What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[Little-Acorn]

Empowering individuals to defend their life, liberty, and property

That must give comfort to the parents of those five and six year old children slaughtered at S.H. Elem.

In 1999 (to give one example) a guy got a gun and went out in Los Angeles to "kill some Jews", in his words. He drove up to three different Jewish businesses, but backed away and left when he saw they had armed guards. He then drove to the local Jewish Community Venter and watched it for a while, finally deciding that no one there was armed. Whereupon he got out of his car, went in, and started shooting, killing a number of children. He then went to a post office (where guns were forbidden for law-abiding people) and killed a postal worker.

The parents of the murdered kids in the JCC were certainly not "comforted", nor was the family of the postal worker, by the idea that people have the right to keep and bear arms. But the parents and acquaintences of the people at the other Jewish businesses were VERY comforted, and in fact owe their loved ones' lives to the people who had guns inside the businesses when the murderous bigot showed up.

How many lives were saved at those businesses? And, have the parents at the JCC asked the staff there, why THEY had no armed guards? If they had had them, it's likely that no kids would have been killed, and even that no shots would have been fired in the first place.

The fault for those murdered kids lies, obviously, with the bigot who pulled the trigger. But if the staff of the JCC had done the obvious and sensible thing, having armed guard on the premises like the other places did (or simply permitting law-abiding adults to carry at the school), how many children would be alive today, who are now dead?

Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

You seem to be rejecting the fact that the second protects a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the militia. Am I incorrect about that?

That was the opinion of five members of the Supreme Court, four members did not support Scalia's majority opinion. So, let's not lie by omission, much like Dred Scott, foolish SC decisions can be repealed.

Leftism will prevail! You'll keep retrying it until you get the right answer, then it's frozen ...

So just to be clear, Roe v. Wade is a temporary setback?

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
Common sense is not common in those with a gun fetish:

Or found in any of the restrictions you seek.

BULLSHIT

Truth hurts, eh?

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

Gun free zones punish (infringe on this Right) OF those who are found to have a gun in their possession within a restricted place such as The Capital in The District, most court houses in our nation and most other public buildings, concealed unless permitted by local law or carried loaded on public streets and byways.

SeveRal types of firearms are restricted and require a special license to own or possess and the sale of guns is controlled by waiting periods and background checks.

All of the above are evidence that this so called Right is legally infringed by law, a fact whIch was acknowledged in the reading of Scalia's effort to appease the gun lobby in his rambling majority decision in Heller.

So, YES BULLSHIT WAS THE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL TO YOUR LIE.

 

[there4eyeM]

The end goal?
Sanity.
Looks as if it's a long way off.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The end goal?
Sanity.
Looks as if it's a long way off.

Concise, cogent and spot on!

 

[Rustic]

The only good thing I have to say about Barry...

 

[kaz]

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

You seem to be rejecting the fact that the second protects a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the militia. Am I incorrect about that?

That was the opinion of five members of the Supreme Court, four members did not support Scalia's majority opinion. So, let's not lie by omission, much like Dred Scott, foolish SC decisions can be repealed.

We need to start with the most ridiculous, made up rulings like getting rid of Roe v. Wade and both ridiculous Obamacare rulings. New London is next and then they need to clean out all the violations of the 10th amendment. Then the real work of cleaning out their crappy decisions will have at least begun

 

[kaz]

The end goal?
Sanity.
Looks as if it's a long way off.

Concise, cogent and spot on!

Couple of morons. Both that "sanity" is a plan as well as that you think you'e ever going to get that from government

 

[kaz]

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

Gun free zones punish (infringe on this Right) OF those who are found to have a gun in their possession within a restricted place such as The Capital in The District, most court houses in our nation and most other public buildings, concealed unless permitted by local law or carried loaded on public streets and byways.

SeveRal types of firearms are restricted and require a special license to own or possess and the sale of guns is controlled by waiting periods and background checks.

All of the above are evidence that this so called Right is legally infringed by law, a fact whIch was acknowledged in the reading of Scalia's effort to appease the gun lobby in his rambling majority decision in Heller.

So, YES BULLSHIT WAS THE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL TO YOUR LIE.

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

Gun free zones punish (infringe on this Right) OF those who are found to have a gun in their possession within a restricted place such as The Capital in The District, most court houses in our nation and most other public buildings, concealed unless permitted by local law or carried loaded on public streets and byways.

SeveRal types of firearms are restricted and require a special license to own or possess and the sale of guns is controlled by waiting periods and background checks.

All of the above are evidence that this so called Right is legally infringed by law, a fact whIch was acknowledged in the reading of Scalia's effort to appease the gun lobby in his rambling majority decision in Heller.

So, YES BULLSHIT WAS THE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL TO YOUR LIE.

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

 

[kaz]

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

Gun free zones punish (infringe on this Right) OF those who are found to have a gun in their possession within a restricted place such as The Capital in The District, most court houses in our nation and most other public buildings, concealed unless permitted by local law or carried loaded on public streets and byways.

SeveRal types of firearms are restricted and require a special license to own or possess and the sale of guns is controlled by waiting periods and background checks.

All of the above are evidence that this so called Right is legally infringed by law, a fact whIch was acknowledged in the reading of Scalia's effort to appease the gun lobby in his rambling majority decision in Heller.

So, YES BULLSHIT WAS THE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL TO YOUR LIE.

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

 

[kaz]

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

Gun free zones punish (infringe on this Right) OF those who are found to have a gun in their possession within a restricted place such as The Capital in The District, most court houses in our nation and most other public buildings, concealed unless permitted by local law or carried loaded on public streets and byways.

SeveRal types of firearms are restricted and require a special license to own or possess and the sale of guns is controlled by waiting periods and background checks.

All of the above are evidence that this so called Right is legally infringed by law, a fact whIch was acknowledged in the reading of Scalia's effort to appease the gun lobby in his rambling majority decision in Heller.

So, YES BULLSHIT WAS THE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL TO YOUR LIE.

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

The courts do limit your right to own a gun and no one is arguing that is wrong, not conservatives or liberals. Everyone agrees. You are in fact the only one arguing that felons convicted with due process of law have a right to own guns. No one on either side is arguing you have first amendment rights or any other Constitutional rights in prison.

Based on what? General retardation? What is it you're trying to get out of this?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

Gun free zones punish (infringe on this Right) OF those who are found to have a gun in their possession within a restricted place such as The Capital in The District, most court houses in our nation and most other public buildings, concealed unless permitted by local law or carried loaded on public streets and byways.

SeveRal types of firearms are restricted and require a special license to own or possess and the sale of guns is controlled by waiting periods and background checks.

All of the above are evidence that this so called Right is legally infringed by law, a fact whIch was acknowledged in the reading of Scalia's effort to appease the gun lobby in his rambling majority decision in Heller.

So, YES BULLSHIT WAS THE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL TO YOUR LIE.

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

 

[kaz]

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

Gun free zones punish (infringe on this Right) OF those who are found to have a gun in their possession within a restricted place such as The Capital in The District, most court houses in our nation and most other public buildings, concealed unless permitted by local law or carried loaded on public streets and byways.

SeveRal types of firearms are restricted and require a special license to own or possess and the sale of guns is controlled by waiting periods and background checks.

All of the above are evidence that this so called Right is legally infringed by law, a fact whIch was acknowledged in the reading of Scalia's effort to appease the gun lobby in his rambling majority decision in Heller.

So, YES BULLSHIT WAS THE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL TO YOUR LIE.

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

How classic a dodge is this?

Liberals twist the 2nd amendment, violate it by depriving citizens of the right it protects, and then say that since they are violating it, that means it doesn't really protect the right.

It's like saying that, since people sometimes rob banks, that means you don't really have any rights or protections of the money you put in the bank, and the criminals are no longer violating any law to take it.

These people are sinking lower and lower into their world of delusion and wishful thinking. But then, when were they every anyplace else?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Empowering individuals to defend their life, liberty, and property

That must give comfort to the parents of those five and six year old children slaughtered at S.H. Elem.

In 1999 (to give one example) a guy got a gun and went out in Los Angeles to "kill some Jews", in his words. He drove up to three different Jewish businesses, but backed away and left when he saw they had armed guards. He then drove to the local Jewish Community Venter and watched it for a while, finally deciding that no one there was armed. Whereupon he got out of his car, went in, and started shooting, killing and injuring a number of children and adults. He then went to a post office (where guns were forbidden for law-abiding people) and killed a postal worker.

The parents of the murdered kids in the JCC were certainly not "comforted", nor was the family of the postal worker, by the idea that people have the right to keep and bear arms. But the parents and acquaintences of the people at the other Jewish businesses were VERY comforted, and in fact owe their loved ones' lives to the people who had guns inside the businesses when the murderous bigot showed up.

How many lives were saved at those businesses? And, have the parents at the JCC asked the staff there, why THEY had no armed guards? If they had had them, it's likely that no kids would have been killed, and even that no shots would have been fired in the first place.

The fault for those murdered kids lies, obviously, with the bigot who pulled the trigger. But if the staff of the JCC had done the obvious and sensible thing, having armed guard on the premises like the other places did (or simply permitting law-abiding adults to carry at the school), how many children would be alive today, who are now dead?

It seems that no liberal wants to address this question, preferring to pretend it had never been said.

Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others, are on Parole or Probation in most states, are a gang member, AOD addicted or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence.

Gun free zones punish (infringe on this Right) OF those who are found to have a gun in their possession within a restricted place such as The Capital in The District, most court houses in our nation and most other public buildings, concealed unless permitted by local law or carried loaded on public streets and byways.

SeveRal types of firearms are restricted and require a special license to own or possess and the sale of guns is controlled by waiting periods and background checks.

All of the above are evidence that this so called Right is legally infringed by law, a fact whIch was acknowledged in the reading of Scalia's effort to appease the gun lobby in his rambling majority decision in Heller.

So, YES BULLSHIT WAS THE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL REBUTTAL TO YOUR LIE.

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law, something you seem to acknowledge.

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

 

[kaz]

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

A blank reply? Well, since your posts are consistently a dearth of content, I at least respect your efficiency in saying that

 

[FA_Q2]

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law, something you seem to acknowledge.

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

Then there is no rights whatsoever. Your right to privacy can be taken away. Your right to speech. Your right to assemble. ALL your rights can and are infringed on. So your contention is that no rights exist at all or do you just apply this asinine concept to the second amendment?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Common sense is not common in those with a gun fetish:

Or found in any of the restrictions you seek.

BULLSHIT

Truth hurts, eh?

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege....

This is a lie.

...since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony...

In accordance with your lie, above, voting is also a privilege.


Go ahead- lie some more - we both know it's all you can do.