The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

Black people have a homicide rate that is 4 TIMES the national average. We have much more diversity than any other country, and our black people are descendants of slaves. Socioeconomic factors play a big role here. Some will tell you that entitlement programs cause people to feel "entitled" to other people's property or what not too. I'm sure if it was THAT easy to just say what the problem is, it would have been solved by now. It's more complicated than "guns" though.

Yeah, there is a massive issue with black people. A lot of it has to do with slavery and segregation and the racism that still exists as vestiges of a time when morality was something quite different.

Poverty does play a major part, especially the cycle of poverty.

However the big issue here is why almost nothing gets done about any of this, whereas in other countries it does get dealt with.

The answer seems to be that politicians are doing the bidding of the rich in the US, whereas in Europe they're far more likely to deal with the issues the people have.

 

[Ernie S.]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Some of the amendments were written to restrict only the Federal government but not the states' governments. Amendment 1 is an example, saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." etc. This was done since, at the time it was adopted, most states had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to mess with that. (This restriction to the Fed only, was later changed by the 14th amendment.)

Other amendments were written to specifically apply to ALL governments within the United States' borders: Federal, state, local. Amendment 2 is an example. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd lacks any language specifying which government(s) it restricts, and so it restricts all of them. This was true from the day it was ratified. A recent "decision" by the Supreme Court "incorporating" the 2nd amendment to apply to all governments, had no effect, since it already applied to them all.

the Civil War. Before that NONE of the amendments were subject to the states and weren't intended to.

People who try to pretend this is so, invariably fail to include any evidence supporting their hopes... since there is none.

If the 2A were intended to be for the states, why did so many states put a RKA or RBA clause in their constitutions?

Because they thought the Fed might eventually do exactly what it's doing: Ginning up every excuse it can find to violate the 2nd amendment.

As we can see, their fears were fully justified.

 

[Little-Acorn]

A fully automatic weapon, including Ma Deuce made before 186 is legal to own for the price of the weapon and a $200 dollar transfer stamp. One must get the approval of the chief law enforcement officer of your jurisdiction to get your stamp.

Meaning, the CLEO can forbid you to own it if he feels like it.

Which is a flat violation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If you can name any person who claims that the 2nd amend is unlimited,

The 2nd amendment does not say "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 with his billy club, 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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.

Great, the non-PC answer, the simple answer, the answer that allows the rich to feel good about themselves for fecking over the poor and doing nothing to solve the problems. The answer that keeps the rich in charge of government, that makes sure only the interests of the rich are served in Washington and in state governments.

I see why you call it the "non PC answer", because it's a pile of stinking poo.

 

[Ernie S.]

A fully automatic weapon, including Ma Deuce made before 186 is legal to own for the price of the weapon and a $200 dollar transfer stamp. One must get the approval of the chief law enforcement officer of your jurisdiction to get your stamp.

Meaning, the CLEO can forbid you to own it if he feels like it.

Which is a flat violation of the 2nd amendment.

Meh... Sheriff Mac is a friend of mine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Some of the amendments were written to restrict only the Federal government but not the states' governments. Amendment 1 is an example, saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." etc. This was done since, at the time it was adopted, most states had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to mess with that. (This restriction to the Fed only, was later changed by the 14th amendment.)

Other amendments were written to specifically apply to ALL governments within the United States' borders: Federal, state, local. Amendment 2 is an example. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd lacks any language specifying which government(s) it restricts, and so it restricts all of them. This was true from the day it was ratified. A recent "decision" by the Supreme Court "incorporating" the 2nd amendment to apply to all governments, had no effect, since it already applied to them all.

the Civil War. Before that NONE of the amendments were subject to the states and weren't intended to.

People who try to pretend this is so, invariably fail to include any evidence supporting their hopes... since there is none.

If the 2A were intended to be for the states, why did so many states put a RKA or RBA clause in their constitutions?

Because they thought the Fed might eventually do exactly what it's doing: Ginning up every excuse it can find to violate the 2nd amendment.

As we can see, their fears were fully justified.

There's no evidence before the Civil War that the Bill of Rights included the states? Well, yeah, that's probably because the Bill of Rights was only for the US govt.

I mean, do the states have to abide by Article 1 of the Constitution? No they don't. Why? Because it only concerns the Federal government. Same for the Bill of Rights before an amendment came along that basically said the Bill of Rights should be incorporated.

Let's provide some evidence for you then.

Incorporation Bill of Rights legal definition of Incorporation Bill of Rights

"
Incorporation Doctrine
A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the due process clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment."

"Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833 case Barron ex rel.Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore,32 U.S.(7Pet.)243,8L.Ed.672, the Supreme Court expressly limited application of the Bill of Rights to the federal government."

Had you wanted to, you could have found out this information in 2 minutes, and saved yourself the hassle of making up false claims.

 

[Ernie S.]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.

Great, the non-PC answer, the simple answer, the answer that allows the rich to feel good about themselves for fecking over the poor and doing nothing to solve the problems. The answer that keeps the rich in charge of government, that makes sure only the interests of the rich are served in Washington and in state governments.

I see why you call it the "non PC answer", because it's a pile of stinking poo.

It IS a pile of stinking poo, but the truth. Blacks as a percentage of population, commit murder at 6 to 7 times the rate of blacks. Latinos murder at about twice their representative rate. What we end up with is 30% of the population committing 70% of the murders.Stinky? You bet your ass, but it's not "whitey's" fault. It's not law enforcement's fault or the fault of slavery or Jim Crow.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.

Great, the non-PC answer, the simple answer, the answer that allows the rich to feel good about themselves for fecking over the poor and doing nothing to solve the problems. The answer that keeps the rich in charge of government, that makes sure only the interests of the rich are served in Washington and in state governments.

I see why you call it the "non PC answer", because it's a pile of stinking poo.

It IS a pile of stinking poo, but the truth. Blacks as a percentage of population, commit murder at 6 to 7 times the rate of blacks. Latinos murder at about twice their representative rate. What we end up with is 30% of the population committing 70% of the murders.Stinky? You bet your ass, but it's not "whitey's" fault. It's not law enforcement's fault or the fault of slavery or Jim Crow.

No, it's not the truth.
Yes, blacks commit more murders, as do Hispanics, who also make up the largest percentages of those people living in inner city ghettos with no hope in the world.

"but it's not "whitey's" fault."

I disagree. There's a massive difference between Europe and the US, and the main difference is that in Europe politics, well some of them, attempt to solve the problems that exist in society, whereas in the US they simply don't, they just throw the blame out at people.

In terms of black people, they went from slavery to segregation. And segregation wasn't just toilets and buses, it was jobs, it was housing, it was everything. A lot of them up sticks and went to places like Detroit and took menial jobs, but were still treated badly.
Education developed in a manner where the rich got the best education. Go to Europe and unless you pay for private education, then education will not be based on income, or house price or whatever, it'll be fairly equal for all.

NOTHING has been done in the US to solve these problems, hence why these problems still exist.

You sell your soul for money, then your soul lives with more violence and more murder and no go areas and tighter security.

You talk about it being mostly gangs, but how many schools in Europe have metal detectors at their entrance? Not many. There are some problem areas, but compared to the US.....

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Because in places like Italy the carabinieri will shoot them. The same goes for the police in Spain and Greece. Guilty until proven innocent.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Ernie S.]

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.

Great, the non-PC answer, the simple answer, the answer that allows the rich to feel good about themselves for fecking over the poor and doing nothing to solve the problems. The answer that keeps the rich in charge of government, that makes sure only the interests of the rich are served in Washington and in state governments.

I see why you call it the "non PC answer", because it's a pile of stinking poo.

It IS a pile of stinking poo, but the truth. Blacks as a percentage of population, commit murder at 6 to 7 times the rate of blacks. Latinos murder at about twice their representative rate. What we end up with is 30% of the population committing 70% of the murders.Stinky? You bet your ass, but it's not "whitey's" fault. It's not law enforcement's fault or the fault of slavery or Jim Crow.

No, it's not the truth.
Yes, blacks commit more murders, as do Hispanics, who also make up the largest percentages of those people living in inner city ghettos with no hope in the world.

"but it's not "whitey's" fault."

I disagree. There's a massive difference between Europe and the US, and the main difference is that in Europe politics, well some of them, attempt to solve the problems that exist in society, whereas in the US they simply don't, they just throw the blame out at people.

In terms of black people, they went from slavery to segregation. And segregation wasn't just toilets and buses, it was jobs, it was housing, it was everything. A lot of them up sticks and went to places like Detroit and took menial jobs, but were still treated badly.
Education developed in a manner where the rich got the best education. Go to Europe and unless you pay for private education, then education will not be based on income, or house price or whatever, it'll be fairly equal for all.

NOTHING has been done in the US to solve these problems, hence why these problems still exist.

You sell your soul for money, then your soul lives with more violence and more murder and no go areas and tighter security.

You talk about it being mostly gangs, but how many schools in Europe have metal detectors at their entrance? Not many. There are some problem areas, but compared to the US.....

European countries have more heterogeneous populations. Less blacks and Latinos, for example.

Geeze guy! When someone commits murder, it's the fault of the whites? Bullshit! We are responsible for our own bad acts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Because in places like Italy the carabinieri will shoot them. The same goes for the police in Spain and Greece. Guilty until proven innocent.

*****SMILE*****

Ever been to these places? Jeez. It's not my experience at all.

Then again in countries like the UK most police don't have guns and still the rates are lower.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Geeze guy! When someone commits murder, it's the fault of the whites? Bullshit! We are responsible for our own bad acts.

This is an extremely complex issue, and you're trying to fit it into a sentence.

It isn't going to happen.

You can either try and understand, or you can continue to ignore the reality. It's your choice. But I'm not going to waste time on someone who is simply going to pass off everything I say.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Because in places like Italy the carabinieri will shoot them. The same goes for the police in Spain and Greece. Guilty until proven innocent.

*****SMILE*****

Ever been to these places? Jeez. It's not my experience at all.

Then again in countries like the UK most police don't have guns and still the rates are lower.

I spent around five years living in Italy and visiting most of the southern European countries.

A dependent wife was sent back to the USA after spending six months in critical condition because she didn't pull to the side of the road in Italy after a carabinieri waved his 'lollipop' wand at her car to stop for inspection. They pulled over forty rounds out of the back of her car from the Uzi that he and other carabinieri carry around under their arms...

However if you don't want to believe me you're free to go over there and test their resolve.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Ernie S.]

Geeze guy! When someone commits murder, it's the fault of the whites? Bullshit! We are responsible for our own bad acts.

This is an extremely complex issue, and you're trying to fit it into a sentence.

It isn't going to happen.

You can either try and understand, or you can continue to ignore the reality. It's your choice. But I'm not going to waste time on someone who is simply going to pass off everything I say.

Oh yeah! Horribly complex.... If YOU shoot someone, it is somehow MY fault? That's absurd!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If you can name any person who claims that the 2nd amend is unlimited,

The 2nd amendment does not say "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 with his billy club, 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.

I think you've spent far too much time reading your pocket copy of the NRA version of the Constitution, as amended. Throw that POS away, put down the NRA/Tea Party Kool Aide and start reading the real thing! I don't have to guess about Amendment II, so prepare to get happy. I know how it reads, and the true intent of the Founders as interpreted by SCOTUS.

Back in 2008, Justice Scalia wrote the Opinion of the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision, as many will recall, struck down the DC ban on handguns in the home for self protection. In that opinion, J. Scalia, a paragon of the New-Age "conservative" movement and self-serving, egotistical ass, wrote the following:

"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 Amendment or 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" [Emphasis Added]

That passage above makes it crystal clear to all but the mentally impaired perhaps, that LIMITS UPON ARMS, AKA GUN CONTROL, IS CONSTITUTIONAL in spite of all the propaganda spewed by the guns uber allis lobby to the contrary. No one needs a 100 round mag for their AR for home protection, just as criminals don't need access to either the weapon or the mag. If others don't see it that way, Article V of the Constitution provides the remedy to Amend our founding document.

I suggest you read Justice Scalia's FULL DECISION in Heller and learn how to discern truth from the Big Lie Machines like the political factions of the elephants and the asses as well as corporate shills like the NRA.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Because in places like Italy the carabinieri will shoot them. The same goes for the police in Spain and Greece. Guilty until proven innocent.

*****SMILE*****

Ever been to these places? Jeez. It's not my experience at all.

Then again in countries like the UK most police don't have guns and still the rates are lower.

I spent around five years living in Italy and visiting most of the southern European countries.

A dependent wife was sent back to the USA after spending six months in critical condition because she didn't pull to the side of the road in Italy after a carabinieri waved his 'lollipop' wand at her car to stop for inspection. They pulled over forty rounds out of the back of her car from the Uzi that he and other carabinieri carry around under their arms...

However if you don't want to believe me you're free to go over there and test their resolve.

*****SMILE*****

I lived in Spain for years. I'm not saying these things don't happen. I'm saying they don't happen as a general rule. How long ago did this incident happen?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Geeze guy! When someone commits murder, it's the fault of the whites? Bullshit! We are responsible for our own bad acts.

This is an extremely complex issue, and you're trying to fit it into a sentence.

It isn't going to happen.

You can either try and understand, or you can continue to ignore the reality. It's your choice. But I'm not going to waste time on someone who is simply going to pass off everything I say.

Oh yeah! Horribly complex.... If YOU shoot someone, it is somehow MY fault? That's absurd!

Thanks for proving my point.

No wonder the US is going down the tube.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Just to clarify it for the terminally ignorant.

The second amendment most certainly DOES explicitly guarantee a RIGHT.

And as the SCOTUS made clear recently, it is a right that predated the Constitution.

No matter how anybody may try to spin it, the fact remains: the RIGHT to bear arms is a right of a person explicitly guaranteed by the Second Amendment.