawful purposes of same?

M16s are not in common use for the raditionally legal purposes of a firearm-- and thus, are not bearable arms.
That a non-bearable arm can be so regulated in no way means a bearable arm can.

Fully-automatic"Uzis" are not in common use for the traditionally legal purposes of a firearm-- and thus, are not bearable arms.
That a non-bearable arm can be so regulated in no way means a bearable arm can.

Ah. You;re ignorant of the jurisprudence.
"Bearable arms" are those weapons "in common use" for "traditionally legal purposes".
So...
The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of banning them.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.

How what can be carried becomes what's in common use, is a linguistic distortion of ultra-leftist proportions but what would you expect from a gun controller.

 

[Leo123]

What in the hell are you talking about.
I believe in gun ownership with common sense restrictions.
I say we have been putting restrictions on arms as the arms, available, have become more deadly.
I say if you feel arms should not be restricted then you are a coward if you don't fight for weaponized drones

I believe that it makes 'common sense' to allow citizens to own and carry guns. Criminals will be the first to have weaponized drones and they won't have to 'fight' for the right to have them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's page 1 of 7 from search results for M14 Shooter claiming that the 2nd Amendment only protects guns in common use and that an arm is not an arm if it's not in common use AND, that if the Congress or Court restricts a weapon until it is out of common use then, suddenly, it is no longer in common use so it can now be infringed at will.




















How what can be carried becomes what's in common use, is a linguistic distortion of ultra-leftist proportions but what would you expect from a gun controller.

Don't concern yourself patriots will be taking the second amendment back.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I believe that it makes 'common sense' to allow citizens to own and carry guns. Criminals will be the first to have weaponized drones and they won't have to 'fight' for the right to have them.

Allow where do you find that word in the bill of rights?

 

[Leo123]

Check this out!!

 

[Leo123]

Allow where do you find that word in the bill of rights?

I thought we were talking about the 2nd? You know, where the government 'allows' (cannot infringe on the right) of citizens to keep and bear arms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I thought we were talking about the 2nd? You know, where the government 'allows' (cannot infringe on the right) of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Well the second amendment is part of the bill of rights. I was expanding and went with all of the bill of rights in search of that word allow.