Second Amendment Rights

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well the constitution was written as it was. The debates in the House show that the founding fathers were worried that rights would be taken away, this is why they removed a clause that said people who had religious scruples should not be compelled to "bear arms" (as in, be in the militia)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

I don't "fail to understand", you're just making stuff up.

As I've said, a clause that says people who are religious scrupulous could be excused militia duty was seen BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way in which the US govt could have taken away the right from all people.

I know what things say, I also know what other people say. You can bang on about it, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a world where everything was fair and power was dealt with sensibly, and neither do we.

I'm making stuff up? Not really. The US government is one of limited, specifically enumerated powers. The states never gave their union the power to enact legislation that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

If you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.

Wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (see McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

And like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see DC v. Heller (2008)).

So yes, you’re making stuff up. Really.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well the constitution was written as it was. The debates in the House show that the founding fathers were worried that rights would be taken away, this is why they removed a clause that said people who had religious scruples should not be compelled to "bear arms" (as in, be in the militia)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

I don't "fail to understand", you're just making stuff up.

As I've said, a clause that says people who are religious scrupulous could be excused militia duty was seen BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way in which the US govt could have taken away the right from all people.

I know what things say, I also know what other people say. You can bang on about it, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a world where everything was fair and power was dealt with sensibly, and neither do we.

I'm making stuff up? Not really. The US government is one of limited, specifically enumerated powers. The states never gave their union the power to enact legislation that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

If you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.

You're telling me what I think. Now either you know what I think, which I very much doubt unless you're psychic or something, or you're making stuff up. Which is it?

I understand what the US govt is. I understand what is SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

I also understand this doesn't always happen. I also understand the Founding Fathers understood that this doesn't always happen.

When a Supreme Court Justice dies, the President is supposed to nominate someone and the Senate is supposed to go through a process of confirming or not. This isn't happening. Why? Power games.

As I've pointed out to you, they got rid of a clause from the 2A because they believed the US govt could use this clause in a negative manner to give themselves power they hadn't been given.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs.

Liberals always change the subject to tanks and nukes, when they can't refute the fact that we have the right to carry guns.

It's their most common type of capitulation.

 

[Centinel]

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

I don't "fail to understand", you're just making stuff up.

As I've said, a clause that says people who are religious scrupulous could be excused militia duty was seen BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way in which the US govt could have taken away the right from all people.

I know what things say, I also know what other people say. You can bang on about it, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a world where everything was fair and power was dealt with sensibly, and neither do we.

I'm making stuff up? Not really. The US government is one of limited, specifically enumerated powers. The states never gave their union the power to enact legislation that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

If you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.

Wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (see McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

And like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see DC v. Heller (2008)).

So yes, you’re making stuff up. Really.

So which of congress' powers, either express or implied, would allow it to enact legislation that prohibits the people of the states from acquiring or possessing firearms?

 

[Centinel]

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

I don't "fail to understand", you're just making stuff up.

As I've said, a clause that says people who are religious scrupulous could be excused militia duty was seen BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way in which the US govt could have taken away the right from all people.

I know what things say, I also know what other people say. You can bang on about it, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a world where everything was fair and power was dealt with sensibly, and neither do we.

I'm making stuff up? Not really. The US government is one of limited, specifically enumerated powers. The states never gave their union the power to enact legislation that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

If you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.

You're telling me what I think. Now either you know what I think, which I very much doubt unless you're psychic or something, or you're making stuff up. Which is it?

I understand what the US govt is. I understand what is SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

I also understand this doesn't always happen. I also understand the Founding Fathers understood that this doesn't always happen.

When a Supreme Court Justice dies, the President is supposed to nominate someone and the Senate is supposed to go through a process of confirming or not. This isn't happening. Why? Power games.

As I've pointed out to you, they got rid of a clause from the 2A because they believed the US govt could use this clause in a negative manner to give themselves power they hadn't been given.

I'm not telling what you think. I'm asking you. I said, IF you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Conservatives believe in gun control at their convention but think guns should be in schools. 'Gun-free' zones are mocked by cons daily but their political convention is a Gun-free zone? If the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, apparently the GOP doesn't think there will be any good guys at their convention! No one can carry a gun.

Hyppi, meet Pocrisy. This will be the granddaddy of all family meetings for you two.

Oh cons, how Charlton Heston would be so saddened that no one in the conservative ranks is saying "when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

 

[FaerieGodfather]

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms as the ultimate principle of democracy.

If the elites of the GOP don't want to allow their subjects to be carrying weapons around them, that makes them just as hypocritical as the elites of the Democratic Party.

 

[MaryL]

GUNS GUNS GUNS! What if Trump and Cruz took to settling their differences with flintlock pistols at 20 paces? And the winner, took on the Democrats? Aren't we civilized?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs.

Liberals always change the subject to tanks and nukes, when they can't refute the fact that we have the right to carry guns.

It's their most common type of capitulation.

I'm sorry, did I say you didn't have a right to own guns? No I did not.

It's not be who's chopping and changing like a horny rabbit. it's not be who's coming out with the attacks "liberals do this or do that" when I'm clearly not doing that.

The claim here was the RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE, the 2A does not protect the right to self defense.

What the 2A does is protect a right to own militia type arms and to be in the militia.

If you say there is a right to own anything that you can defend yourself with, then you're just plain wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

I don't "fail to understand", you're just making stuff up.

As I've said, a clause that says people who are religious scrupulous could be excused militia duty was seen BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way in which the US govt could have taken away the right from all people.

I know what things say, I also know what other people say. You can bang on about it, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a world where everything was fair and power was dealt with sensibly, and neither do we.

I'm making stuff up? Not really. The US government is one of limited, specifically enumerated powers. The states never gave their union the power to enact legislation that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

If you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.

Wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (see McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

And like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see DC v. Heller (2008)).

So yes, you’re making stuff up. Really.

So which of congress' powers, either express or implied, would allow it to enact legislation that prohibits the people of the states from acquiring or possessing firearms?

You've changed the angle.

Before it was "restrict the ability of people of the states to keep and bear arms", now it is "prohibits the people of the states from acquiring or possessing firearms".

What I'm telling you is that the founding fathers believed there was a risk to the militia because the govt might try and take away people's guns.

Taking away people's guns isn't prohibiting them from acquiring guns. However it is restricting people from keeping arms.

If you were a poor man who owned one gun, and then the govt took your gun, they're restricting your ability to keep arms, simply because you might not be able to afford to buy another gun. However they're not prohibiting you from getting another gun.

The 2A was put in place to protect the militia by protecting individuals so that they would have arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms as the ultimate principle of democracy.

If the elites of the GOP don't want to allow their subjects to be carrying weapons around them, that makes them just as hypocritical as the elites of the Democratic Party.

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

I don't "fail to understand", you're just making stuff up.

As I've said, a clause that says people who are religious scrupulous could be excused militia duty was seen BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way in which the US govt could have taken away the right from all people.

I know what things say, I also know what other people say. You can bang on about it, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a world where everything was fair and power was dealt with sensibly, and neither do we.

I'm making stuff up? Not really. The US government is one of limited, specifically enumerated powers. The states never gave their union the power to enact legislation that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

If you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.

You're telling me what I think. Now either you know what I think, which I very much doubt unless you're psychic or something, or you're making stuff up. Which is it?

I understand what the US govt is. I understand what is SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

I also understand this doesn't always happen. I also understand the Founding Fathers understood that this doesn't always happen.

When a Supreme Court Justice dies, the President is supposed to nominate someone and the Senate is supposed to go through a process of confirming or not. This isn't happening. Why? Power games.

As I've pointed out to you, they got rid of a clause from the 2A because they believed the US govt could use this clause in a negative manner to give themselves power they hadn't been given.

I'm not telling what you think. I'm asking you. I said, IF you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.

And I've told you twice, and twice you've come back saying the same thing.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

 

[whitehall]

If the truth be known there are probably more left wing hypocrites packing concealed iron in Detroit and Chicago and long time liberal dominated north east cities during democrat events than there are "conservatives who support open carry" .

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, 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 person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the truth be known there are probably more left wing hypocrites packing concealed iron in Detroit and Chicago and long time liberal dominated north east cities during democrat events than there are "conservatives who support open carry" .

How does it make you a hypocrite?

I would prefer to live in a society where people didn't have guns. However because people do have guns I feel unsafe and feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. I would prefer not to have to need a gun to protect myself.

Where's the hypocrisy?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Do you read anything about the FAA in the enumerated powers?

Nope.

How about the US Air Force, or the USMC, or perhaps the plans on how to build a Federal Courthouse, a Post Office or maybe an aircraft carrier or submarine?

Congress has the power to establish a navy and an army.

And to establish courts.

And to establish post offices and roads.

Do you see how illogical your position is when juxtaposed to real world situations?

Not really. Congress was given power to do a limited set of things.

I could go on listing shit for days or even weeks that have become law yet are both Constitutional and not within the enumeration, per se, but are both for the "...general welfare of the United States...;" (Article I, § 8, Cls 1)" and "... necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." (Article I, § 8, Cls 18).

I guess you think these two passages mean something other that what the founders intended also, eh? Why not just throw out the entire text of Article III ALONG with Article VI, Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause. That would be typical of you State's Right's folks and other "originalists" wanting to "modify" the portions of the Constitution that are not to their liking, right Brutus? Federalism is here to stay and your side lost the argument about 227 years ago. You want another Constitution, read the existing one and you and your brotherhood can go through the process.

Hey, why don't you do something surprising and RESPOND TO THE POINT MADE RATHER THAN REPEAT THE SAME DEBUNKED TRIPE THAT CONGRESS MUST HAVE EVERY SITUATION SPELLED OUT AND DETAILED IN THE ENUMERATION TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF WRITING AN ARGUMENT RATHER THAN JUST A SILLY UNFOUNDED DECLATATION?

Your point seems to be that congress' powers entail various details. Establishing a navy entails actually building submarines. I agree with that point.

However, the point remains that none of congress' enumerated powers can in any way be regarded as giving it any authority to enact gun control legislation effecting the people of the states.

There 's that poor logic of yours again. All the other laws regarding those examples of the Navy, establish Courts inferior to SCOTUS, establish post offices and post roads all entail other laws for a multitude of purposes. They are all IMPLIED POWERS, and you have even IMPLIED such in your last post. Hmmmmmm!

The following is from the Wex legal dictionary at Cornell's LII on the subject of Federalism. I'll just C&P part of one paragraph then you can tell the Constitutional lawyers who wrote the piece they don't know what the Hell they're talking about, too. Pay real close attention to what EXACTLY they say about powers. I'll try and highlight those so you won't miss them:

"The Constitution grants Congress power over issues of national concern. The powers granted to the federal government include delegated powers, implied powers, or inherent powers. Delegated powers, also known as enumerated or expressed powers, are listed under Article 1 Section 8, and include the power to levy taxes, declare war, mint money, punish piracy on the high seas, and establish post offices. In all, there are 27 powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Although implied powers are not laid out in the Constitution, they can be inferred from the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1 Section 8. Inherent powers are neither listed nor implied in the Constitution, but arise from the nature of the national government and include the ability to acquire territory and sovereignty."

So let us all know how wrong they got it all wrong and you anti-Federalists living in the 18th century are the only ones with the true of it, Brutus!

When the states created their union, they delegated to it small set of powers. I agree that each of these powers implies a vast set of implied powers. For example, the power to establish a navy implies that congress has the power to purchase a ship or build a dockyard. The implied powers flow from the specific enumerated powers.

So which specific enumerated power would result in the implied power to restrict the acquisition and possession of firearms by the people of the states?

I have been detained in hospital these last three days and unable to respond. This post corrects that inability.

You erringly state that:

When the states created their union, they delegated to it small set of powers.

Those powers were not delegated, per se, but rather CEDED by the several States. In other words, the several States gave up a portion of their sovereignty to the National government. In 1861 there was an effort to reclaim that which had been ceded ending in failure. Today, there are many like yourself trying to reclaim powers ceded to the Federal claiming this and that, but, to a person, have no response to the mention of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI Cls 2 given it blows the shit out of the various. You see, an INFERIOR power cannot DELEGATE specific powers to a SUPERIOR power. That's like setting a bottle of water on the counter to attempt pouring the water up to empty it. That doesn't work just like powers won't flow UP either. Again Brutus, the anti-Federalists lost 227 years ago when the Constitution was ratified.

I agree that each of these powers implies a vast set of implied powers.

Good, some common ground finally without equivocation!

So which specific enumerated power would result in the implied power to restrict the acquisition and possession of firearms by the people of the states?

Already responded to; Article I § 8 Cls 1 - the General Welfare clause and Article I § 8 Cls 18 the Necessary and Proper clause. The first Federal gun control legislation was the National Firearms Act of 1934. The constitutionality of Federal gun control legislation has been upheld in broad terms with the most significant recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which you have already been cited and quoted from.

Scalia did not get it wrong, it's just the interpretation that some folks use to broaden its scope which are less than honest, shall we say. NONE of the SCOTUS precedents foreclose upon the Amendment II protections. With US v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois the individual's rights are sustained. Further, in US v. Miller and DC v. Heller, there is no ban of weapons only specific types used by the military/militia NOT THOSE in common use. Your entire anti-federalist argument is full of holes shot into it by the protections within the Constitution and further defined by SCOTUS. Q.E.D.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like to see Clock Boy and recent ISIS refugees admitted to the Dem Convention

 

[Skull Pilot]

Come on now, 'Conservatives', don't you think this would be a good idea? After all, that would prevent a terrorist attack, wouldn't it? All the delegates packing, what a wonderful idea.

So what if people from exercise a Constitutional right?

You're exercising one right now and nobody cares

 

[martybegan]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Most gun rights advocates don't think one has to carry in a controlled area. I am sure the Republican Convention is considered a controlled area.

In a controlled area the people running take responsibility for your safety by providing security, and assuring others cannot be armed when they are in the area.

Our issue is you idiots want to take away our right to keep arms WITHOUT providing the security and without guaranteeing others cannot be armed as well.