The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Slippery Slope to complete repeal

 

[justinacolmena]

Back to the subject:

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

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

100% CORRECT.

1. A well-regulated Militia being necessary to (or for) the security of a free State, and having said that,
2. the right of the people, the universal human right
3. to keep and bear Arms, to possess and carry firearms,
4. shall not be infringed: shall not be limited or restricted in any way, shape or form.

The people have expressed their will through the political process and their lawfully elected representatives that felons shall not take possession of firearms, a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment right, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The people are likewise at liberty to repeal such a prohibition through the political process, or challenge the law authorizing the prohibition in Federal court.

100% BULLSHIT. We the people have been thoroughly disenfranchised and barred from Federal courts and all other Federal buildings, parks and facilities with respect to gun rights.

And what if some criminal is out of prison, armed & dangerous? Leave him the fuck alone. Our lovely city slicker police officers are so well armed & organized they can follow military rules of engagement. But no, the damned cops don't do that. They treat unarmed civilians as armed enemy combatants at war and shoot at us with reckless abandon and murderous disregard for our lives and supreme protectiveness for their own.

"A well-regulated Militia …"

You can drive several tractor trailers through that phrase, dude.

1. Guns are not just for dudes.
2. “Well-regulated” refers in some sense to an “official” militia that may be called up on duty, but that is not a restrictive clause and it does not call for a haircut.
3. The masters of the barbershop & the whorehouse, (i.e., the entire so-called “mental health” industry,) cannot be allowed to have any say whatsoever in regards to gun rights or gun ownership.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 2nd Amendment was intended to be an absolute bar on federal power, at a minimum. That's the only way it can be read. One could further argue that it was intended to be an absolute bar on the right, both State and Federal, given the purpose.

The tyrant will always try to limit the power of his intended subjects.

.

 

[justinacolmena]

The 2nd Amendment was intended to be an absolute bar on federal power, at a minimum.

The First Amendment, from the language, “Congress shall make no law …” may perhaps be construed as a bar only on U.S. Congressional law-making power, but the Second Amendment language, “shall not be infringed,” clearly does not leave room for the state to deny U.S. Constitutional rights at a state, local or municipal level.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 2nd Amendment was intended to be an absolute bar on federal power, at a minimum.

The First Amendment, from the language, “Congress shall make no law …” may perhaps be construed as a bar only on U.S. Congressional law-making power, but the Second Amendment language, “shall not be infringed,” clearly does not leave room for the state to deny U.S. Constitutional rights at a state, local or municipal level.

And, that would be a sound argument, from my perspective.

We've had SCOTUS rulings that fuck all that up, but it should have been interpreted that way. Now, with the 14th Amendment, the argument is still there.

.

 

[justinacolmena]

We've had SCOTUS rulings that fuck all that up, but it should have been interpreted that way. Now, with the 14th Amendment, the argument is still there.

This is exactly what the language in the 14th Amendment was intended to address, to quote from the first section.

… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is a reiteration, emphasis & strengthening of the language of the 5th Amendment.

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Ernie S.]

Felons are typically disenfranchised. I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

 

[justinacolmena]

Felons are typically …

Do you know how easy it is to become a “felon” on some bullshit city-hall trumped-up charge? When you have political enemies?

Court-appointed attorney plea-bargain or else? Defense oh-so-graciously assumes the defendant’s guilt + good faith on the part of the prosecutor who drinks & practices law at the same local bar?

Point being, you’d live a lot longer if you did not stereotype “felons.”

 

[Ernie S.]

Felons are typically …

Do you know how easy it is to become a “felon” on some bullshit city-hall trumped-up charge? When you have political enemies?

Court-appointed attorney plea-bargain or else? Defense oh-so-graciously assumes the defendant’s guilt + good faith on the part of the prosecutor who drinks & practices law at the same local bar?

Point being, you’d live a lot longer if you did not stereotype “felons.”

I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

I didn't ask if felons should be disenfranchised.

 

[justinacolmena]

Felons are typically …

Do you know how easy it is to become a “felon” on some bullshit city-hall trumped-up charge? When you have political enemies?

Court-appointed attorney plea-bargain or else? Defense oh-so-graciously assumes the defendant’s guilt + good faith on the part of the prosecutor who drinks & practices law at the same local bar?

Point being, you’d live a lot longer if you did not stereotype “felons.”

I guess my question is should a murderer vote?

I didn't ask if felons should be disenfranchised.

So is anyone who owns a gun a murderer, then?

 

[there4eyeM]

Inflexibility on the part of extremists will result in extreme measures we don't really want.

 

[skews13]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Debunked my ass. Apparently there is no one side n this forum that knows the history of the 2nd. The original intent was for the security provided by a state militia if need be. The word state was edited in the original language by request of Patrick Henry of Virginia for the express purpose to arm slave patrols. The history of the 2nd does not mean what people think it means. And for the OP, the founders were for a strong central government which is why Article 3 of the Constitution exists, and why the Constitution was adopted, and the Articles of Confederation were scrapped. There was no intent by the founders after the Philadelphia convention for the colonies to remain separate entities. The power of the Constitution rests solely with the people through their representative form of government, and at anytime by majority the he people can require restrictions through their representatives by law, to impose restrictions on the possession and use of firearms.

 

[Flash]

Another example of the craziness of the Democrats and an example of why you can't trust them for "reasonable gun control".

As president, I will take executive action to:

Revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers & dealers that break the law
Require anyone who sells more than 5 guns/yr to run a background check on all gun sales
Ban the importation of AR-15-style assault weapons

Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 7, 2019

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Debunked my ass. Apparently there is no one side n this forum that knows the history of the 2nd. The original intent was for the security provided by a state militia if need be. The word state was edited in the original language by request of Patrick Henry of Virginia for the express purpose to arm slave patrols. The history of the 2nd does not mean what people think it means. And for the OP, the founders were for a strong central government which is why Article 3 of the Constitution exists, and why the Constitution was adopted, and the Articles of Confederation were scrapped. There was no intent by the founders after the Philadelphia convention for the colonies to remain separate entities. The power of the Constitution rests solely with the people through their representative form of government, and at anytime by majority the he people can require restrictions through their representatives by law, to impose restrictions on the possession and use of firearms.

I see you buy only what you've been told, not what the Founders actually wrote.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Except there already are exceptions and reasonable restrictions. Your assertion that it "pemits none" is flawed from the beginning.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If the founders had wanted to make gun rights absolute they could have written it as such

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD
They did not

That seems absolute enough to me, especially when you ponder the meaning ofthe word “infringed”, and the choice of that word for this use in the Second Amendment. It's related to the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something. To “infringe” a thing is to touch that barest edge of it. By prohibiting government from infringing the right that it asserts, the Second Amendment is saying that government is not to even touch the barest edges of this right. It is the clearest, strongest, and most absolute language found anywhere in the Constitution. This right is stated as belonging to the people, and not to government, not even to the states (as one might otherwise try to suppose from the Tenth Amendment), and government is forbidden from even touching the barest edges of this right.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Restricting or even an outright ban of a particular class of arms does not infringe on that right. That is already the case. Your ability and freedom to bear arms remains intact.

There is no language that defines what "arms" must be.

 

[rightwinger]

Back to the subject:

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

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

100% CORRECT.

1. A well-regulated Militia being necessary to (or for) the security of a free State, and having said that,
2. the right of the people, the universal human right
3. to keep and bear Arms, to possess and carry firearms,
4. shall not be infringed: shall not be limited or restricted in any way, shape or form.

The people have expressed their will through the political process and their lawfully elected representatives that felons shall not take possession of firearms, a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment right, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The people are likewise at liberty to repeal such a prohibition through the political process, or challenge the law authorizing the prohibition in Federal court.

100% BULLSHIT. We the people have been thoroughly disenfranchised and barred from Federal courts and all other Federal buildings, parks and facilities with respect to gun rights.

And what if some criminal is out of prison, armed & dangerous? Leave him the fuck alone. Our lovely city slicker police officers are so well armed & organized they can follow military rules of engagement. But no, the damned cops don't do that. They treat unarmed civilians as armed enemy combatants at war and shoot at us with reckless abandon and murderous disregard for our lives and supreme protectiveness for their own.

"A well-regulated Militia …"

You can drive several tractor trailers through that phrase, dude.

1. Guns are not just for dudes.
2. “Well-regulated” refers in some sense to an “official” militia that may be called up on duty, but that is not a restrictive clause and it does not call for a haircut.
3. The masters of the barbershop & the whorehouse, (i.e., the entire so-called “mental health” industry,) cannot be allowed to have any say whatsoever in regards to gun rights or gun ownership.

Yes, Well Regulated

A formal structure, organization, training, logistics

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Except there already are exceptions and reasonable restrictions. Your assertion that it "pemits none" is flawed from the beginning.

Never stood up in court

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Inflexibility on the part of extremists will result in extreme measures we don't really want.

And those extreme measures will be complete repeal.

Hope it was worth it.

.

 

[justinacolmena]

Yes, Well Regulated

A formal structure, organization, training, logistics

… being necessary, having said that, blah blah blah. Basically we need our guns, and the government is not to come between us and our guns under any circumstances.