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

[whitehall]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka the Bill of Rights were intended to limit government power. There are literally several buildings full of laws that revised and expanded and sometimes limited the Bill of Rights since the Founding Fathers. Along come pop-culture educated useful idiots in the 21st century who don't have a clue but are willing to challenge the Bill of Rights based on the erroneous assumption that they stand alone as written.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

All rights have limits. But the Founding Fathers probably didn't envisage the modern world where we'd want people who had been criminals barred from legally owning weapons. They didn't have massive cities, lots of people live in the countryside, or the countryside was really close and lots of people went hunting. They also probably didn't consider mass murder of innocents very much either.

They did, however, envision the more general possibility that the certain conditions of society might change, or certain provisions of the Constitution might not be found to work, and that there would be a need to alter the Constitution; so they set forth a procedure for doing so. By wise design, this procedure is not trivial, and not to be undertaken unless there is very strong, clear public support for it. In the time the Constitution has been in effect, and not counting the Bill of Rights, this procedure has successfully been invoked seventeen times.

If the time has truly come when the right to keep and bear arms should no longer be upheld and protected against any government interference, then the correct way to address this would be to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution, which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which establishes the necessary authority on the part of government to impose restrictions on the people's possession and ownership of arms.

It is absolutely not proper to enact legislation or executive orders which directly contradict the Constitution, nor to get corrupt courts and judges to rule that the Constitution does not say or mean what it very clearly does say and mean.

If you want to restrict the people's right to own and carry arms, do it properly, by way of a Constitutional amendment. I've seen polls claiming up to 90% support for some such restrictions. If that support is really there, then there's no reason not to try to do it the right way. With 90% support, an attempt to amend the Constitution would almost certainly succeed.

What I suspect is that those polls showing such high support for such restrictions are bogus, and that those in the gun control movement know it; that they have not undertaken to try to get a new amendment ratified, because they know that those polls notwithstanding, there is not actually nearly enough support for such restrictions to give any attempt at ratifying an amendment to this effect any reasonable chance of success.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Were you about to point out where in the 2nd amendment it restricted its effect to only the Federal govt?

I've heard arguments to that effect, based primarily on the premise that the entire Bill of Rights was only intended to constrain the federal government, and not states or local governments. I think it's wrong.

For one thing, the way it was written. Compare to the First Amendment, which starts by saying “Congress shall make no law…”, indicating that it applies to the federal government only. By contrast, the Second Amendment states a right, indicates to whom this right belongs, and prohibits it from being infringed. Nothing in the language indicates that it is only the federal government that is forbidden from infringing this right. Nothing suggests that any authority exists, at any level of government, to infringe this right.

The Tenth Amendment indicates that any power not delegated to the federal government, belongs to the states or to the people. Absent the Second Amendment, and absent any mention anywhere else of the power to restrict the ownership and possession of arms, the Tenth Amendment would indicate that the federal government has no such authority, but that the states might. But the Second Amendment makes it clear. This right belongs not to the federal government, not to the states, but to the people; and it clearly denies any authority to infringe this right.

And a general examination of the other writings of the founders indicates how important they thought this right was. It is certainly not likely that they would have been in favor of allowing any authority to violate this right.

 

[Ernie S.]

It just declare a sentence. What is the purpose of that sentence? It's a literal term that doesn't imply anything.

The people who wrote it were lawyers. They struggled over ever sentence. If they wanted to give an absolute right to bear arms they would simply say.......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed...PERIOD

Of course you know that is exactly what they meant. The "militia" part was due to the fact that they expected every able bodied person to be armed and ready. They had just fought a war and what helped them win were exactly those tactics. Just regular people defended their communities against invaders.

Very true

They had just fought a war and understood the need for a well regulated militia....not just a bunch of armed gun nuts

No, they didn't want a government controlled army. They were totally against that. They wanted citizens to be armed and members of the militia.

Actually they were busted economically and could not afford a standing army. Better to rely on militias you could call up when you needed them

That is probably the most ignorant comment you have ever made.

 

[Ernie S.]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka the Bill of Rights were intended to limit government power. There are literally several buildings full of laws that revised and expanded and sometimes limited the Bill of Rights since the Founding Fathers. Along come pop-culture educated useful idiots in the 21st century who don't have a clue but are willing to challenge the Bill of Rights based on the erroneous assumption that they stand alone as written.

Actually, they do stand alone as written. Another group of nine in black bathrobes can disregard past decisions any time they've a mind to, or is Dred Scott still the law of the land?

 

[frigidweirdo]

All rights have limits. But the Founding Fathers probably didn't envisage the modern world where we'd want people who had been criminals barred from legally owning weapons. They didn't have massive cities, lots of people live in the countryside, or the countryside was really close and lots of people went hunting. They also probably didn't consider mass murder of innocents very much either.

They did, however, envision the more general possibility that the certain conditions of society might change, or certain provisions of the Constitution might not be found to work, and that there would be a need to alter the Constitution; so they set forth a procedure for doing so. By wise design, this procedure is not trivial, and not to be undertaken unless there is very strong, clear public support for it. In the time the Constitution has been in effect, and not counting the Bill of Rights, this procedure has successfully been invoked seventeen times.

If the time has truly come when the right to keep and bear arms should no longer be upheld and protected against any government interference, then the correct way to address this would be to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution, which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which establishes the necessary authority on the part of government to impose restrictions on the people's possession and ownership of arms.

It is absolutely not proper to enact legislation or executive orders which directly contradict the Constitution, nor to get corrupt courts and judges to rule that the Constitution does not say or mean what it very clearly does say and mean.

If you want to restrict the people's right to own and carry arms, do it properly, by way of a Constitutional amendment. I've seen polls claiming up to 90% support for some such restrictions. If that support is really there, then there's no reason not to try to do it the right way. With 90% support, an attempt to amend the Constitution would almost certainly succeed.

What I suspect is that those polls showing such high support for such restrictions are bogus, and that those in the gun control movement know it; that they have not undertaken to try to get a new amendment ratified, because they know that those polls notwithstanding, there is not actually nearly enough support for such restrictions to give any attempt at ratifying an amendment to this effect any reasonable chance of success.

Sure, they had the ability to change amendments. However you need support for such a thing and you're never going to get that support, so it's neither here nor there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka the Bill of Rights were intended to limit government power. There are literally several buildings full of laws that revised and expanded and sometimes limited the Bill of Rights since the Founding Fathers. Along come pop-culture educated useful idiots in the 21st century who don't have a clue but are willing to challenge the Bill of Rights based on the erroneous assumption that they stand alone as written.

Actually, they do stand alone as written. Another group of nine in black bathrobes can disregard past decisions any time they've a mind to, or is Dred Scott still the law of the land?

Kind of in the middle.

The Right to Privacy comes from the Bill of Rights, yet isn't mentioned. The Bill of Rights are something more than just the individual. However each one can also stand individually. In fact they usually have several clauses, like the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms, for example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The people who wrote it were lawyers. They struggled over ever sentence. If they wanted to give an absolute right to bear arms they would simply say.......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed...PERIOD

Of course you know that is exactly what they meant. The "militia" part was due to the fact that they expected every able bodied person to be armed and ready. They had just fought a war and what helped them win were exactly those tactics. Just regular people defended their communities against invaders.

Very true

They had just fought a war and understood the need for a well regulated militia....not just a bunch of armed gun nuts

No, they didn't want a government controlled army. They were totally against that. They wanted citizens to be armed and members of the militia.

Actually they were busted economically and could not afford a standing army. Better to rely on militias you could call up when you needed them

That is probably the most ignorant comment you have ever made.

Except that it's partially true.

The US couldn't afford a standing army at the time, militias had existed because the people couldn't rely on the British Army, then when the British were gone, then the Militias were useful.
The militias power went down with every war they fought in, because they just weren't any good.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sure, they had the ability to change amendments. However you need support for such a thing and you're never going to get that support, so it's neither here nor there.

Failing to get the support for an Amendment to the Constitution is no excuse for failing to obey any part of the Constitution with which you do not agree.

 

[Little-Acorn]

its a legal argument, dipshit, Come back in three years when you get a law degree from Yale or Columbia. Then you will be in a position to understand what I tell you.

They don't teach what the Constitution requires at Yale or Columbia.

They teach what lawyers and judges say the Constitution requires... which often has little resemblance to what the document actually says.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure, they had the ability to change amendments. However you need support for such a thing and you're never going to get that support, so it's neither here nor there.

Failing to get the support for an Amendment to the Constitution is no excuse for failing to obey any part of the Constitution with which you do not agree.

I didn't say it was.
However there are plenty of people who would agree with you, then state they don't think gay people should marry or many of the other things which the constitution protects.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course you know that is exactly what they meant. The "militia" part was due to the fact that they expected every able bodied person to be armed and ready. They had just fought a war and what helped them win were exactly those tactics. Just regular people defended their communities against invaders.

Very true

They had just fought a war and understood the need for a well regulated militia....not just a bunch of armed gun nuts

No, they didn't want a government controlled army. They were totally against that. They wanted citizens to be armed and members of the militia.

Actually they were busted economically and could not afford a standing army. Better to rely on militias you could call up when you needed them

That is probably the most ignorant comment you have ever made.

Except that it's partially true.

The US couldn't afford a standing army at the time, militias had existed because the people couldn't rely on the British Army, then when the British were gone, then the Militias were useful.
The militias power went down with every war they fought in, because they just weren't any good.

That is NOT the reason why. If you are going to claim this is the reason why, then you need to provide some documentation. Your assumptions are not going to cut it. I can easily provide documentation that backs my statements. The founders wanted ALL American citizens to be armed, and it had nothing to do with money. There are OTHER documentations that outline their thoughts on the second amendment, which is why the anti-rights crowd fails when it comes to their own "personal" interpretations of the Second Amendment.

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

[martybegan]

It does say "the people". It says nothing about an individual "person". The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact. The FFs would have considered it unreasonable for an insane person to be allowed to have a weapon, IMO.

If an insane person is adjudicated, they lose their 2nd amendment rights.

The "people" cannot be defined any other way than saying the individual retains the right to keep and bear arms, unless the person disqualifies themselves from their rights, i.e. convicted of a crime.

Ah, but now you're saying it's not an absolute right that may not have limitations. And that's correct. LOL

But, I'm not so sure an individual "loses" rights. Rather, courts tend to look upon restrictions to any right as how the restrictions affect the entire group restricted from exercising a right, and whether the restriction is reasonable. A person may become free of insanity or have a crime pardoned or a criminal record removed.

No right is absolute, but they create an almost insurmountable burden that the government must overcome to curtail said rights, especially if they plan prior restraint to said rights.

And, yes, you "lose your rights" when you get incarcerated. You can't vote, you can't travel freely, you lose freedom of speech, you lose some of your freedom of religion, you lose your 4th amendment rights, etc, etc.

 

[martybegan]

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

The States retain their rights to a Militia, the PEOPLE keep the right to arms.

And the PEOPLE belong to a well regulated militia run by the states

If the State decides it doesn't want to muster an organized militia, that's their right, but the people retain their right to keep and bear arms as part of the unorganized militia, ready for the State to call it up.

 

[rightwinger]

Are you illiterate? The OP is claiming that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of felons to buy and possess guns.

Wake up, Noddy.

listen moron. the federal government does not have any proper power to deny felons the RKBA. However, the states do. Just like the states can deny those convicted of felonies the right of ASSEMBLY, the right of FREE SPEECH, the right to be free from searches etc.

English, please.

its a legal argument, dipshit, Come back in three years when you get a law degree from Yale or Columbia. Then you will be in a position to understand what I tell you.

Start by telling us what RKBA means.

if you don't know that its shorthand for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, then you have no reason to even be here

WEYSFA

If you don't know that means What Ever, You Stupid Fucking Asshole you have no reason to be here

 

[rightwinger]

The people who wrote it were lawyers. They struggled over ever sentence. If they wanted to give an absolute right to bear arms they would simply say.......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed...PERIOD

Of course you know that is exactly what they meant. The "militia" part was due to the fact that they expected every able bodied person to be armed and ready. They had just fought a war and what helped them win were exactly those tactics. Just regular people defended their communities against invaders.

Very true

They had just fought a war and understood the need for a well regulated militia....not just a bunch of armed gun nuts

No, they didn't want a government controlled army. They were totally against that. They wanted citizens to be armed and members of the militia.

Actually they were busted economically and could not afford a standing army. Better to rely on militias you could call up when you needed them

As you can see by my post, you are wrong. They did not want a federally funded military. They wanted the people to be able to defend themselves and their communities. That was the whole point of the 2nd amendment. The Bill of Rights is about WE the people and OUR rights, not the government's ability to restrict our rights.

Even in the Revolutionary War, the Militia were secondary troops to the Continental Army. Basically, Militia forces sucked

 

[rightwinger]

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

The States retain their rights to a Militia, the PEOPLE keep the right to arms.

And the PEOPLE belong to a well regulated militia run by the states

If the State decides it doesn't want to muster an organized militia, that's their right, but the people retain their right to keep and bear arms as part of the unorganized militia, ready for the State to call it up.

Interesting....so the State can call up this unorganized militia if we need them

Looks like we need gun registration so that we know who to call

 

[ChrisL]

Of course you know that is exactly what they meant. The "militia" part was due to the fact that they expected every able bodied person to be armed and ready. They had just fought a war and what helped them win were exactly those tactics. Just regular people defended their communities against invaders.

Very true

They had just fought a war and understood the need for a well regulated militia....not just a bunch of armed gun nuts

No, they didn't want a government controlled army. They were totally against that. They wanted citizens to be armed and members of the militia.

Actually they were busted economically and could not afford a standing army. Better to rely on militias you could call up when you needed them

As you can see by my post, you are wrong. They did not want a federally funded military. They wanted the people to be able to defend themselves and their communities. That was the whole point of the 2nd amendment. The Bill of Rights is about WE the people and OUR rights, not the government's ability to restrict our rights.

Even in the Revolutionary War, the Militia were secondary troops to the Continental Army. Basically, Militia forces sucked

I see the point went zooming over your head.

 

[martybegan]

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

The States retain their rights to a Militia, the PEOPLE keep the right to arms.

And the PEOPLE belong to a well regulated militia run by the states

If the State decides it doesn't want to muster an organized militia, that's their right, but the people retain their right to keep and bear arms as part of the unorganized militia, ready for the State to call it up.

Interesting....so the State can call up this unorganized militia if we need them

Looks like we need gun registration so that we know who to call

No need, the call goes out, and armed people show up. All the government has to do is specify what weapons it prefers.

 

[rightwinger]

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

The States retain their rights to a Militia, the PEOPLE keep the right to arms.

And the PEOPLE belong to a well regulated militia run by the states

If the State decides it doesn't want to muster an organized militia, that's their right, but the people retain their right to keep and bear arms as part of the unorganized militia, ready for the State to call it up.

Interesting....so the State can call up this unorganized militia if we need them

Looks like we need gun registration so that we know who to call

No need, the call goes out, and armed people show up. All the government has to do is specify what weapons it prefers.

Good idea...now we get to the well regulated part

How do we make sure these unorganized militia are trained and in some type of physical shape? Also, what is the command structure? We can't have a bunch of gun nuts running around shooting things up

We better get started on regulating our militia