The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is supposed to be alive. This is why the FFs built in a mechanism to change it if needed. Yes, they made it difficult but that's a good thing.

yes, I changed the constitution 34 times today alone. Usually I do it a lot more but it's been a slow day. Get a friggin grip.

Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be "interpreted" to mean whatever they want it to mean, without the amendment process. If that is not your meaning, then forgive my mistake and misunderstanding.

 

[P@triot]

It is supposed to be alive

It’s a piece of paper, you dumb dimwit. Only a progressive thinks a fetus isn’t alive but the U.S. Constitution is.

The U.S. Constitution is written in black & white and set in stone until such time that it is legally and properly amended. At that point, what previously existed is gone and what is new is set in stone. Idiot.

If it were “alive” it would be in a perpetual state of change.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It’s a piece of paper, you dumb dimwit. Only a progressive thinks a fetus isn’t alive but the U.S. Constitution is.

The U.S. Constitution is written in black & white and set in stone until such time that it is legally and properly amended. At that point, what previously existed is gone and what is new is set in stone. Idiot.

If it were “alive” it would be in a perpetual state of change.

He clarified his position on that. He meant the amendment process. I thought he was one of these hijackers too when I first read that.

 

[Lesh]

Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be "interpreted" to mean whatever they want it to mean

Which is what Scalia did in Heller...although he CLAIMED to be a "strict constructionalist"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Which is what Scalia did in Heller...although he CLAIMED to be a "strict constructionalist"

You are not wrong. He pussed out and only did what was politically expedient, rather than what was right (declaring all fed gun laws unconstitutional).

We would have learned really quckly how much the people want to restrict firearms had Scalia had balls.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I didn't bring up Illinois, cupcake.

Nobody lies like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:

Well now. Sure am glad I get to educate you once again. Illinois does have a State Militia.
Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois

You keep telling your story. If you tell it enough times..........

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It is supposed to be alive. This is why the FFs built in a mechanism to change it if needed. Yes, they made it difficult but that's a good thing.

yes, I changed the constitution 34 times today alone. Usually I do it a lot more but it's been a slow day. Get a friggin grip.

Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be "interpreted" to mean whatever they want it to mean, without the amendment process. If that is not your meaning, then forgive my mistake and misunderstanding.

Thank you for noticing. AT least you didn't go off on calling me a GunGrabber on this one. I would hate to have to turn in my weapons. Such a waste.

 

[Rigby5]

Video on history of guns in US.

 

[Lesh]

did what was politically expedient,

Exactly.

Heller was nothing but "politically expedient" sophistry

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.

A. Not it doesn’t

B. We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.

 

[Rigby5]

did what was politically expedient,

Exactly.

Heller was nothing but "politically expedient" sophistry

Not at all.
Clearly the only source of any authority are inherent individual rights.
Therefore, there is no sophistry involved in Heller.
Inherent rights do exist, and local, state, and federal governments are in violation of the law when they infringe.
That is not based on the 2nd amendment, but the foundational principles upon which all government and law is based.

 

[Rigby5]

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.

A. Not it doesn’t

B. We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.

That is true, but natural rights also exist, and also prohibit governments from infringing upon individual weapons rights.
The 2nd amendment and natural rights are in agreement.

 

[Rigby5]

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.

A. Not it doesn’t

B. We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.

Rights are supposed to be pre-existing, and are not created by states. States are supposed to only enact legislation necessary in order to defend those inherent, pre-existing rights. No one has or ever will try to enumerate rights themselves, because they are infinite.
So then of course all states will have different legislation to protect rights, because the cases of infringement or conflict of rights that come up and need legislation, will likely vary.
Legislation and constitutions are not where rights come from and are not rights.
Rights pre-exist.
So US citizens have the same rights under different state legislation because they all live under the same SCOTUS that uniformly protects individual rights.
And while the SCOTUS may use the Bill of Right as a sort of guide for implied rights, in no way is the Bill of Rights at all a source of rights.
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear that is not the intent of the Bill of Rights. The intent was just to divide jurisdiction between the federal government and every other level of government. It did not try to divide between other levels of government and individual rights. That is for the SCOTUS to decide.

 

[Lesh]

Not at all.
Clearly the only source of any authority are inherent individual rights.
Therefore, there is no sophistry involved in Heller.
Inherent rights do exist, and local, state, and federal governments are in violation of the law when they infringe.
That is not based on the 2nd amendment, but the foundational principles upon which all government and law is based.

You're saying that the 2A doesn't apply...and Scalia was also (even though he tried to use part of it incorrectly)

 

[Rigby5]

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.

A. Not it doesn’t

B. We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.

And all 50 states in modern times are based on the US Constitution. They merely refine it.

I do not agree with that.
All state constitutions were made after the federal government and had to be in accord with it, but clearly the federal and state constitutions should be entirely different.
The federal constitution should cover only things states can't do, like regulate interstate and international commerce.
And state constitutions should cover only things not expressly allocated to federal jurisdiction, like everything else.
So when the second amendment bans any federal weapons infringement, that does not imply state constitutions have to ban state weapons infringements.
So in my opinion, there should be no overlap at all between the federal and state constitutions.
They should be totally orthogonal.
There should only be interstate concerns in the federal constitution, and there should only be intrastate concerns in state constitutions.

 

[Rigby5]

Not at all.
Clearly the only source of any authority are inherent individual rights.
Therefore, there is no sophistry involved in Heller.
Inherent rights do exist, and local, state, and federal governments are in violation of the law when they infringe.
That is not based on the 2nd amendment, but the foundational principles upon which all government and law is based.

You're saying that the 2A doesn't apply...and Scalia was also (even though he tried to use part of it incorrectly)

I am saying the original intent of the 2nd was to only apply against federal jurisdiction.
But it got complicated after the Civil War and the 14th amendment required the SCOTUS to also defend individuals from state abuses.
Now the SCOTUS is looking for ways of determining if states are abusing, and they look to the Bill of Rights for hints of founder intent.
Their logic is that if weapons rights were so important that the feds were to be barred from any infringement, then likely states/municipalities should be barred as well.
But that is inferring, not actual fact.
However, I agree with the SCOTUS that states/municipalities should also be barred.
Clearly individual defense is an inherent individual right.
You can see that from the 4th and 5th amendments as well.
You can also see it in the fact government employees are armed, and the 14th then requires anyone/everyone can be armed if they feel the need.
It is not like people are attacking and robbing police.
It is everyone but the police who actually are under the greatest threat and need to be armed the most.
The police need arms the least of all.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.

A. Not it doesn’t

B. We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.

That is true, but natural rights also exist, and also prohibit governments from infringing upon individual weapons rights.
The 2nd amendment and natural rights are in agreement.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Exactly.

Heller was nothing but "politically expedient" sophistry

Nevertheless, Scalia was right about the right of the people being an individual right that pre-existed government. He was simply too afraid to deem all federal gun laws unconstitutional (the right ruling).

It would have done one of at least three things. It would have caused states to immediately act to replace the Fed laws struck down (probably unnecessary...see below). It would have caused an immediate constitutional crisis and a call for an amendment. Or, most people would have realized that such a ruling did nothing but reclaim the authority for states, which is not really an issue, because states have already enacted their own laws way prior to the Heller ruling that are substantially similar to all Fed gun laws.

We can get into a long discussion later about whether the 2A prohibited states from infringing on the right of the people, and whether the 14th Amendment's due process or privileges and immunities clauses force states to grant rights guaranteed by the 2A, as other rights have so been granted via the 14th.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

Are they available via due process under the 14th Amendment?

 

[Rigby5]

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.

A. Not it doesn’t

B. We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.

That is true, but natural rights also exist, and also prohibit governments from infringing upon individual weapons rights.
The 2nd amendment and natural rights are in agreement.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

Correct.
That is more what I meant to say.
But I would also add that the 2nd amendment does not conflict with natural rights and had to be in accord with them.