Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[woodwork201]

Heller was the precedent setting ruling.

"When the Constitution was first ratified, most of its provisions specified the extent and limits of federal government authority. Even the familiar protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights—such as the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion clauses—initially affected only the powers of the federal government, not the state governments.10 In 1868, however, the 14th Amendment was ratified, explicitly forbidding states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”11 As a result, the Supreme Court began to decide that most of the Bill of Rights guarantees were included in—or “incorporated” into—the more general language of the 14th Amendment as a limit on state (not just federal) powers. But the court has never accepted the argument that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated en masse, preferring a case-by-case (right-by-right) approach.12

Until the McDonald decision, the Second Amendment remained one of the very few parts of the Bill of Rights not so “incorporated.” In fact, in a pair of 19th-century cases—United States v Cruikshank (1876)13 and Presser v Illinois (1886)14—the court found that the Second Amendment limited only the federal government. Numerous state laws affecting gun ownership have been upheld on this basis."

Selective incorporation is a crock and always was a crock. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Supreme Court the authority to selectively do anything. They might legitimately believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States and they might or might not be correct in that belief - but they can't possibly believe that the 1st, 4th, 5th Amendments obligate the States but the 2nd does not. That is an asinine idea from the start. The logic applied must be applied equally across the board or, as was the case from the first Incorporation case, it was just the Court making it up according to their personal wishes rather than the Constitution they were sworn to uphold. With selective incorporation they set themselves up as Supreme Rulers rather than the constitutionally defined Supreme Court.

 

[woodwork201]

Well, it should be absolute to those deserving of it anyways.

Are you a moron? If a right is absolute as long as the government says you deserve it then it is never, ever, absolute, is it?

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh, well your constitution is dead then. You ever hear of the 27 amendments to the constitution? And if you want to be super pedantic with regards to taking something OUT, then there is the 18th.

 

[Abatis]

Selective incorporation is a crock and always was a crock.

Yes but it is a complicated crock.

The original intent of the 14thA was corrupted and nearly destroyed by SCOTUS; selective incorporation is a work around of an early case that the Court really can't revist (although it should).

This problem comes down to the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause . . . That construction, that phrase was purposeful by the framers of the 14th and it intended to extend the enforcement of the federal Bill of Rights (the first eight amendments) onto the states.

The Supreme Court effectively disabled the "privileges or immunities" clause in 1873 in a decision called, The Slaughter House Cases.

Truth is, "selective incorporation" is a contrivance invented by the Court as a workaround to Slaughter House. Because Slaughter House disabled the 14th's "privileges or immunities" clause, that pretty much extinguished the principle of liberty, based entirely in the limitations inherent in the strictly enumerated powers of Constitution. Removing that principle of liberty left only "due process" and "equal protection" as the legal processes to protect substantive fundamental rights from state abridgment.

Those two amorphous, subjective concepts demand a specific law already enacted, or government action that already happened, to be challenged claiming a specific rights injury. Then the Court must undertake an excruciating examination of the affronts to "due process" or "equal protection" in that rights injury and how, maybe, those "protections" are owed to the citizen . . . That piecemeal process is how we were saddled with "selective incorporation".

This shifted the question of a law's constitutionality from, "does government have the power" to "does a citizen have the right" and that allowed the Court to define our rights and determine the "scope" of our rights and invent mechanisms like "standing" to deny citizen's claims before the merits are even heard . . . much to the detriment to the concept of "liberty".

Slaughter House has forced a Winchester Mansion of Law to be built, with many added rooms that were conjured to work around it. Everyone knows Slaughter House needs to be revisited and overruled, but that would be revolutionary.

When SCOTUS granted cert to Alan Gura's McDonald v Chicago appeal of Chicago's gun ban, and not the NRA's, many people of both sides of the political spectrum were excited (the cases were joined later).

Gura's primary argument was to hold the 2ndA applicable to Chicago under the 14th's POI clause (the NRA's appeal was strictly a due process claim). Progressive groups like the Constitutional Accountability Center supported McDonald because it appeared the Court might be saying it might entertain revisiting Slaughter House.

The Constitutional Accountability Center was very active in the run-up to McDonald v Chicago. They wrote often about the McDonald case, the 14th's POI clause and the damage Slaughter House had wrought, (1), (2), (3) (just a sample, there are many other articles), and CAC filed an amicus with SCOTUS supporting McDonanld and Gura's POI argument.

Progressives supported McDonald because if the Court were overturn Slaughter House and reinvigorate the POI clause of the 14th, that would allow full recognition and enforcement of all enumerated and unenumerated rights using foundational, fundamental constitutional principle.

It would allow the political yoke [JOKE] of the penumbral rights theory to be cast off, which was just another contrivance invented as a Slaughterhouse workaround, crowbarring the 9th Amendment into use. The penumbral rights theory has its very own wing in the Winchester Mansion of Law built because of Slaughter House.

The story of "incorporation" is sabotage . . . The framers of the 14th and every state that ratified the 14th understood that the intent was to make the full panoply of the "privileges or immunities" of citizens and the rights recognized in the first 8 Amendments fully enforceable on the states immediately. Within 5 years of the 14th's ratification, the Court disrupted and frustrated that intent, and liberty and our rights have been suffering ever since.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.

Biden repeats debunked Second Amendment cannon claim, says 'no amendment is absolute'

President Joe Biden said Thursday that “no amendment is absolute” while discussing the Second Amendment and repeated a debunked claim that cannons were prohibited at the time the amendment was passed.

www.foxnews.com

Do you even stop to think what the hell people have said?

1) No right is absolute. Free speech doesn't allow for treason or libel.

2) The Second Amendment does NOT protect people to have nukes, does not protect people to have SAMs. It doesn't prevent them stopping individuals in prisons from arms.

Are you suggesting the Second amendment should allow a prisoner, in prison, to have a nuclear weapon at all times? Are you freaking out of your MIND?

 

[Batcat]

If they start banning guns the crime rate is only going to escalate because the bad guys are the only ones are going to have them.

Plenty of otherwise honest citizens will refuse to turn in their weapons and consequently will become criminals. That will prove the old quote true. “If guns are banned only criminals will have guns.”

 

[BlindBoo]

Everything in the Constitution is absolute. If you amend the Constitution to take something out, it's no longer in the Constitution.

The words are but the decisions or interpretations made by the court can be transient.

 

[Moonglow]

Where is that in the Constitution? Mine doesn't say that.

13 Amendment

 

[Road Runner]

Thanks for the clarification. At first, I thought you were implying Joe Biden is wrong (which he is). Now I see that you agree with him.

No I don't agree with him, he wants to ban certain kinds of weapons for everybody.

Are you a moron? If a right is absolute as long as the government says you deserve it then it is never, ever, absolute, is it?

That's because rights are a privilege, not a requirement. If nobody ever abused their rights then they wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) be taken away from them.

 

[woodwork201]

13 Amendment

Not a mention there of firearms.

 

[Open Bolt]

Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away?

Freedom Haters always lie to disguise their intention to violate our civil liberties.

You're wrong, bro

The thing is though, not everyone who wants a post-86 gun is going to be able to become a licensed machine gun manufacturer.

Does the Second Amendment say that you have the right to shoot your gun? Of course not. Keeping and bearing are not shooting. No one said they're one in the same or that the right to keep and bear includes the right to kill.

That is incorrect. Bearing includes shooting and killing.

The Second Amendment does NOT protect people to have nukes, does not protect people to have SAMs.

It might protect the right of militiamen to have such weapons. They could be useful in repelling an invasion.

 

[Open Bolt]

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

That doesn't make it OK to violate the Second Amendment.

Nothing in the Constitution is absolute.

That doesn't make it OK to violate the Constitution.

No right is absolute. Free speech doesn't allow for treason or libel.

That doesn't make it OK to violate people's rights.

 

[Open Bolt]

A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.

That Burger character sure was dishonest.

When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

No he wasn't.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig.

His view seemed that way twenty-five seconds later.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home.

They would be started to learn it because it isn't true.

The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

No it hadn't. The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Yeah, what would he know about jurisprudence and Supreme Court decisions.

It appears that this Burger clown didn't know very much at all about the subject.

The article never made that claim. U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Note the Miller ruling as one example.

Your second case was the Heller case that was appealed to the SC that allow them to set the new precedent separating the individuals right to own weapons from required militia service.

The required militia service? What requirement is that?

 

[BlindBoo]

The required militia service? What requirement is that?

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia, ” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

The amendment grew out of the political tumult...

None of this changes the fact you were caught making several false statement re: the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and the jurisprudence regarding same.

 

[BlindBoo]

None of this changes the fact you were caught making several false statement re: the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and the jurisprudence regarding same.

Those were quotes taken out of context from the publications I cited and you know it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those were quotes taken out of context from the publications I cited and you know it.

Your statements were false.
If you did not know they were false when you made the, you knew it after I demonstrated them to be.
Disagree?
Feel free to pick a point you tried to make are re-argue it.

 

[Dr Grump]

At the end of the day, the 2nd has outlived its usefulness. Plus my choice of being armed is a nuclear warhead. Where can I get one?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia, ” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

www.brennancenter.org

If the Founders didn't intend for the people to have the right to keep and bear arms, they would have never ratified an amendment that says "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The regulations placed on gun ownership are unconstitutional. No other constitutional amendment is as infringed upon as the 2nd Amendment. It's time to put those regulations to bed, forever.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

At the end of the day, the 2nd has outlived its usefulness. Plus my choice of being armed is a nuclear warhead. Where can I get one?

The 2nd Amendment is more important now, than any other time in our history.

You don't have a clue how dumb the nuke reference is...lol