Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
TRANSLATION: Nobody could refute what the conservatives said. They handed us our asses every time we tried. So now we've waited a month, which is probably long enough for people to forget how badly we got spanked by the conservatives who know how to read, and we can start reciting the same tired, failed arguments as though they were new and hadn't already been debunked over and over.Yes, and there will likely be another such tedious, ridiculous, and moronic thread started by one of the usual ignorant rightwing loons, where conservative subscribers to that thread will once again lose each of their inane ‘arguments.’Wasn't there one of these threads about a month ago, about 1000 posts long, where the gun nut constitutional ignoramuses on the right already lost every argument they're now losing all over again?
[Q
umm its not just liberals, assuming its abortion or even contraceptive rights, not to mention voting
TRANSLATION: Nobody could refute what the conservatives said. They handed us our asses every time we tried. So now we've waited a month, which is probably long enough for people to forget how badly we got spanked by the conservatives who know how to read, and we can start reciting the same tired, failed arguments as though they were new and hadn't already been debunked over and over.Yes, and there will likely be another such tedious, ridiculous, and moronic thread started by one of the usual ignorant rightwing loons, where conservative subscribers to that thread will once again lose each of their inane ‘arguments.’Wasn't there one of these threads about a month ago, about 1000 posts long, where the gun nut constitutional ignoramuses on the right already lost every argument they're now losing all over again?
Every last one of the Liberal elite understand the 2nd Amendment they just don't care about your rights. An unarmed populace is no threat to a tyrannical government.
What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
No, Marbury v. Madison (1803) gave the court the power of judicial review, and granted the SCOTUS greater-than-equal power among the three branches of government. It was the SCOTUS granting power unto itself, not via the amendment process.
Case law is not a viable or legal substitute for that process.
If the court didn't have the power of judicial review, every state could pass as much gun control as it wanted.
Nope....those Rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....that is why democrats could not use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....even though voting is a state level activity.....
So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean then?
1. Felons, the insane, children must have full access?
2. You can buy any weapon you choose.....machine gun, RPG, flame thrower?
3. You can carry whatever arm you wish, wherever you wish?
4. you can fire your weapon anytime, anywhere?
Now we have something to talk about....
- felons......that can be worked on since after they go to jail they can get their rights restored.
-the insane...lose access to certain rights...depending on their mental capacity
-Children....are under their parents control until the age of majority...18 for rifles, 21 for hand gun...
--Arms are individual arms not crew served weapons...rifles and pistols....whatever the police and military have we get to have...
--yes....except for private property or areas that are sensitive...military and possibly the courts....since they both have armed security...but we can discuss those....
--you can't fire them anywhere or anytime...
See....nuts like you can have a rational discussion...
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
No, Marbury v. Madison (1803) gave the court the power of judicial review, and granted the SCOTUS greater-than-equal power among the three branches of government. It was the SCOTUS granting power unto itself, not via the amendment process.
Case law is not a viable or legal substitute for that process.
If the court didn't have the power of judicial review, every state could pass as much gun control as it wanted.
Nope....those Rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....that is why democrats could not use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....even though voting is a state level activity.....
You're an idiot. The Constitution doesn't protect itself. If you don't have a court to rule a law unconstitutional, a law can't be ruled unconstitutional.
The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?So you agree with Hillary Clinton when she said
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
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, 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.
So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean then?
1. Felons, the insane, children must have full access?
2. You can buy any weapon you choose.....machine gun, RPG, flame thrower?
3. You can carry whatever arm you wish, wherever you wish?
4. you can fire your weapon anytime, anywhere?
Now we have something to talk about....
- felons......that can be worked on since after they go to jail they can get their rights restored.
-the insane...lose access to certain rights...depending on their mental capacity
-Children....are under their parents control until the age of majority...18 for rifles, 21 for hand gun...
--Arms are individual arms not crew served weapons...rifles and pistols....whatever the police and military have we get to have...
--yes....except for private property or areas that are sensitive...military and possibly the courts....since they both have armed security...but we can discuss those....
--you can't fire them anywhere or anytime...
See....nuts like you can have a rational discussion...
All of those issues are not discussed in the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?So you agree with Hillary Clinton when she said
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
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, 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.
The 1st Amendment is written without qualifications.
That means, according to you, that publishing child pornography is protected under freedom of the press.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
No, Marbury v. Madison (1803) gave the court the power of judicial review, and granted the SCOTUS greater-than-equal power among the three branches of government. It was the SCOTUS granting power unto itself, not via the amendment process.
Case law is not a viable or legal substitute for that process.
If the court didn't have the power of judicial review, every state could pass as much gun control as it wanted.
Nope....those Rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....that is why democrats could not use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....even though voting is a state level activity.....
You're an idiot. The Constitution doesn't protect itself. If you don't have a court to rule a law unconstitutional, a law can't be ruled unconstitutional.
Sure it can...that is what the House and Senate are for.........and they represent actual people...they aren't 9, poitically appointed lawyers, chosen for their political decisions as judges.....
So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean then?
1. Felons, the insane, children must have full access?
2. You can buy any weapon you choose.....machine gun, RPG, flame thrower?
3. You can carry whatever arm you wish, wherever you wish?
4. you can fire your weapon anytime, anywhere?
Now we have something to talk about....
- felons......that can be worked on since after they go to jail they can get their rights restored.
-the insane...lose access to certain rights...depending on their mental capacity
-Children....are under their parents control until the age of majority...18 for rifles, 21 for hand gun...
--Arms are individual arms not crew served weapons...rifles and pistols....whatever the police and military have we get to have...
--yes....except for private property or areas that are sensitive...military and possibly the courts....since they both have armed security...but we can discuss those....
--you can't fire them anywhere or anytime...
See....nuts like you can have a rational discussion...
All of those issues are not discussed in the 2nd Amendment.
Hey....I am more than willing to discuss infringement........I am more than willing to allow guns in the court room and just about everywhere else....children...have no rights....
And that is also why we have a representative form of government......but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...you are correct...finally.
No, Marbury v. Madison (1803) gave the court the power of judicial review, and granted the SCOTUS greater-than-equal power among the three branches of government. It was the SCOTUS granting power unto itself, not via the amendment process.
Case law is not a viable or legal substitute for that process.
If the court didn't have the power of judicial review, every state could pass as much gun control as it wanted.
Nope....those Rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....that is why democrats could not use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....even though voting is a state level activity.....
You're an idiot. The Constitution doesn't protect itself. If you don't have a court to rule a law unconstitutional, a law can't be ruled unconstitutional.
Sure it can...that is what the House and Senate are for.........and they represent actual people...they aren't 9, poitically appointed lawyers, chosen for their political decisions as judges.....
So you believe that Obamacare should never have been challenged in Court because the Court should not have had any say in the matter.
So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean then?
1. Felons, the insane, children must have full access?
2. You can buy any weapon you choose.....machine gun, RPG, flame thrower?
3. You can carry whatever arm you wish, wherever you wish?
4. you can fire your weapon anytime, anywhere?
Now we have something to talk about....
- felons......that can be worked on since after they go to jail they can get their rights restored.
-the insane...lose access to certain rights...depending on their mental capacity
-Children....are under their parents control until the age of majority...18 for rifles, 21 for hand gun...
--Arms are individual arms not crew served weapons...rifles and pistols....whatever the police and military have we get to have...
--yes....except for private property or areas that are sensitive...military and possibly the courts....since they both have armed security...but we can discuss those....
--you can't fire them anywhere or anytime...
See....nuts like you can have a rational discussion...
All of those issues are not discussed in the 2nd Amendment.
Hey....I am more than willing to discuss infringement........I am more than willing to allow guns in the court room and just about everywhere else....children...have no rights....
And that is also why we have a representative form of government......but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...you are correct...finally.
Children have no gun rights? Where does the 2nd Amendment say that?
So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean then?
1. Felons, the insane, children must have full access?
2. You can buy any weapon you choose.....machine gun, RPG, flame thrower?
3. You can carry whatever arm you wish, wherever you wish?
4. you can fire your weapon anytime, anywhere?
Now we have something to talk about....
- felons......that can be worked on since after they go to jail they can get their rights restored.
-the insane...lose access to certain rights...depending on their mental capacity
-Children....are under their parents control until the age of majority...18 for rifles, 21 for hand gun...
--Arms are individual arms not crew served weapons...rifles and pistols....whatever the police and military have we get to have...
--yes....except for private property or areas that are sensitive...military and possibly the courts....since they both have armed security...but we can discuss those....
--you can't fire them anywhere or anytime...
See....nuts like you can have a rational discussion...
All of those issues are not discussed in the 2nd Amendment.
Hey....I am more than willing to discuss infringement........I am more than willing to allow guns in the court room and just about everywhere else....children...have no rights....
And that is also why we have a representative form of government......but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...you are correct...finally.
Children have no gun rights? Where does the 2nd Amendment say that?
Nonsense."If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
So state laws forbidding felons from owning guns are unconstitutional?
As previously stated, felons lose rights upon conviction. It is part of the penalty for their crimes.
So you agree with Hillary Clinton when she said
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
No, I don't. A felon losing a right is not regulation, but a penalty through due process.
Citizens cannot ‘lose’ their rights; our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
No, it is a regulation placed on gun sellers not to sell to a convicted felon.....your semantic prestidigitation notwithstanding."If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
So state laws forbidding felons from owning guns are unconstitutional?
As previously stated, felons lose rights upon conviction. It is part of the penalty for their crimes.
So you agree with Hillary Clinton when she said
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
No, I don't. A felon losing a right is not regulation, but a penalty through due process.
Post #170 was responded to by BILLY_KINETTA as funny. When one is lost for words and or lacks the ability and integrity to post a rebuttal is telling.
I can't write when I'm laughing. This was funny -
You've been given the kool-aid produced and purveyed by the idiot fringe, those whose self interest supersedes that agreement which has guided us on a course of freedom and liberty through the rocky waters of the 19th and 20th Centuries. There have been times when we were off course, but men and women of good will avoided the rocks and manmade mines, leading us even today, though still in rough waters to be sure, but well guided by men and women of good will who hold to the vision left them in the Preamble to our Constitution and in the DoI.
We are certainly NOT in this time guided by men and women of good will.
Have you noticed that when liberal fanatics can't find justification for their illegal schemes, they look not to the Constitution, but to the courts? Despite the fact that the Constitution states its regulation in the 2nd amendment clearly and simply?Clinton is correct, consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence
They do this because the Constitution doesn't say what they want it to say. So they pretend they can't understand it, and that judges somehow have greater wisdom. So they give judges the (imaginary) power to change what the Constitution says from the bench.
Post #170 was responded to by BILLY_KINETTA as funny. When one is lost for words and or lacks the ability and integrity to post a rebuttal is telling.
I can't write when I'm laughing. This was funny -
You've been given the kool-aid produced and purveyed by the idiot fringe, those whose self interest supersedes that agreement which has guided us on a course of freedom and liberty through the rocky waters of the 19th and 20th Centuries. There have been times when we were off course, but men and women of good will avoided the rocks and manmade mines, leading us even today, though still in rough waters to be sure, but well guided by men and women of good will who hold to the vision left them in the Preamble to our Constitution and in the DoI.
We are certainly NOT in this time guided by men and women of good will.
An opinion once again lacking examples and evidence.
