The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

 

[emilynghiem]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

Sure Lakhota
As if banning and regulating abortions is going to prevent unwanted pregnancies that cause abortions.
Last I checked, the argument against this was people were going to get abortions anyway.
So making them illegal isn't going to solve the problems CAUSING the abortions.

society would be better if morons who want to ban stuff were seen as social pariahs and shunned by intelligent people. Chief Lying Dog is a hard core bannerrhoid idiot

Simple turtledude just hold liberals such as Lakhota
to their own self-proclaimed standards when it comes to abortion.
Demand that these political beliefs be treated equally,
instead of arguing to regulate one while deregulating the other.

Let's address the real conflicts and solutions to the real causes and problems
instead of arguing over how to regulate the symptoms "after the fact."

 

[2aguy]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

And you have been shown that he could have killed more people using a rental truck...

1,100 round of ammunition fired....58 murdered.

1 rental truck in 5 minutes....89 murdered. so you must of course think that all trucks must be banned now...right? Since one rental truck murdered more people than the 6 mass public shootings in 2016 combined...right?

And of course you have been shown that magazine capacity has no bearing on the murder rate in mass shootings, and rental trucks are deadlier than rifles......as are knives.....which murder over 1,500 people every single year.....

 

[emilynghiem]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

 

[2aguy]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

Hey genius...do you realize that there has only been one year since 1982 where guns used in mass public shootings murdered more people than a rental truck?

So according to your standard...all rental trucks now need to be banned...right?

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


Rental Truck in Nice, France.......86 murdered, 459 injured...

2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

 

[turtledude]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

merely shows how dishonest the FDR administration was

 

[turtledude]

Lots of constitutional rights can be "infringed" upon with due process of law

prisoners lose the right of assembly, among other things. BFD

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[2aguy]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

You still haven't explained the 4th Circuit Court ruling in Kolbe...and how it shows you don't know what you are talking about.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Those designated as prohibited persons because they were adjudicated to be mentally ill or because they are convicted felons are examples of Constitutional restrictions consistent with Second Amendment case law.

 

[turtledude]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

no one denies dishonest infringements on the second amendment by the FDR court. what honest students of constitutional law do is admit or acknowledge those infringements run counter to the second and tenth amendments rather than pretending the FDR encroachments were based on the intent, words, or intent of the founders

 

[turtledude]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Those designated as prohibited persons because they were adjudicated to be mentally ill or because they are convicted felons are examples of Constitutional restrictions consistent with Second Amendment case law.

yep and completely counter to the second and tenth amendments based on the dishonest and mutated expansion of the commerce clause by an administration and a court that dishonored their oaths of office.

 

[2aguy]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Except the liberal circuit courts keep ignoring 2nd amendment jurisprudence.....

 

[turtledude]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

You still haven't explained the 4th Circuit Court ruling in Kolbe...and how it shows you don't know what you are talking about.....

He's pretty much a joke in my mind and unlike him, I actually have taught constitutional law at ABA accredited law schools

 

[emilynghiem]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.

As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.

So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty

Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.

Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."

Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.

As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.

So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty

Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.

Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."

Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.

So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Except the liberal circuit courts keep ignoring 2nd amendment jurisprudence.....

Dear 2aguy
that's only where judges are letting their biases by political beliefs
interfere with their ability to judge the law on Constitutional grounds.

This happens on both left and right.
We the people really should organize across party lines
to put a stop to this practice of mixing and imposing
political beliefs with public govt policy and decisions.

As long as we just argue and blame the OTHER party for doing that,
and then those opponents do the same, we get nowhere.
Both sides compete to discredit the other so no grievances get redressed, just denied.

However guess what happens when BOTH sides, left and right,
unite as witnesses to wrongs on both sides of the fence.
If we complain TOGETHER then maybe we can be heard
and taken seriously. When we agree to take ourselves seriously
and quit discounting the claims and complaints of one group by the other.

When we the people agree to redress our common grievances,
then govt has to follow suit.

 

[2aguy]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Please explain the finding in Heller....

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

----

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

---

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

And the 4th Circuit completely ignoring Heller.....and intentionally getting it wrong....they out and out lie about what Heller said about M-16 rifles......

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

We conclude — contrary to the nowvacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.

Heller didn't say that....

 

[emilynghiem]

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.

As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.

So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty

Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.

Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."

Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.

So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.

We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo

I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.

If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.

You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.