Own guns, learn how to use them, fight the anti-gun nimrods.

[woodwork201]

Just like every other right.

They are not "bearable arms" as the term is used in the context of the 2nd.
How do you now know this?

The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep bearable arms shall not be infringed. It was very clear that it protected cannons and other arms besides those that could be carried. Why would you concede to the twists and deceptions of the left? Stand firm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, they cannot be taken through due process.

Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

If you cannot be deprived of your liberty through due process , you cannot be imprisoned.
Life, liberty and property all all held in the same regard here

 

[woodwork201]

Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

If you cannot be deprived of your liberty through due process , you cannot be imprisoned.
Life, liberty and property all all held in the same regard here

Where does that say your gun rights or your right to free speech or freedom of religion can be stripped as long as you have due process? That is referring to criminal punishment by imprisonment, death penalty, and fines, etc. It is a restriction on the common law or legal authorities to impact a person's freedoms and not intended as an authorization to strip people of their freedoms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does that say your gun rights or your right to free speech or freedom of religion can be stripped as long as you have due process?

Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

That is referring to criminal punishment by imprisonment, death penalty, and fines, etc. It is a restriction on the common law or legal authorities to impact a person's freedoms and not intended as an authorization to strip people of their freedoms.

It means state, through its power to punish criminal acts, can restrict or remove rights, but only through due process.

 

[Abatis]

The right to carry bearable firearms existed before the constitution?

Yes. Since no power was ever conferred to government to allow it to have an interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, the citizen retained the right to keep and bear arms.

Conferred powers and retained rights, the yin and yang of the Constitution.

Automatic weapons are "bearable".

Yes, "bearable arms" with indisputable military usefulness. Under the "Miller rule" (established by SCOTUS in 1939) military usefulness is the main thrust of SCOTUS' protection criteria, to decide if a citizen's possession and use of a type of arm (that government wants to restrict) is in law, outside the government's purview.

You can't own them, without a license, fee, and background check.

A scheme of regulation written in the tax code, where the greatest deference to Congressional action is given, essentially to get the camel's nose under the tent. It is a regulatory scheme that was sustained by SCOTUS in a case (Miller) that:

a) the Justices only heard the government's arguments,
b) only allowed the law to persist because no evidence was presented that said a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inched had military usefulness,
c) the Court sent the case back down to develop those facts.
d) Miller was quickly recognized as a decision that would protect all citizen possession and use of nearly all guns -- Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) gave a true account of what enforcing Miller would mean (paragraph breaks added):

"if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.​

​

But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.​

​

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns,"​

So Miller needed to be perverted and the Supreme Court has to be dismissed and ignored, and Cases revived and inserted the old racist and discriminatory "militia right" interpretation into the federal courts . . . And for 66 years that frustrated the enforcement of the 2nd Amendment -- until Heller began re-righting the constitutional ship.

WTF happened to your "rights"?

They were stolen by usurpers in robes, doing the bidding of leftists who hate the Constitution

Why aren't gun nuts suing them?

Oh, we are . . . And the great reckoning for you and your ilk will come in June, as another great step in the enforcement of the 2nd Amendment will occur.

.

 

[Abatis]

No, they cannot be taken through due process. They can be infringed through tyranny only.

Hey genius, explain what;

"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"​

. . . in the 5th Amendment (and 14thA) means.

There is no "except when" clause in the Constitution's protections of rights and, as rights, they cannot be stripped by government. You know this. Stand firm.

JHFC, stop, just stop.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I accept your surrender.

You speak from ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, I accept your surender.

^^^^
Irrelevant nonsense.

You speak from ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, I accept your surrender.

As usual.

NONE was given.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Look at you, unwilling to accept the truth.

LIES from a liar, I don't accept.

All rights can be removed through due process., and all rights have limitations.

So, people's "rights" are NOT absolute.
That's not the implication you gave in previous comments.

If that, to you, means a right is not actually a right, but a privilege, then you must believe you have -no- rights.

People have as many rights as the government gives you.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yes. Since no power was ever conferred to government to allow it to have an interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, the citizen retained the right to keep and bear arms...................self imposed rights

Hmmmmmm..........................Self-imposed rights.

Conferred powers and retained rights, the yin and yang of the Constitution.



Yes, "bearable arms" with indisputable military usefulness. Under the "Miller rule" (established by SCOTUS in 1939) military usefulness is the main thrust of SCOTUS' protection criteria, to decide if a citizen's possession and use of a type of arm (that government wants to restrict) is in law, outside the government's purview.



A scheme of regulation written in the tax code, where the greatest deference to Congressional action is given, essentially to get the camel's nose under the tent. It is a regulatory scheme that was sustained by SCOTUS in a case (Miller) that:

a) the Justices only heard the government's arguments,
b) only allowed the law to persist because no evidence was presented that said a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inched had military usefulness,
c) the Court sent the case back down to develop those facts.
d) Miller was quickly recognized as a decision that would protect all citizen possession and use of nearly all guns -- Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) gave a true account of what enforcing Miller would mean (paragraph breaks added):

"if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.​

​

But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.​

​

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns,"​

So Miller needed to be perverted and the Supreme Court has to be dismissed and ignored, and Cases revived and inserted the old racist and discriminatory "militia right" interpretation into the federal courts . . . And for 66 years that frustrated the enforcement of the 2nd Amendment -- until Heller began re-righting the constitutional ship.



They were stolen by usurpers in robes, doing the bidding of leftists who hate the Constitution

Sure, so anyone should be able to own and brandish RPGs, hand grenades, howitzers, landmines, etc.
Sounds like Afghanistan is the country you should be living in.

Oh, we are . . . And the great reckoning for you and your ilk will come in June, as another great step in the enforcement of the 2nd Amendment will occur.

I knew it, now it's June?
JFK Jr. was supposed to reappear in November of last year.

.

 

[whitehall]

If you are into long distance target shooting an A.R. 15 is fine but for home defense nothing beats a 12 ga. sewer pipe. You can get an old single barrel 12 ga. pretty cheap anywhere. Cut the barrel to a little over 18 inch legal length, load it up with #4 shot and you have a handy intimidator when things go bump in the night. If the shit hits the fan all you have to do is cock the hammer and let 'er rip but the sight of the thing will probably deter any sane home invader.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NONE was given.

It was, when you demonstrated your inability to meaningfully respond.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LIES from a liar, I don't accept.

You know full well you cannot demonstrate how anything I said is wrong, much less a lie.
You just want to avoid aahaving to give a ,eaminful respons,e because you know you cannot.

So, people's "rights" are NOT absolute.
That's not the implication you gave in previous comments.

You need to pay better attention.

People have as many rights as the government gives you.

This is a lie, as you know rights are not granted by the government.

 

[Abatis]

Hmmmmmm..........................Self-imposed rights.

Hmmmm.........................TOS violation.

Sure, so anyone should be able to own and brandish RPGs, hand grenades, howitzers, landmines, etc.
Sounds like Afghanistan is the country you should be living in.

No, again the principle is conferred powers and retained rights.

"We the People" conferred the power to acquire, keep and bear weapons of open indiscriminate warfare to Congress (along with other strictly defined powers, see Article I, Section 8; "Congress shall have the power . . . ".

In the obverse, government can not claim any powers that were not granted, which in this instance is the retained right to keep and bear the personal arms of the private citizen.

This principle of conferred powers and retained rights is the core of the rules of constitutional interpretation represented in the 9th and 10th Amendments (which you apparently never learned about).

I knew it, now it's June?
JFK Jr. was supposed to reappear in November of last year.

SCOTUS usually issues decisions heard in the fall term, in June of the following year.

The case is NYSRPA v Bruen. Look for SCOTUS to invalidate the "two-step" doctrine used by Courts of Appeals to uphold dozens of gun laws, including the state assault weapon bans and large capacity magazine bans and many other laws that all will be thrown in the dumpster . . .

Read THIS POST and the couple of mine that follow it, for an explanation.

 

[woodwork201]

Hey genius, explain what;

"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"​

. . . in the 5th Amendment (and 14thA) means.

Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

It means state, through its power to punish criminal acts, can restrict or remove rights, but only through due process.

You are both wrong. The 5th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights; not the Bill of Government Authorities. Its purpose is not to define or create rights for government but, instead, enumerates some of the rights of the people. Again, no power is granted or created for the government in the Bill of Rights; it serves only to restrict their authority and to protect the rights of the people.

The phrase, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" cannot be construed as an authorization for the government to take away any right from anyone, as long as due process is permitted. The phrase is in the context of judicial punishment, following the protections against self-incrimination, double-jeopardy, and protection by a grand jury.

William Rawle wrote, in A View of the Constitution, "It follows from all the antecedent precautions, that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and the repetition of this declaration, is only valuable, as it exhibits the summary of the whole, and the anxiety that it should never be forgotten." As he states, the due process phrase is only valuable when considered in the context of the previous statements in the 5th and in his writing.

At common law there are two modes of instituting prosecutions; one of which is by an information filed by the officer who represents the public, on his own judgment and discretion, which, if unadvisedly or corruptly done, may subject the individual to causeless trouble and expense. The other is by an indictment which is prepared by the same officer, and sent to a grand jury, or it may be done by the grand jury themselves. In both of these cases, witnesses are carefully examined on the part of the public, and the accused is not put on his trial unless at least twelve grand jurymen, on their oaths or affirmations, find that there is sufficient cause for it. In the fifth article it is expressly declared, that no person, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and in no case shall he be compelled to be a witness against himself.

That no one shall be subject for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, which is also provided, is perhaps too narrow—no one, after a full trial and a fair acquittal, ought to be subjected to another trial for the
same offence, whether it be great or small, and such indeed is the settled rule of law. The plea of a former acquittal, is a complete bar to every subsequent prosecution for the same offence. It follows from all the antecedent precautions, that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and the repetition of this declaration, is only valuable, as it exhibits
the summary of the whole, and the anxiety that it should never be forgotten.

But one part of the clause, connected with the last mentioned, requires more particular explanation.

In some countries when the public interest may occasionally require that private property should be appropriated to public purposes, the sovereign makes use of it without ceremony. In others, it cannot be taken from the individual on any terms without his own consent. A middle line is the correct course. A perverse and obstinate man, might otherwise impede or wholly prevent measures of the most cogent necessity for the public benefit, in which his own would be included. The people by declaring, that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, have agreed that in such cases and on such terms it may be taken. Of the necessity, the legislature is the only judge; it does not rest with the judicial power to determine whether the public exigence was such as to require it: great inconveniences might ensue from their assuming such a right. For example, a particular piece of ground might appear to the legislature, a suitable site for a fort in time of danger, and if they proceeded in a legal manner to vest the right to the ground in the public, it would not be competent for the judiciary to decide, that a better spot might have been chosen, or that there was no necessity for any fort.

In this manner, the property of an individual may be legally transferred against his will to the state, but the legislature has no power to transfer the property of A. to B. although it may appear more beneficial to the state that B. should have it. The just compensation spoken of, should be ascertained by a jury impartially selected, and should be paid in money, the universal representative and common standard of value.

In fact, from Congress.gov, it is clearly the intent and interpretation of the due process clause that it does NOT give congress the power to do anything it wishes simply by creating a process:

Standing by itself, the phrase due process would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that due process of law would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.

Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

Interestingly, the 5th also secures protection against the government taking property without just compensation, often called the "takings clause". In the same way as the due process clause does not grant any power to the government, the takings clause does not grant power to take property. Just like the 2nd Amendment assumes and acknowledges the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, the 5th Amendment talks about pre-existing rights of government: to jail criminals and to take property as necessary for the function of government.

The right to take someone's liberty, or, in case of certain crimes, even their life is implied in common law and are among many implied powers of government. The due process clause is intended to limit government's power to before locking up a criminal or fining them or taking their property or executing them. To assume that the government has the power to take someone's life without cause but with due process is just about the most asinine thing I have ever read on this forum. The power to take a life comes from the common law to punish certain crimes. The power to take someone's liberty by imprisoning them for crimes comes from common law.

Please provide documentation where common law would permit the stripping of the right to free speech or freedom of religion. It doesn't exist in common law, therefore the government has no power to take those rights. Therefore the due process clause does not give the government the right to strip someone of their right to free speech or freedom of religion. In fact, the clause grants no authority at all to the government. It only limits authority that they would otherwise have.

Based on the arguments you both make, there is no constitutional protection of any right and the 2nd Amendment is meaningless. To suggest that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped is to agree with the left that rights are not rights, they're privileges to be given or taken at the will of the government.

 

[woodwork201]

If you are into long distance target shooting an A.R. 15 is fine but for home defense nothing beats a 12 ga. sewer pipe. You can get an old single barrel 12 ga. pretty cheap anywhere. Cut the barrel to a little over 18 inch legal length, load it up with #4 shot and you have a handy intimidator when things go bump in the night. If the shit hits the fan all you have to do is cock the hammer and let 'er rip but the sight of the thing will probably deter any sane home invader.

There are cases where a shotgun is the best thing to have. When 5 or more home invaders crash through your door in the middle of the night, though, you want an AR-15. There's no one best tool that covers all scenarios. Since most guns will never be used in any defensive or offensive role, mostly our guns are like insurance, they make us feel safe. Each person must evaluate their own risks, their own fears, and what it takes for them to feel the safest and take whatever legal steps needed for their own. When the time comes to use the guns, should it ever come, they can only hope that they either made the right tools available or that they're successful in improvising with what is still a great tool even if not the ideal tool for the circumstance in which they find themselves.

 

[woodwork201]

LIES from a liar, I don't accept.

So, people's "rights" are NOT absolute.
That's not the implication you gave in previous comments.

People have as many rights as the government gives you.

I thanked your post not because I agree with your view on the rights but I definitely agree with your view on M14 Shooter's previous comments. He appears to now be saying that the government has the ability to strip any right it wants.

Once we concede that the government can strip a person of their rights then all that's left is to argue about which rights and when. And, ultimately, it is all rights and whenever the government wishes.

 

[Colin norris]

The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep bearable arms shall not be infringed. It was very clear that it protected cannons and other arms besides those that could be carried. Why would you concede to the twists and deceptions of the left? Stand firm.

Stand firm?
On what? If the government want yoyr guns They will take them and will do nothing about it. None if you Rambos have the courage.
Stand firm my arse?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

anti-gun nimrods.

This is a lie.

No one is ‘anti-gun.’

No one seeks to ‘take away’ your rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep bearable arms shall not be infringed. It was very clear that it protected cannons and other arms besides those that could be carried. Why would you concede to the twists and deceptions of the left? Stand firm.

Scalia was on ‘the left’?

 

[woodwork201]

Stand firm?
On what? If the government want yoyr guns They will take them and will do nothing about it. None if you Rambos have the courage.
Stand firm my arse?

You and the government are free to believe that.