Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[Batcat]

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.

Talk about showing your ignorance. Geez.

However a person in this nation has the right of self defense.

Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw

This FindLaw article provides an overview of self-defense laws and the complications that come with them.

www.findlaw.com

In some circumstances a person can use lethal force for self defense. A firearm is considered a lethal force instrument. It is not illegal to shoot an aggressive individual to stop his attack. If you do shoot your attacker it is possible that you may kill him. Killing is not murder. Therefore it is legal to use a firearm for legal and legitimate self defense by shooting an attacker even if it kills him. Of course your decision to use lethal force will be scrutinized and you may be prosecuted if those in authority feel your actions did not meet the requirements for legitimate self defense.

Note: the laws on legitimate self defense vary state to state.

3/4 of States Are Now Stand Your Ground; only 12 Are Duty to Retreat

But what exactly do these terms mean?

reason.com

When to Use Lethal Force | When Force is Justified

Ability. Opportunity. Jeopardy. ost people look for three elements to determine whether the use of deadly force, such as a firearm, is justified.

www.secondcalldefense.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

However a person in this nation has the right of self defense.

And the exercise of the right to self-defense is one of the traditionally legal uses of a firearm.
Thus, the 2nd Amendment protects the right to use a gun - that is, shoot someone - in self-defense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

No, it doesn't. It protects them to have weapons like guns. Clearly no one is complaining people don't have nukes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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



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



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

The problem here is, if you think the 2A is absolute and the government does something that YOU think violates the 2A, doesn't mean it does violate the 2A.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And the exercise of the right to self-defense is one of the traditionally legal uses of a firearm.
Thus, the 2nd Amendment protects the right to use a gun - that is, shoot someone - in self-defense.

No, it doesn't.

The Second Amendment only protects the right to be in the militia and the right to own a gun.

The right to self defense might very well exist somewhere in the constitution, 9th Amendment, for example, but it's not in the 2A.

 

[toobfreak]

Can you take a bazooka into a bank?

No. How much time do you spend fighting that rule?

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

That is the stupidest black & white rationalization I've ever read.

 

[toobfreak]

The Second Amendment only protects the right to be in the militia and the right to own a gun. The right to self defense might very well exist somewhere in the constitution, 9th Amendment, for example, but it's not in the 2A.

Soo, you have the right to keep and bear arms against--- WHO? Your friends and family? What other point is there to it other than DEFENSE? Defense of self, defense of property, and defense of country.

 

[Open Bolt]

Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

I presume that's what you meant by requirement. Fair enough. I just wanted to be sure what you were referring to.

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.”

Yes, but even though they had a specific reason for drafting the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment still protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns privately for the defense of their homes.

There is an argument to be made for people also having the right to be armed outside their homes, although it isn't quite as secure as the right to protect one's home. It'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter this summer.

 

[Open Bolt]

At the end of the day, the 2nd has outlived its usefulness.

That is incorrect. Our civil liberties are still proving quite useful.

Plus my choice of being armed is a nuclear warhead. Where can I get one?

You'll have to get the government to form a militia, and then you'll need to join that militia.

 

[Open Bolt]

No, it doesn't. It protects them to have weapons like guns.

Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution says that the militia has the job of repelling foreign invasions.

Clearly anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft missiles are required for the job of repelling foreign invasions. And clean tactical nukes would be pretty useful too.

Clearly no one is complaining people don't have nukes.

You must have missed the message from Dr Grump just a few posts before yours. I believe it was #118.

The problem here is, if you think the 2A is absolute and the government does something that YOU think violates the 2A, doesn't mean it does violate the 2A.

Restrictions on fundamental rights are required to pass muster with Strict Scrutiny. That means that any gun restriction that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest is unconstitutional.

 

[Flash]

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

Isn't this the same jackass that also said global warming is caused by White Supremacists? LOL!

He doesn't know jackshit about the Bill of Rights.

Very little wiggle room in "shall not be infringed".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution says that the militia has the job of repelling foreign invasions.

Clearly anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft missiles are required for the job of repelling foreign invasions. And clean tactical nukes would be pretty useful too.



You must have missed the message from Dr Grump just a few posts before yours. I believe it was #118.



Restrictions on fundamental rights are required to pass muster with Strict Scrutiny. That means that any gun restriction that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest is unconstitutional.

I think maybe you don't understand how the Bill of Rights and the 2A work.

The militia wasn't first mentioned in the 2A. It was first mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. It was already there when they started discussing the 2A.

The militia is protected by the 2A in order to be able to carry out its purpose, or purposes.

1) They protect the right to keep arms so individuals will have guns that the US government cannot take when they call up the militia to federal service.

2) They protect the right to be in the militia (right to bear arms) so the feds can't basically say that certain people are ineligible for militia duty.

Clearly the National Guard is a part of the Militia, and has such weaponry.

So, when the NRA doesn't attack the US government for banning nukes and anti-tank weapons etc, you kind of thing the US government isn't doing anything unconstitutional.

Yes, I must have missed that message.

 

[Open Bolt]

I think maybe you don't understand how the Bill of Rights and the 2A work.

I understand how they work.

The militia wasn't first mentioned in the 2A. It was first mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. It was already there when they started discussing the 2A.
The militia is protected by the 2A in order to be able to carry out its purpose, or purposes.
1) They protect the right to keep arms so individuals will have guns that the US government cannot take when they call up the militia to federal service.
2) They protect the right to be in the militia (right to bear arms) so the feds can't basically say that certain people are ineligible for militia duty.

Agreed.

Clearly the National Guard is a part of the Militia, and has such weaponry.

That is incorrect. The National Guard is part of the US Army. They are about as far from being militia as you can get.

So, when the NRA doesn't attack the US government for banning nukes and anti-tank weapons etc, you kind of think the US government isn't doing anything unconstitutional.

The US government is doing something unconstitutional by not having a militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I understand how they work.



Agreed.



That is incorrect. The National Guard is part of the US Army. They are about as far from being militia as you can get.



The US government is doing something unconstitutional by not having a militia.

Read the Dick Act. The National Guard is the MILITIA.

It's the "organized militia" as opposed to the "unorganized militia" created just to stop people demanding access to the National Guard.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized."

No, there is NOTHING that says the US Federal government needs to have a militia. The US Constitution merely gives power to the government to do things. They have the power to wage war, doesn't mean they HAVE TO ALWAYS WAGE WAR (though you might be forgiven for thinking otherwise).

 

[Open Bolt]

Read the Dick Act. The National Guard is the MILITIA.

It's the "organized militia" as opposed to the "unorganized militia" created just to stop people demanding access to the National Guard.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized."

They can call themselves a militia all they want, but that doesn't make them a militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.

As part of the US Army, they are about as far from a real militia as you can get.

No, there is NOTHING that says the US Federal government needs to have a militia. The US Constitution merely gives power to the government to do things. They have the power to wage war, doesn't mean they HAVE TO ALWAYS WAGE WAR (though you might be forgiven for thinking otherwise).

Actually there is such a requirement. The Founding Fathers were concerned that a future malicious government would disregard the militia and then use its absence to justify raising a standing army.

To counter this possibility, they created the first half of the Second Amendment, which requires the government to always have a militia to protect the security of the state.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They can call themselves a militia all they want, but that doesn't make them a militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.

As part of the US Army, they are about as far from a real militia as you can get.



Actually there is such a requirement. The Founding Fathers were concerned that a future malicious government would disregard the militia and then use its absence to justify raising a standing army.

To counter this possibility, they created the first half of the Second Amendment, which requires the government to always have a militia to protect the security of the state.

A militia "in the eyes of the constitution", as you put it, is a militia that has state appointed officers and can be called up into federal service.

"Article 1 Section 8

• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

That is what it says about the militia. A militia is, whatever it is, could be a bunch of gay people with huge arses singing dirty songs. "the Militia" has state appointed officers and Congress prescribed discipline.

Nothing else.

You show me where in the Constitution it says they NEED to have a militia.

 

[Open Bolt]

A militia "in the eyes of the constitution", as you put it, is a militia that has state appointed officers and can be called up into federal service.

"Article 1 Section 8

• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

That is what it says about the militia. A militia is, whatever it is, could be a bunch of gay people with huge arses singing dirty songs. "the Militia" has state appointed officers and Congress prescribed discipline.

Nothing else.

There is a bit more than that. The Framers clearly intended the existence of the militia to prevent a standing army from being necessary.

To claim that a standing army counts as the militia is clearly contrary to the intent of the Framers.

There is also the fact that the Constitution limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. The National Guard does much more than that.

And also the fact that militiamen have the right to keep their weapons at home. Guardsmen are not allowed to do so.

You show me where in the Constitution it says they NEED to have a militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is a bit more than that. The Framers clearly intended the existence of the militia to prevent a standing army from being necessary.

To claim that a standing army counts as the militia is clearly contrary to the intent of the Framers.

There is also the fact that the Constitution limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. The National Guard does much more than that.

And also the fact that militiamen have the right to keep their weapons at home. Guardsmen are not allowed to do so.



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

The militia already existed, they merely wanted to protect it. That's what the 2A is, protection from the federal govt. Remember the constitution can only empower or depower the federal govt (and now the state govts), that's what it did, same as all the other clauses in the constitution.

The National Guard is NOT a standing army. It's a semi-professional army.

Well, the National Guard has duel status. You can get around anything if you want.

Every US citizen can keep "arms" at home. The right to keep arms is universal. Like all rights it has limits, prisoners cannot keep arms, those released from prison is more controversial. Some say that you can limit rights once someone has been convicted of a crime, you can take their life away, for example.

 

[Open Bolt]

The militia already existed, they merely wanted to protect it. That's what the 2A is, protection from the federal govt. Remember the constitution can only empower or depower the federal govt (and now the state govts), that's what it did, same as all the other clauses in the constitution.

Agreed.

The National Guard is NOT a standing army. It's a semi-professional army.

That is incorrect. The National Guard is part of the United States Army, which is very much a standing army.

Well, the National Guard has duel status. You can get around anything if you want.

Its status as part of the US Army means that it is not the militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.

Every US citizen can keep "arms" at home. The right to keep arms is universal. Like all rights it has limits, prisoners cannot keep arms, those released from prison is more controversial. Some say that you can limit rights once someone has been convicted of a crime, you can take their life away, for example.

Agreed.

 

[Batcat]

If those Javelin and Stinger missiles fall into terrorist hands they could causev a lot of problems.