Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say 'except for human sacrifice rituals'.
You can't murder people...that is violating their rights..failed again...
Whatsamadder? Too esoteric for you? Or did it hit one of your sore spots? Or is that just your way of slinging shit? If you truly don't understand it, then perhaps you should leave your 'puter alone and resume playing with your Legos. In any case, what you quoted was a response to another's post which you have conveniently removed from the full context of what I wrote.Does anyone have any idea what this strange person is saying?Precisely, but the honyocks and other uninformed neo-Antifederalists populating this board who have accepted the elephant piss propaganda from the usual suspects refuse to think beyond their faction's talking points, the bloody creatures!
You really have an issue with reading comprehension, HUH!Exactly. Nothing in the Heller court's decision has any effect on existing regulations outside the narrow boundaries of this case. You'll have to wait for a different case for those to be examined and ruled on.nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Thanks for agreeing with me!
The 1st Amendment doesn't say 'except for human sacrifice rituals'.
You can't murder people...that is violating their rights..failed again...
The 1st Amendment doesn't say 'except for human sacrifice rituals'.
You can't murder people...that is violating their rights..failed again...
More laws will not help. DumbassSo called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...This is true, but why fix something that ain't broken?Well, that's an honest answer. I appreciate that.
And regardless of courts saying background checks are const, I think it's at least debatable.
I just don't see the distinction of it being legal for the cops to stop everyone on a road to check to see if they have licenses and stop to check on all gun sales. The first infringes on the Fourth, the latter on the Second.
As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.
Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America
Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.
More laws will not help. DumbassSo called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...This is true, but why fix something that ain't broken?As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.
Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America
Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.
The idiocy and depravity of Thomas is what happens when republicans become president.The 1st Amendment doesn't say 'except for human sacrifice rituals'.
You can't murder people...that is violating their rights..failed again...
Bong hits 4 Jesus!??
Drug WarRant
Summary of Justice Thomas, from the link:
"Justice Thomas’ concurrence is a bit unusual. Basically, he said that he doesn’t believe that students have any free speech rights at all, and he’s just happy that this ruling limits them a little bit more."
Conservatives believe Scalia is ‘wrong’ and just another ‘liberal gun-grabber.’Umm, no.If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them.
The 2nd amendment says that since X is true, the people's right to KBA cannot be restricted or taken away by ANY govt in the U.S., Federal, state, or local governments... including California's.
Sorry, no.and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.
The Heller court said that the issue of so-called "reasonable regulations" would simply not be addressed in this decision, so the present regulation would be allowed to stand. A later case that actually examined them could change that dramatically, of course.
TRANSLATION: I hate it when you conservatives keep bringing these issues up, because we liberals can't defend our agenda on them, and we keep losing the debate on them. So I'll lie again, and claim they are "settled, accepted, and beyond dispute", and hope somebody believes me even though I can't back it up.These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
There was no Heller Court. The Supreme Court decided Heller on a 5-4 vote and one of the five (Justice Scalia) wrote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
Maybe you ought to read Heller:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
More ignorant nonsense, demagoguery, and a slippery slope fallacy.But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?
Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.
I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.
THAT is infringement.
It's an inconvenience, that's for sure. Seems a problem easily solved. Of course fee based systems are alway regressive which is why a national data base funded by taxes would satisfy all. Those of us who want to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not legally obtain one, and those who want to own guns and not wait six months and pay an enormous fee.
Right up until that data base was used to ban and confiscate some or all guns....as per Germany, Britain and Australia........this isn't a new tactic....it has been done before and we know it......no matter what we will resist a national data base of gun owners.....
The 1st clause of the 2nd amendment is not a conditional statement, it is merely a prefatory statement. Check your reading comprehension skills.As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:[29]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's conditional, but didn't have to be.
In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.
Which, by the way, is why the invasion of Iraq is not only illegal by international law, but also unconstitutional.Correct.Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.How is that certain. The Brady Bill?The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?
The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".
Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Why?
There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.
To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.
Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.
Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.
So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?
Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.
The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.
So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?
It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.
But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.
And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.
Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?
Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.
My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.
The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.
The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.
So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".
But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.
I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.
Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.
The why not is simple. Well not so simple.
The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for. This is EASILY proven by the fact that the majority of the original colonies had official religions AND most of the colonies and colonial towns had laws restricting carrying guns etc etc. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was ONLY to preclude the FEDERAL government from restricting gun ownership, then each state could do as they wish , meaning each state could have in their constitution (neither the state nor any city within may restrict gun ownership, or what have you)
but of course, we had the whole "incorporation" boondoggle which changed everything, so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment , but that would seem to be unlikely, but one thing is certain, ANY federal law which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.
Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..
If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.
If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.
And on and on and on.
But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
Articles III and VI authorize the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, the final appellate court in the Federal judiciary, to determine what the Constitution means, to invalidate measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framing Generation, who fully expected the Federal courts to continue to follow the doctrine of judicial review just as Colonial courts had done for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.
And that’s exactly what the Heller Court did: it determined the meaning the Constitution concerning the the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment right is an individual – not collective – right, that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was un-Constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.
These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
Conservatives believe Scalia is ‘wrong’ and just another ‘liberal gun-grabber.’Umm, no.If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them.
The 2nd amendment says that since X is true, the people's right to KBA cannot be restricted or taken away by ANY govt in the U.S., Federal, state, or local governments... including California's.
Sorry, no.and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.
The Heller court said that the issue of so-called "reasonable regulations" would simply not be addressed in this decision, so the present regulation would be allowed to stand. A later case that actually examined them could change that dramatically, of course.
TRANSLATION: I hate it when you conservatives keep bringing these issues up, because we liberals can't defend our agenda on them, and we keep losing the debate on them. So I'll lie again, and claim they are "settled, accepted, and beyond dispute", and hope somebody believes me even though I can't back it up.These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
There was no Heller Court. The Supreme Court decided Heller on a 5-4 vote and one of the five (Justice Scalia) wrote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
Maybe you ought to read Heller:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Which, by the way, is why the invasion of Iraq is not only illegal by international law, but also unconstitutional.Correct.Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.How is that certain. The Brady Bill?The why not is simple. Well not so simple.
The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for. This is EASILY proven by the fact that the majority of the original colonies had official religions AND most of the colonies and colonial towns had laws restricting carrying guns etc etc. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was ONLY to preclude the FEDERAL government from restricting gun ownership, then each state could do as they wish , meaning each state could have in their constitution (neither the state nor any city within may restrict gun ownership, or what have you)
but of course, we had the whole "incorporation" boondoggle which changed everything, so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment , but that would seem to be unlikely, but one thing is certain, ANY federal law which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.
Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..
If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.
If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.
And on and on and on.
But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
Articles III and VI authorize the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, the final appellate court in the Federal judiciary, to determine what the Constitution means, to invalidate measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framing Generation, who fully expected the Federal courts to continue to follow the doctrine of judicial review just as Colonial courts had done for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.
And that’s exactly what the Heller Court did: it determined the meaning the Constitution concerning the the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment right is an individual – not collective – right, that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was un-Constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.
These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?
Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.
I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.
THAT is infringement.
The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.
If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.
But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?
And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....
More laws never mean less crime... FactMore laws will not help. DumbassSo called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...This is true, but why fix something that ain't broken?
Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America
Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.
You should never call anyone dumb.
He was a progressiveConservatives believe Scalia is ‘wrong’ and just another ‘liberal gun-grabber.’Umm, no.If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them.
The 2nd amendment says that since X is true, the people's right to KBA cannot be restricted or taken away by ANY govt in the U.S., Federal, state, or local governments... including California's.
Sorry, no.and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.
The Heller court said that the issue of so-called "reasonable regulations" would simply not be addressed in this decision, so the present regulation would be allowed to stand. A later case that actually examined them could change that dramatically, of course.
TRANSLATION: I hate it when you conservatives keep bringing these issues up, because we liberals can't defend our agenda on them, and we keep losing the debate on them. So I'll lie again, and claim they are "settled, accepted, and beyond dispute", and hope somebody believes me even though I can't back it up.These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
There was no Heller Court. The Supreme Court decided Heller on a 5-4 vote and one of the five (Justice Scalia) wrote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
Maybe you ought to read Heller:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
