The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

Just curious…. What was your source? Was it a lower court?

No, it was a piece written by law professor. I don't have it handy but in return for your civility in your question will be happy to unearth it and share it.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Who's paying you to be here?

Surely you jest.

 

[BackAgain]

Surely you jest.

Not that you’re worth it.

 

[2aguy]

No, it was a piece written by law professor. I don't have it handy but in return for your civility in your question will be happy to unearth it and share it.

Thanks, but not necessary. I was just curious….a few of the lower courts of appeal are simply ignoring Heller or making things up about the ruling.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

No, I haven't shut out the prefatory clause. I do suggest any of the free online reading comprehension courses you can find using your favorite search engine - both for understanding my post and the text of the 2nd Amendment.

The prefatory clause gives a reason why the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not why the right exists. It says nothing at all about why the right exists. If you want to know why the right exists, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence:

​

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not man] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among [not over] Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [not the government].”​

The right to keep and bear arms stems from the very first right - the right to life. If a man does not have the toolsor ability to defend his life, including every tool that might be used by those who might want to take his life, then his right to life is void and becomes nothing more than a privilege granted by the government.

Even if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the right to keep and bear arms stands and is protected from Federal infringement by the 9th and the 10th Amendments. Even if both the 9th and the 10th Amendments are repealed, the right to keep and bear arms will exist.

In fact, every human being on earth has the right to keep and bear arms. It is a right of the Chinese. It is the right of the Uyghurs. It is the right of the North Koreans. And it is the right of every American. Governments can, by force, infringe on the right and use the force of their own weapons to compel compliance, but they can never take the right.

I don't believe I've ever contested the natural right to which you refer. I simply reject that it is absolute.

As to what I bolded in blue, I also don't believe that I've ever considered the prefatory from the opposite direction. I'll have to give it consideration.

Regardless of having been humbled by my quoting error and finding some merit in several of your points, my basic sentiment remains in place. As indicated in my opening line (above), I have no use for most anything that claims to be absolute. Such notions are generally illogical.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't believe I've ever contested the natural right to which you refer. I simply reject that it is absolute.

Now you agree the right existed before the Constitution?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Now you agree the right existed before the Constitution?

I've stated that position many times on this thread. However, as I've also said many times, I do not believe that said right is unlimited. I subscribe to the notion that my rights end where yours begin, and of course, vice versa.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Thanks, but not necessary. I was just curious….a few of the lower courts of appeal are simply ignoring Heller or making things up about the ruling.

Well, I dug through my history and found one of the sources:

District of Columbia v. Heller: Scalia’s Majority Opinion | National Review

Here’s a quick (and, given its 64 pages, necessarily highly selective) summary of Justice Scalia’s opinion for a 5-member majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, invalidating D.C.’s handgun ban…

www.nationalreview.com

Since you've let me off the hook, I'll spare searching for the other which was composed by a law professor.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Not that you’re worth it.

How's Gdoane?

 

[BackAgain]

How's Gdoane?

Ask him.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Ask him.

I will, first chance that I get.

 

[BackAgain]

I will, first chance that I get.

Have a blast.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

View attachment 661157View attachment 661158

Despite all the public quibbling over the Second Amendment, a few realities are sustained.

To the chagrin of some, the Heller Decision confirmed the natural and ancient right to self-defense, to include the right to possess and bear arms outside of militia service.

To the chagrin of others, the right to possess and bear arms is not unlimited. The aforementioned reality is clearly stated in Alito's Heller Opinion, and further, the Senate, by their recent action, has confirmed its conviction in same.

We would do well to observe the common sense in both of the above points of view, and to ignore my way or the highway voices that bark from the extremes.

 

[woodwork201]

Despite all the public quibbling over the Second Amendment, a few realities are sustained.

To the chagrin of some, the Heller Decision confirmed the natural and ancient right to self-defense, to include the right to possess and bear arms outside of militia service.

To the chagrin of others, the right to possess and bear arms is not unlimited. The aforementioned reality is clearly stated in Alito's Heller Opinion, and further, the Senate, by their recent action, has confirmed its conviction in same.

We would do well to observe the common sense in both of the above points of view, and to ignore my way or the highway voices that bark from the extremes.

What the government can get away with because of the force of their guns and prisons, in spite of and intentionally, explicitly, ignoring the Constitution, and what the Constitution actually allows, are very often two different things.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

What the government can get away with because of the force of their guns and prisons, in spite of and intentionally, explicitly, ignoring the Constitution, and what the Constitution actually allows, are very often two different things.

I understand your concern for both government abuse of power and their failures to prosecute.

We are seeing an example in the failure of the Justice Department (led by a Biden Appointee) to prosecute people in high places for their roles in the Jan 6 assault on the rule of law.

However, the dynamic in your complaint is a little like the wisdom that guns don't kill, people do. Who wields the law? People do. It is upon us to elect better leadership. As it is, we had four years of a dishonest ego maniac which led to the election of someone who is past his prime.

 

[woodwork201]

I understand your concern for both government abuse of power and their failures to prosecute.

We are seeing an example in the failure of the Justice Department (led by a Biden Appointee) to prosecute people in high places for their roles in the Jan 6 assault on the rule of law.

However, the dynamic in your complaint is a little like the wisdom that guns don't kill, people do. Who wields the law? People do. It is upon us to elect better leadership. As it is, we had four years of a dishonest ego maniac which led to the election of someone who is past his prime.

Your view still seems centered around your statement that we should avoid "my way or the highway" comments. It seems you think that common sense compromise is the right way to go. What you don't seem to understand is that the gun controllers come to the table with nothing and we come to the table with "shall not be infringed".

The only thing the gun controllers can offer us is to infringe more or to infringe less. My-way-or-the-highway says zero infringement - as in the Constitution. In order for us to compromise, we give away liberty for nothing in return; that's not compromise.

When we give away liberty, we accept that the government has the power to violate the Constitution at will. As I have said many, many, times: if you accept that the government can operate outside the Constitution in any single thing, then you must accept that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they choose. There's no in between; there's no compromise. To defend the government's violations when it is something you support ethically denies you the right to challenge when it is something to which you object.

No; it is not my way or the highway. That is for authoritarians who hate the limitations of the Constitution as much as do the most extreme socialists on the left - there are anti-constitutional authoritarians on both sides of the aisle. For me, though, it's the Constitution way or the highway.

 

[woodwork201]

Who wields the law? People do. It is upon us to elect better leadership.

I thought you were American - as in the United States of America. I must have been mistaken. Apparently, you must live in a democratic republic somewhere else where, even if indirectly through their elected representatives (why do you call them leadership?), the majority rules where, on the vote of the majority, there can be slavery, churches banned, government agents in every press office, and the right to keep and bear arms is infringed freely.

I, on the other hand, live in a constitutional republic. The commonality is that you and I have elected representatives (not leaders) but in my America, the United States of America, the Constitution is designed, specifically and explicitly, to ensure the protection of rights for the minority even if the majority votes to enslave them, or to ban churches, or to require government agents in every press office, or to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I thought you were American - as in the United States of America. I must have been mistaken. Apparently, you must live in a democratic republic somewhere else where, even if indirectly through their elected representatives (why do you call them leadership?), the majority rules where, on the vote of the majority, there can be slavery, churches banned, government agents in every press office, and the right to keep and bear arms is infringed freely.

I, on the other hand, live in a constitutional republic. The commonality is that you and I have elected representatives (not leaders) but in my America, the United States of America, the Constitution is designed, specifically and explicitly, to ensure the protection of rights for the minority even if the majority votes to enslave them, or to ban churches, or to require government agents in every press office, or to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms

We have elected representatives to do what, hang the VP for keeping his oath of office?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Your view still seems centered around your statement that we should avoid "my way or the highway" comments. It seems you think that common sense compromise is the right way to go. What you don't seem to understand is that the gun controllers come to the table with nothing and we come to the table with "shall not be infringed".

The only thing the gun controllers can offer us is to infringe more or to infringe less. My-way-or-the-highway says zero infringement - as in the Constitution. In order for us to compromise, we give away liberty for nothing in return; that's not compromise.

When we give away liberty, we accept that the government has the power to violate the Constitution at will. As I have said many, many, times: if you accept that the government can operate outside the Constitution in any single thing, then you must accept that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they choose. There's no in between; there's no compromise. To defend the government's violations when it is something you support ethically denies you the right to challenge when it is something to which you object.

No; it is not my way or the highway. That is for authoritarians who hate the limitations of the Constitution as much as do the most extreme socialists on the left - there are anti-constitutional authoritarians on both sides of the aisle. For me, though, it's the Constitution way or the highway.

Sorry the Padre Game is about to start. For now, I'll just give a short answer to your opening paragraph.

If you have a problem with "shall not infringed", take it up with the Conservative Justice who qualified your right not to be unlimited.