Shall not be infringed.

[M14 Shooter]

...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?

Because the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; this being the case, the first part of the amendment has no bearing on my position.

You are in essence, lying by omission, aren't you?

Only if you can show how the first part of the amedment in any way renders my argument unsound and that I deliberately left it out because I knew this would be the case.
Please feel free to try.

Please also feel tree to address the actual issue at hand, rather than avoid it.

 

[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?

"""Because the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; this being the case, the first part of the amendment has no bearing on my position."""

No, it does not. The explanation for a citizen's right to possess a firearm was so the federal government would not have to BUY the damn gun for the man who was to serve in the militia.

You are in essence, lying by omission, aren't you?

Only if you can show how the first part of the amedment in any way renders my argument unsound and that I deliberately left it out because I knew this would be the case.
Please feel free to try.

Please also feel tree to address the actual issue at hand, rather than avoid it.

Are you kidding? What part of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." do you not get?

Article 1 Section 8 of the drafted Constitution gave the federal Congress the power to "raise and support an army". But many colonists considered a permanent standing army as a symbol of the British tyranny they had just defeated. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to reduce the perceived threats of liberty that were created by the fed's power to establish a national military.

Please feel free to understand American history before Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

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.

"The people" - as the term is used everywhere in the constitution - does not include children and a number of other classifications of individuals.

Please provide a link to a reference in the Constitution where they talk about this. Otherwise you are being dishonest...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then state your position:

Are you conceding that it would be constitutional for a state to ban all personal purchase, possession, and use of a firearm for anyone under the age of 21,

on the grounds that minors/children cannot claim the same rights as adult 'people' or 'citizens'.

Yes, or no.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You didn't state your position on whether or not it's constitutional to require proof of age to buy a gun where constitutional age restrictions on gun ownership are in place.

Why not?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Why are you leaving off the first part of the Amendment?

"""Because the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; this being the case, the first part of the amendment has no bearing on my position."""

No, it does not. The explanation for a citizen's right to possess a firearm was so the federal government would not have to BUY the damn gun for the man who was to serve in the militia.

You are in essence, lying by omission, aren't you?

Only if you can show how the first part of the amedment in any way renders my argument unsound and that I deliberately left it out because I knew this would be the case.
Please feel free to try.

Please also feel tree to address the actual issue at hand, rather than avoid it.

Are you kidding? What part of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." do you not get?

Article 1 Section 8 of the drafted Constitution gave the federal Congress the power to "raise and support an army". But many colonists considered a permanent standing army as a symbol of the British tyranny they had just defeated. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to reduce the perceived threats of liberty that were created by the fed's power to establish a national military.

Please feel free to understand American history before Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

Apparently the connection between the militia and their right to have guns doesn't resignate with well with him. To him, the are utterly unconnected. I think he must have slept through American History.

You are right Congress did have the power to raise an army, however, the government said they would not keep an army during peace times. Therefore we needed militias. And for the government not to have to waste money we really didn't have at the time, the citizens had to have the right to keep and bear arms, so they did not have to provide them. Less we forget that around that time we had to deal with Indian Wars, where our citizens would need guns to protect themselves from invading Indians. It wasn't until the 1800's that we started wiping out all the Indians and moving them onto reservations.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

"The people" - as the term is used everywhere in the constitution - does not include children and a number of other classifications of individuals.

Please provide a link to a reference in the Constitution where they talk about this. Otherwise you are being dishonest...

Before the 15 and 19th amendments women nor blacks could not vote. Are they not people?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Actually, the Founding Document does authorize judicial review, as the doctrine has long been part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition:

The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.

By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.

The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review

 

[mmmjvpssm]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

That's not the only reason it's outlawed

An Iowa man was convicted of possessing child pornography last week because some of the books in his vast collection of Japanese manga (comics) appeared to depict minors engaged in sexual acts. How exactly can a court determine whether a comic book character is a "minor" or not?

39-year-old Christopher Handley, an office worker, was brought up on charges of possessing child pornography in 2006 when customs officials seized a package for him. It contained several manga, some of which were "lolicon" that showed what officials said were children being sexually abused. There were also images of bestiality. Handley has a huge collection of manga, and only a few are lolicon. He also had absolutely no child pornography of any description in his house or on his computer.
Manga Collection Ruled "Child Pornography" By US Court

 

[NYcarbineer]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

That's not the only reason it's outlawed

An Iowa man was convicted of possessing child pornography last week because some of the books in his vast collection of Japanese manga (comics) appeared to depict minors engaged in sexual acts. How exactly can a court determine whether a comic book character is a "minor" or not?

39-year-old Christopher Handley, an office worker, was brought up on charges of possessing child pornography in 2006 when customs officials seized a package for him. It contained several manga, some of which were "lolicon" that showed what officials said were children being sexually abused. There were also images of bestiality. Handley has a huge collection of manga, and only a few are lolicon. He also had absolutely no child pornography of any description in his house or on his computer.
Manga Collection Ruled "Child Pornography" By US Court

That's a good point. Or I would ask M14 this,

why can you be fined by the FCC for saying 'fuck' on the radio, if the Constitution says, explicitly,

that such free speech cannot be abridged by law? What's the 'direct harm' there?

 

[Cuyo]

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

"A well-regulated militia being necessary..."

When I only quote part of it, sounds a lot different then when you only quote part of it, huh?

Maybe that's why there's a debate.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why are you leaving off the first part of the Amendment?

"""Because the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; this being the case, the first part of the amendment has no bearing on my position."""

No, it does not. The explanation for a citizen's right to possess a firearm was so the federal government would not have to BUY the damn gun for the man who was to serve in the militia.

You are in essence, lying by omission, aren't you?

Only if you can show how the first part of the amedment in any way renders my argument unsound and that I deliberately left it out because I knew this would be the case.
Please feel free to try.

Please also feel tree to address the actual issue at hand, rather than avoid it.

Are you kidding? What part of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." do you not get?

Article 1 Section 8 of the drafted Constitution gave the federal Congress the power to "raise and support an army". But many colonists considered a permanent standing army as a symbol of the British tyranny they had just defeated. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to reduce the perceived threats of liberty that were created by the fed's power to establish a national military.

Please feel free to understand American history before Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

that is why they reassured that is the right of the people to keep and bear arms

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it does not. The explanation for a citizen's right to possess a firearm was so the federal government would not have to BUY the damn gun for the man who was to serve in the militia.

You disagree with current and standing jurisprudence?
This means you are wrong.

Are you kidding? What part of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." do you not get?

The Part that is relevant to my position; as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, there is none.

Now that you have been shown how you are wrong, please feel free to meaningfully address the issue put to you.

 

[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.

"The people" - as the term is used everywhere in the constitution - does not include children and a number of other classifications of individuals.
Please provide a link to a reference in the Constitution where they talk about this. Otherwise you are being dishonest...

This is a lie. My position is long standing and well established.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Then state your position:

Its in the OP. Feel free to page up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You didn't state your position on whether or not it's constitutional to require proof of age to buy a gun where constitutional age restrictions on gun ownership are in place.
Why not?

It isnt relevant to anyting I said and so I need not address it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"""Because the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; this being the case, the first part of the amendment has no bearing on my position."""

No, it does not. The explanation for a citizen's right to possess a firearm was so the federal government would not have to BUY the damn gun for the man who was to serve in the militia.


Only if you can show how the first part of the amedment in any way renders my argument unsound and that I deliberately left it out because I knew this would be the case.
Please feel free to try.

Please also feel tree to address the actual issue at hand, rather than avoid it.

Are you kidding? What part of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." do you not get?

Article 1 Section 8 of the drafted Constitution gave the federal Congress the power to "raise and support an army". But many colonists considered a permanent standing army as a symbol of the British tyranny they had just defeated. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to reduce the perceived threats of liberty that were created by the fed's power to establish a national military.

Please feel free to understand American history before Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

Apparently the connection between the militia and their right to have guns doesn't resignate with well with him. To him, the are utterly unconnected. I think he must have slept through American History.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Here's the argument behind the statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Feel free to prove it unsound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"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.

"The people" - as the term is used everywhere in the constitution - does not include children and a number of other classifications of individuals.

Please provide a link to a reference in the Constitution where they talk about this. Otherwise you are being dishonest...

Before the 15 and 19th amendments women nor blacks could not vote. Are they not people?

Not as the term is used in the constitution.

"the people"...refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/259/case.html

This makes "the people" a subset of the citizenry in general as not every citizen fits into that grop.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

That's not the only reason it's outlawed

On what other constitutional basis is it outlawed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

That's not the only reason it's outlawed

An Iowa man was convicted of possessing child pornography last week because some of the books in his vast collection of Japanese manga (comics) appeared to depict minors engaged in sexual acts. How exactly can a court determine whether a comic book character is a "minor" or not?

39-year-old Christopher Handley, an office worker, was brought up on charges of possessing child pornography in 2006 when customs officials seized a package for him. It contained several manga, some of which were "lolicon" that showed what officials said were children being sexually abused. There were also images of bestiality. Handley has a huge collection of manga, and only a few are lolicon. He also had absolutely no child pornography of any description in his house or on his computer.
Manga Collection Ruled "Child Pornography" By US Court

That's a good point. Or I would ask M14 this,

why can you be fined by the FCC for saying 'fuck' on the radio, if the Constitution says, explicitly,

that such free speech cannot be abridged by law? What's the 'direct harm' there?

Have I argued that this is a constitutional restriction of the right to free speech?
No?
Then there's no need for me to address the question.