The Right To Bear Arms

[Abatis]

The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.

SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).

SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:

• "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))

Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?

Things change. Shit happens. People evolve...

And maybe you will start believing that stars are actually flaming chariots pulled across the sky by winged platypuses piloted by transgendered midgets . . .

 

[Abatis]

I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.

We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government. We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.

Madison said:

"[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​

We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.

SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).

SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:

• "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))

Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?

Things change. Shit happens. People evolve...

people lie too about what they "supposedly" believe in.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).

SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:

• "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))

Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?

Things change. Shit happens. People evolve...

Fake Indians don't evolve.

yep.....and they lie about their position on guns.....this one does anyway....

 

[hazlnut]

I'm going to call this thread for those who voted yea.

The 2nd Amendment is officially obsolete.

Someone tell Scalia.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Depends on who you ask. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that we live in a free state (especially considering the irony of posts like these which aim at convincing others it is okay to remove my freedom to own any piece of weaponry I desire. If you don't think that at one point or another in the future the USA is going to become (more) tyrannical and you won't want to be its servant, well, you apparently have decided to ignore the history of every nation ever.

I guess you are implying that the need for a local militia that could challenge the government should it try to usurp too much power from the people does not exist because our government is perfect and does everything great and would never say imprison hundreds of thousands of people for being a certain race (say Japanese) or that it would never assassinate its own citizens without due process like the Constitution provides, or well shit those things have happened! I guess everyone's threshold for tyranny is different.

 

[hazlnut]

Depends on who you ask. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that we live in a free state (especially considering the irony of posts like these which aim at convincing others it is okay to remove my freedom to own any piece of weaponry I desire. If you don't think that at one point or another in the future the USA is going to become (more) tyrannical and you won't want to be its servant, well, you apparently have decided to ignore the history of every nation ever.

I guess you are implying that the need for a local militia that could challenge the government should it try to usurp too much power from the people does not exist because our government is perfect and does everything great and would never say imprison hundreds of thousands of people for being a certain race (say Japanese) or that it would never assassinate its own citizens without due process like the Constitution provides, or well shit those things have happened! I guess everyone's threshold for tyranny is different.

Sorry, you're too late.

We already decided it's obsolete.

Get here earlier next time.

 

[LibertyLemming]

This is why I rarely come to these things. You can't find intelligent discussion on the internet. People just say fuck off lol and that is that.

 

[hazlnut]

This is why I rarely come to these things. You can't find intelligent discussion on the internet. People just say fuck off lol and that is that.

Fuck off.

LOL.

Happy New Year!!

 

[LibertyLemming]

wheeeee I suppose it is easier than trying to form a rational argument

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Certainly not with Barack Obama as president.
He's the one the Founders foresaw the need for when they included it into the Constitution.
Good ol Jessee, stepping up to the plate to bat for the Liberal's 'cause celebre' in the face of Chicago's stunning and glaring demonstration of its failure. Lying C@#$sucker.

Jesse Jackson Attempts To Defend Chicago’s Gun Ban After 500th Homicide Of The Year… Fails Miserably… | Weasel Zippers

 

[Missourian]

It absolutely is not a check..at least not the way you folks think it is.

There is no clause, word, letter in the constitution that fosters the notion you can take up arms against the federal government, none. In fact..it is the EXACT opposite. There are several reasons in the Constitution the federal government can lawfully declare war. Of those are included invasion and insurrection.

The "check" was a guard against a standing professional army under federal control. What the constitution prescribed were regional militias made up of citizens that would fill into an army as needed.

That' "check" has been completely obliterated.

A history lesson proves this a false argument.

From District of Columbia v. Heller:

The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Well it's not.

And you have to cite a decision by a very conservative court to back up your opinion.

By the way..Heller interferes with "state's rights"...which is awful hypocritical of judges like Scalia and Thomas.

Their argument is also a load of crap. Since we have a standing professional army under federal control. Which by the way..if they really believed the bullshit they put out in their "opinion" they would abolish.

Don't argue with me, argue with Patrick Henry, James Monroe, Robert Yates and Samuel Adams.

It was the Antifederalist who were responsible for the Bill of Rights.

"Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution's adoption. This compromise persuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification."

So, if you are looking for rationale for Second Ammendment, it is the Antifederalists you should look to.

This totally disproves your argument.

The Second Amendment was and is indeed a check against Federal Power.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Depends on who you ask. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that we live in a free state (especially considering the irony of posts like these which aim at convincing others it is okay to remove my freedom to own any piece of weaponry I desire. If you don't think that at one point or another in the future the USA is going to become (more) tyrannical and you won't want to be its servant, well, you apparently have decided to ignore the history of every nation ever.

I guess you are implying that the need for a local militia that could challenge the government should it try to usurp too much power from the people does not exist because our government is perfect and does everything great and would never say imprison hundreds of thousands of people for being a certain race (say Japanese) or that it would never assassinate its own citizens without due process like the Constitution provides, or well shit those things have happened! I guess everyone's threshold for tyranny is different.

Sorry, you're too late.

We already decided it's obsolete.

Get here earlier next time.

no you decided.....and you got here pretty late yourself.....

 

[Lakhota]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Depends on who you ask. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that we live in a free state (especially considering the irony of posts like these which aim at convincing others it is okay to remove my freedom to own any piece of weaponry I desire. If you don't think that at one point or another in the future the USA is going to become (more) tyrannical and you won't want to be its servant, well, you apparently have decided to ignore the history of every nation ever.

I guess you are implying that the need for a local militia that could challenge the government should it try to usurp too much power from the people does not exist because our government is perfect and does everything great and would never say imprison hundreds of thousands of people for being a certain race (say Japanese) or that it would never assassinate its own citizens without due process like the Constitution provides, or well shit those things have happened! I guess everyone's threshold for tyranny is different.

Sorry, you're too late.

We already decided it's obsolete.

Get here earlier next time.

no you decided.....and you got here pretty late yourself.....

As long a tyranny exist the second amendment will never be obsolete

 

[LibertyLemming]

Armed or not we are still closer to subjects than free citizens.

 

[jillian]

Is it still a part of the Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.

things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.

and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.

And the limiting of terms lenth

oh.. you mean the president's ability to serve?

i wouldn't see that as 'limiting rights'. it just limits the length of term of office.

 

[jillian]

Is it still a part of the
Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.

things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.

and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.

Quite true, the government prefers to limit rights through court decisions.

in most instances rights are enforced by court decisions.

what "rights" are you talking about?

 

[jillian]

I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.

Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.

really?

link?

idiota

 

[jillian]

fyi; the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.

For those totally ignorant of history

really?

then why was treason the only criminal act defined in the constitution?