Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[frigidweirdo]

The militia has never been part of the US Army.



That is incorrect. The Framers intended clearly that the militia be present in order to render a standing army unnecessary as much as possible.

To make a standing army count as the militia is very clearly contrary to the intention of the Framers.

Further, the Constitution limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. There is no role for the militia outside US borders.

Further yet, militiamen have the right to take their military weapons home with them. Guardsmen are not allowed to do this.



What it isn't, is any sort of militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.

They can claim whatever they want to claim, but it doesn't make it so.



Their record of killing people with bombs and of killing people with high speed trucks says differently.



It doesn't matter what specific reason the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for. It still protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, including the part where people have guns for the private defense of their homes.



Because the right to keep and bear arms is about the militia and private self defense, and is not about hunting.



It's actually a nice idea. But the ancient right didn't do that. So this is what we are left with.



Actually it was an issue a now and then. That is why the right also covers people having guns to privately defend their homes.

The militia can be called up into federal service.

The Founding Fathers didn't write much about the militia. Only that it should have state appointed officers and be disciplined by Congress and could be called up by the federal government.

The Militia was a product of its time. The National Guard as a part of the Militia has been there for 119 years and no one has attacked it for being unconstitutional.

You say it doesn't make it so, but it is so, whether you like it or not.


The reasons for the Second Amendment does matter. Mostly to understand it better. The right to keep arms protects the right of individuals to own weapons. It does NOT protect the right to use that gun in foreplay, playing monopoly, sticking it on a sandwich, or self defense.

You might be able to use it for self defense along with a whole host of other things. That doesn't mean it's protect IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.


The Second Amendment is not about INDIVIDUAL self defense. It's about COLLECTIVE self defense.

But again, you're right that it doesn't protect hunting. It starts with "a well regulated militia" because it's PROTECTING THE MILITIA.

It does this by protect individuals to have arms that the federal government can't ban or get their hands on.

It also does this by protecting individuals to be in the militia. It can't ban individuals being in the militia.

Because a militia only really needs two things to function. Arms and personnel to use those arms.

It certainly does NOT need individuals carrying out self defense in their normal daily lives.

Prove to me that the founders were focusing on self defense in the US constitution prior to 1793.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is it perfect? No. But it's a great first step.

The Constitution isn’t ‘perfect,’ nor is its case law – that’s got nothing to do with it.

The fact remains that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as outlined in Heller, provided those limits and restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s likely the Court will in time invalidate state AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions while upholding the authority of government to regulate firearms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hey guess what - I don't care.

I don't care what you CALL it.

I have an absolute and inviolable right to protect myself and my family.

And I do not give a rat's ass what Creepy Joe or the Supreme Idiots or anyone else has to say about it.

LilOlLady is right, if you take my weapon I'll have another one 30 minutes later. Law or no law. That's the reality. Gun restrictions are worthless, they're exactly like drug laws, no one pays attention to them.

Except for the cartels and the Chinese - because the minute you ban something, they'll go into business making it.

This is a lie – no one seeks to ‘ban’ guns; this is yet another example of the ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty, and demagoguery typical of the right.

 

[Abatis]

On that we agree. Ours is more of a philosophical debate as opposed to a real world situation....

It is a legal debate that is grounded in the foundational philosophy of the Constitution.

 

[Abatis]

I look at that and think, "just how violent is the US?"

Very violent.

Americans kill with hands and feet at higher rates than most of your exemplar gun control utopias do by all manner . . .

 

[Batcat]

I missed Batcat's post the first time around, I've included it here to reply to both posts.

It is a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will hold for that the 2ndA secures a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense.

The arguments in the briefs of the NY AG admitted that the 2ndA secures that right o carry outside the home (but also argued that NY City was allowed to be more restrictive, limiting and qualifying the right on heightened need).

I also believe SCOTUS is going to outright reject applying all tiers of scrutiny for the RKBA; it just leaves too much wiggle-room for anti-2ndA judges to craft rulings that avoid enforcing the 2ndA.

The NYSRPA oral arguments and moves made by the federal appeals courts since then, tells me the Court is going to just demand the lower court abandon their "two-tier inquiry" for contested gun laws.

After Heller, the Circuit courts developed a self-created, SCOTUS ignoring two-step test . . . Under this process, those lower federal courts first decide if the challenged law burdens / implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment. If they conclude the law does infringe on the RKBA, they proceed to the second step, deciding how severe the infringement is and whether that infringement it is really worth worrying about.

No surprise, that question is always answered the same; NO PROBLEM! and the court declares the gun control law is absolutely needed for public safety. They then proceed to invent creative ways to explain why the violation of the right must be allowed and they never fail saying the RKBA just doesn't matter -- the tally is 50-0!

At oral argument on Nov. 3, 2021, both lawyers defending the NY law were queried by the Justices about the "two step" process used to decide the constitutionality of challenged gun control laws (including NYSRPA).

Understandably, the two lawyers could not defend the "two-step inquiry" and in fact, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the "text, informed by history and tradition" (as articulated years ago by Justice Thomas and explained by Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller II) is the only proper process to apply the 2nd Amendment to challenged laws.

We see the 9th Circuit reading the tea leaves and seeing what is coming.

The losing (gun rights) party in a recent large capacity magazine (LCM) case in the 9th Circuit (Duncan, decided using the "two-step" on December 22nd) made a motion immediately after the Duncan was decided, moving to stay the enforcement of the ban on possession of hi-cap mags until they can appeal to SCOTUS; it was uncontested by California and was granted. The 9th has also suspended (held in abeyance) two pending assault weapon (AW) ban cases until NYSRPA is decided and the 3rd Circuit has also held a NJ LCM ban case until after the NYSRPA decision.

What we can draw from all this? Well, the lower federal courts realize the "two-step inquiry" is dead, and all the cases decided using the "two-step inquiry" are at best, infirm.

It is hard to comprehend this ground-shift . . . NYSRPA will result in a deluge of motions for rehearings in the Circuits that have used the "two step" and those rehearings will be granted and the reversals of those decisions that sustained gun laws will be handed down in short order . . .

Note, these rehearings and reversals / invalidations of these bans will not require any appeals or granting of cert and hearing by SCOTUS; it all happens in the Circuits that screwed the pooch originally.

These courts will forced to abandon the interest balancing / intermediate scrutiny two step and reconsider those laws ONLY applying the "text, informed by history and tradition" of the 2ndA, and decide those cases like they should have been done ever since Heller and McDonald, declaring those AW and LCM bans invalid / unconstitutional.

I hope you are right.

 

[Abatis]

That’s a lie.

No firearm regulatory measure proposed by ‘progressives’ violates the Second Amendment.

That's a lie. Of course they do.

With regard to assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions, you may accuse ‘progressives’ of advocating for bad and ineffective laws, but you may not accuse them of advocating for ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

That's a lie. Of course I can accuse them . . .

SCOTUS has held that arms of a type "that is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense" are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Those arms with the political label, "assault weapons" certainly meet that protection criteria and are of course, "in common use at the time" which means any person of any political persuasion should know laws restricting their possession and use by law-abiding citizens, violate the right to keep and bear arms.

The only courts that have sustained AW bans and LCM bans are LOWER federal courts that have engaged in a concerted effort to ignore Heller and dismiss SCOTUS; just like they did in 1942 with US v Miller when they inserted the "collective right" interpretation in the federal courts to extinguish he claims of constitutional rights of US citizens.

Progressives, when it comes to guns, have done nothing but seek to violate the right to arms of US citizens; it is in their DNA.

.

 

[Dr Grump]

Very violent.

Americans kill with hands and feet at higher rates than most of your exemplar gun control utopias do by all manner . . .

I have never claimed they are gun control utopias. I spend zero time in my country worrying about guns, who's got them and where they might be coming at me next. I don't worry about being killed or burgled or robbed. You?

 

[Dr Grump]

"in common use at the time"

.

What is your definition of common use?

 

[Dr Grump]

​

The thought that European political gun control could be introduced and enacted here is ludicrous; that's pretty much what the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution and Bill of Rights was rejecting, especially the British model.

.

Um, no they weren't. The main points had nothing to do with guns. It was wanting representation when paying taxes and also to be self-governing. Guns weren't even in the original constitution. The 2nd is an amendment.

 

[AMart]

You can't own modern fully auto weapons. I think the cutoff year is 1984 and newer are illegal.

Not true. They are expensive though.

 

[Abatis]

Um, no they weren't. The main points had nothing to do with guns. It was wanting representation when paying taxes and also to be self-governing.

The Revolutionary War began with British attempts to seize American's arms. You never heard of General Gage's orders? You never heard of Paul Revere's ride? Did you never learn about the "shot heard round the world"? That's when we shot those Brits in the face for trying to grab our guns.

Guns weren't even in the original constitution. The 2nd is an amendment.

You have no clue how any of this works. Why do you engage in discussions when you are so complete ignorant of everything?

.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Revolutionary War began with British attempts to seize American's arms. You never heard of General Gage's orders? You never heard of Paul Revere's ride? Did you never learn about the "shot heard round the world"? That's when we shot those Brits in the face for trying to grab our guns.



You have no clue how any of this works. Why do you engage in discussions when you are so complete ignorant of everything?

.

I'm not American. I have been debating on this board with gun lovers for 16 years and on other boards before this. Trust me, I do know how it works. What I find interesting with the most ardent gun nuts is that they try and claim they are the final word on the legal, moral and "i know the spirit of how the constitution is meant to be interpreted" (and the irony is not lost on me that that interpretation has been revisited in the USSC continuously since the US became independent) of the constitution. What I do know is, that it is a lot more complicated than that. I do know that your constitution, at best, is an okay document. Not some epiphany equal to the 10 commandments and should be worshipped and adhered to. It is a flawed document written by white men, many slave owners, who were the only people who had the right to vote. It is not lost on me that these same men wanted to get out from under the yoke of colonialism but refused - initially - to give the same consideration to men who didn't own land, women, native Americans, and those who were slaves.

Meh, having peashooters was peripheral at best when it came to reasons for the American Revolution.

American Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Abatis]

I hope you are right.

Like I said, on the basic question, does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to carry a gun outside the home, the NY lawyers arguing their case to SCOTUS have conceded the point. It is no longer in dispute, it is no longer something we need SCOTUS to decide, it is just a point in law they will affirm.

The NY lawyers, believing they were helping their position, discussed four federal Circuit decisions that upheld various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses. In doing so, they conceded that multiple Circuits say the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home:

"All of these courts proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment right applies outside the home. The First Circuit explained that while this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald invalidated laws that prohibited the possession of firearms in the home, the Court’s reasoning “impl[ied] that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited to the home.”​

​

Brief of respondents Keith M. Corlett, et al. in opposition,​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief in Opposition.pdf​

I see what restrictive jurisdictions (those with need qualified carry schemes) are doing, trying to enact crazy laws before SCOTUS invalidates their carry schemes.

Hawaii for instance is trying o enact a new carry law that makes the permit only last for 6 months and an applicant, every time they renew, must undergo 20+ hours of training, including live fire and the law will require one to carry a TASER and deploy it before lethal force can be used.

Other places are making new laws, not as crazy as Hawaii but all in preparation for what they know is coming.


Just as a point of info, Monday will be 138 days since oral argument in NYSRPA v Bruen.

McDonald v. Chicago took 120 days to write the majority opinion, two concurrences, and two dissents. Heller took 100 days to write the majority opinion and two dissents.

Soon!

 

[Abatis]

I have never claimed they are gun control utopias.

Well, you hold them up as exemplars, to be emulated for their fortitude and wisdom.

I spend zero time in my country worrying about guns, who's got them and where they might be coming at me next.

I don't worry about guns, I enjoy debating gun rights vs gun control simply because more than any other topic of political policy, it exposes the contempt leftists have for the Constitution and individual liberty and the duplicitousness they are willing to engage in to advance their agenda.

I don't worry about being killed or burgled or robbed. You?

No. Even when I lived in Philadelphia for 35 years and worked in all areas of the city at all times of the day and night and always took the measures for my security, even unarmed ones before the state implemented their shall issue License to Carry Firearms.

I have since retired to Trump country and are living in the peace, tranquility and tolerance of conservative people that leftists hope for but can only dream about. The only thing I fear here is driving on a foggy night in the fall, when the deer are in the rut.

 

[Abatis]

I'm not American.

No shit.

I have been debating on this board with gun lovers for 16 years and on other boards before this. Trust me, I do know how it works.

No, you don't.

Saying, "Guns weren't even in the original constitution. The 2nd is an amendment" prove you have no idea how the Constitution works.

What I find interesting with the most ardent gun nuts is that they try and claim they are the final word on the legal, moral and "i know the spirit of how the constitution is meant to be interpreted"

Well, debate is an exchange of persuasive argument. I very rarely make a statement that can not be supported unequivocally in founding principles or law or SCOTUS decisions explaining law. The biggest problem is, I want to show the proofs but they aren't one-liners; the errors in this debate are typically simple and short, the corrections are much more intensive and require a level of interest leftists never can muster.

(and the irony is not lost on me that that interpretation has been revisited in the USSC continuously since the US became independent) of the constitution. What I do know is, that it is a lot more complicated than that.

Yup, and when anti-gun leftists are presented with those more complicated -- BUT CORRECT -- rebuttals, they always choose the easy falsehoods.

.

 

[Batcat]

Like I said, on the basic question, does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to carry a gun outside the home, the NY lawyers arguing their case to SCOTUS have conceded the point. It is no longer in dispute, it is no longer something we need SCOTUS to decide, it is just a point in law they will affirm.

The NY lawyers, believing they were helping their position, discussed four federal Circuit decisions that upheld various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses. In doing so, they conceded that multiple Circuits say the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home:

"All of these courts proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment right applies outside the home. The First Circuit explained that while this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald invalidated laws that prohibited the possession of firearms in the home, the Court’s reasoning “impl[ied] that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited to the home.”​

​

Brief of respondents Keith M. Corlett, et al. in opposition,​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief in Opposition.pdf​

I see what restrictive jurisdictions (those with need qualified carry schemes) are doing, trying to enact crazy laws before SCOTUS invalidates their carry schemes.

Hawaii for instance is trying o enact a new carry law that makes the permit only last for 6 months and an applicant, every time they renew, must undergo 20+ hours of training, including live fire and the law will require one to carry a TASER and deploy it before lethal force can be used.

Other places are making new laws, not as crazy as Hawaii but all in preparation for what they know is coming.


Just as a point of info, Monday will be 138 days since oral argument in NYSRPA v Bruen.

McDonald v. Chicago took 120 days to write the majority opinion, two concurrences, and two dissents. Heller took 100 days to write the majority opinion and two dissents.

Soon!

Recent events have caused me to lose a lot of faith in some branches of our government. Hopefully we can still trust SCOTUS.

 

[2aguy]

I look at that and think, "just how violent is the US?"

Cities controlled by the democrat party, where they attack the police and the democrat party policy is to release the most violent criminals, regardless of the number of felonies under their belt, are very violent....but only in tiny areas of those cities.....primarily in minority neighborhoods where the democrats really don't care for the welfare of the citizens....

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, you hold them up as exemplars, to be emulated for their fortitude and wisdom.



I don't worry about guns, I enjoy debating gun rights vs gun control simply because more than any other topic of political policy, it exposes the contempt leftists have for the Constitution and individual liberty and the duplicitousness they are willing to engage in to advance their agenda.



No. Even when I lived in Philadelphia for 35 years and worked in all areas of the city at all times of the day and night and always took the measures for my security, even unarmed ones before the state implemented their shall issue License to Carry Firearms.

I have since retired to Trump country and are living in the peace, tranquility and tolerance of conservative people that leftists hope for but can only dream about. The only thing I fear here is driving on a foggy night in the fall, when the deer are in the rut.

1) Well as countries, the vast majority would be on my 'places to live' list well above the US.
2) Nah, it's not duplicitous to want to walk down the street minding my own business and not having to worry about some loon having a bad day opening fire on me. As long as you have the ballot box you get a say in how your country is run.
3) Other than locking my door at night and having insurance I don't do anything to ensure my security because nobody is out to get me.
4) Nice link to a partisan hack site. Not lost on me you talk about the same Trump who tried to instigate a coup, doesn't give a rats about your constitution and is a disgusting human being - all rolled into one.

 

[Dr Grump]

No shit.



No, you don't.

Saying, "Guns weren't even in the original constitution. The 2nd is an amendment" prove you have no idea how the Constitution works.



Well, debate is an exchange of persuasive argument. I very rarely make a statement that can not be supported unequivocally in founding principles or law or SCOTUS decisions explaining law. The biggest problem is, I want to show the proofs but they aren't one-liners; the errors in this debate are typically simple and short, the corrections are much more intensive and require a level of interest leftists never can muster.



Yup, and when anti-gun leftists are presented with those more complicated -- BUT CORRECT -- rebuttals, they always choose the easy falsehoods.

View attachment 618533



.

Ok, the second wasn't in the constitution. It was an amendment. Which part is untrue. It's not an amendment?

It's not about mustering interest, it is having gone over the same arguments time and time again, ad nauseam.

Oh, what a lovely condescending, patronising cartoon. Gee, why don't people take you seriously. The difference between somebody like me and you is that I think there is an opposing point of view, you think you're right, period. And when I think of your type of thinking I think of people like Che, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Putin, Hitler.....