Shall not be infringed.

[WethePeopleUS]

That requires an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that involves nothing actually said in the 2nd amendment. There is no age limit designated in the 2nd amendment.

What was the age a person was allowed to enter into militia service?

Certainly under the age that many current laws allow persons to own handguns.

16 to join the militia (then), 21 to purchase a firearm (now).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That requires an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that involves nothing actually said in the 2nd amendment. There is no age limit designated in the 2nd amendment.

What was the age a person was allowed to enter into militia service?

Men between the ages of 16-60 were required to sign up for the militia.

A Well Regulated Militia

The Militia Act of 1792
And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years

 

[WethePeopleUS]

What was the age a person was allowed to enter into militia service?

Men between the ages of 16-60 were required to sign up for the militia.

A Well Regulated Militia

The Militia Act of 1792
And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years

You are correct, and I was saying that during the Revolution, and when the Constitution and Declaration were being drafted, the age was 16. If you read the link I provided, it covered the history of militias, and the different ages one had to be to sign up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And just who are the "people" if not the citizens...
Were you being serious when you wrote this, or joking?

If you do not understand the legal, historical and conceptual difference bwteen "the people" and the citizenry in general, your ignorance indicates cannot have a meaningful conversation on this issue.

If you DO understand the difference andf simple ignore it, your dishonesty indicates you cannot have a meaningful conversation on this issue.

Put simply, not every citizen carries or possesses the full rights of "the people".

If we are going to follow the 2nd Amendment to the letter, then when it says that "the right of the people shall not be infringed," we are saying that non-citizens can purchase and carry guns, that children can buy and posses guns, which if we think about it, is absurd to even consider.

I've already explained to you how you are wrong.
Since you CHOOSE to be wrong, there's no need to respond to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

background checks!
whoop'D Fucking Doh

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To the anti-gun loons and their useful idiot followers, this reads:

....the right to keep and bear arms shall be taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited – but it shall not be infringed.

Never mind that these same people scream at the top of their lungs that, when applied to any other other right, each of these things violate the constitition, including those rights not so protected.

T'yeah - its only a form of prior restraint - what's the big deal?

 

[M14 Shooter]

An unlimited view of the 2nd amendment would allow children to buy and possess guns.

Except, of course, that children do not have the right to keep and bear arms, so laws limiting or prevent poseesion by children do not violate the 2nd.

That requires an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that involves nothing actually said in the 2nd amendment. There is no age limit designated in the 2nd amendment.

"The people" - as the term is used everywhere in the constitution - does not include children and a number of other classifications of individuals.
To argue otherwise is -- you guessed it - ignorant, dishonest, or both.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Expanded background checks was supported by the majority of Americans.

fallacy: Appeal to popularity

Now see how it's coming around to bite the republicans in congress right on the ass?
It's not infringing your right.

Background check are a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint infringes on your rights.

You keep saying that as if it's anything more than your personal opinion. Stop.

Feel free to show how my argument to that effect is unsound.
Once you do, I'll stop - until then, the statement stands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Licensing and registering guns were upheld as constitutional in the DC circuit court of appeals in 2010,

Did the SCotUS uphold it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except, of course, that children do not have the right to keep and bear arms, so laws limiting or prevent poseesion by children do not violate the 2nd.

That requires an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that involves nothing actually said in the 2nd amendment. There is no age limit designated in the 2nd amendment.

"The people" - as the term is used everywhere in the constitution - does not include children and a number of other classifications of individuals.
To argue otherwise is -- you guessed it - ignorant, dishonest, or both.

Really? Is that stated in the constitution, or it that an interpretation?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That requires an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that involves nothing actually said in the 2nd amendment. There is no age limit designated in the 2nd amendment.

"The people" - as the term is used everywhere in the constitution - does not include children and a number of other classifications of individuals.
To argue otherwise is -- you guessed it - ignorant, dishonest, or both.

Really? Is that stated in the constitution, or it that an interpretation?

Thank you for provng my point regarding ignorance/dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

Be honest, now - at least, try.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Licensing and registering guns were upheld as constitutional in the DC circuit court of appeals in 2010,

Did the SCotUS uphold it?

Has anyone taken it to the SCOTUS? Have licensing and registration been challenged in a SCOTUS case?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Licensing and registering guns were upheld as constitutional in the DC circuit court of appeals in 2010,

Did the SCotUS uphold it?

Has anyone taken it to the SCOTUS? Have licensing and registration been challenged in a SCOTUS case?

You answer to my question, then, is no.
Thank you.

 

[PaulS1950]

The federal government (including the supreme court) was not granted the power to determine constitutionality of laws - especially those involing individual rights - by the constitution.
All of the listed rights in the bill of rights limit the actions that can be taken against them. No part of the government can go beyond those limits lawfully. The collective population is our government and even with a 99% vote the second amendment cannot be revoked lawfully.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The people" - as the term is used everywhere in the constitution - does not include children and a number of other classifications of individuals.
To argue otherwise is -- you guessed it - ignorant, dishonest, or both.

Really? Is that stated in the constitution, or it that an interpretation?

Thank you for provng my point regarding ignorance/dishonesty.

Where is the age of majority set in the Constitution?

Try proving something for once instead of sputtering.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really? Is that stated in the constitution, or it that an interpretation?

Thank you for provng my point regarding ignorance/dishonesty.

Where is the age of majority set in the Constitution?
Try proving something for once instead of sputtering.

You may continue to prove my point regarding ignorance/dishonesty at you lesiure - I shan't get in your way, to be sure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The federal government (including the supreme court) was not granted the power to determine constitutionality of laws - especially those involing individual rights - by the constitution.
All of the listed rights in the bill of rights limit the actions that can be taken against them. No part of the government can go beyond those limits lawfully. The collective population is our government and even with a 99% vote the second amendment cannot be revoked lawfully.

But who enforces that if the Supreme Court had no power to rule laws unconstitutional?

The city of Chicago banned handguns. The SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional and effectively lifted the ban.

According to you, the SCOTUS had no right to rule on that law, let alone void it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thank you for provng my point regarding ignorance/dishonesty.

Where is the age of majority set in the Constitution?
Try proving something for once instead of sputtering.

You may continue to prove my point regarding ignorance/dishonesty at you lesiure - I shan't get in your way, to be sure.

You're saying nothing. You're declaring that constitutional rights for minors can be disabled, but you can't point to anything in the Constitution that says so.

Thus you concede that rights can be constitutionally 'infringed' even if the Constitution says they can't.'

Now to the real point. Since minors can be denied the right to buy guns, that justifies the background check of requiring proof of age,

correct?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where is the age of majority set in the Constitution?
Try proving something for once instead of sputtering.

You may continue to prove my point regarding ignorance/dishonesty at you lesiure - I shan't get in your way, to be sure.

You're saying nothing.

^^^
You said this

You're declaring that constitutional rights for minors can be disabled, but you can't point to anything in the Constitution that says so.
Thus you concede that rights can be constitutionally 'infringed' even if the Constitution says they can't.'

^^ Then you said this


You may continue to argue that "the people" and "citizens", even though used dsitinctly and seperately within the constitution, have the same constitutional meaning and thusly share the same rights; in doing so, you only prove my point.

Keep up the good work.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To the anti-gun loons and their useful idiot followers, this reads:

....the right to keep and bear arms shall be taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited – but it shall not be infringed.

Never mind that these same people scream at the top of their lungs that, when applied to any other other right, each of these things violate the constitition, including those rights not so protected.

Why are you leaving off the first part of the Amendment? You are in essence, lying by omission, aren't you? Are you a "well regulated militia"? Nor are you even part of one, are you?