You think you're pro-2nd but you're not

[pknopp]

Side........ step.
But OK.

I side stepped nothing. You (like so many others) assumed because I stated what the court said, I agreed with them. I did not necessarily and I say necessarily because they did not actually rule anything off limits. They only ruled to not assume it wasn't.

Because I'm simply factually stating what they ruled does NOT necessarily mean I agree with them.

 

[sealybobo]

Good luck with that. Iran has spent many billion dollars and decades trying. Go for it if you think you can get one.

Congress should really pass an amendment banning personal ownership of the materials and the explosives for nukes.

But if they can own it, gun owners want to own it. Don't forget one of the arguments for why we need guns is to fight off a government that gets to big for it's britches.

You want assault rifles because you know your government is armed with these assault rifles.

 

[2aguy]

If fact, they literally said the 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.

In 1939, what do you suppose this included?
In 2022, what do you suppose this includes?

Something that goes rat a tat tat......and comes with big drums...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Something that goes rat a tat tat......and comes with big drums...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That settles it. With all these changing manners and increase in crime, I need a machine gun too.

...or we will die and go to Valhalla!!!

 

[night_son]

The fact is, most gun owners support gun control. Most gun owners on this site, support gun control. As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.

You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

For the first 149 years in this country, no attempt was made by the Federal Government to restrict anyone not in prison or jail or a mental hospital from keeping and bearing arms. For the next 30 years, only violent felons were banned. Then in 1968, it became felony litterers as well.

What changed? Was it always acceptable under the Constitution?

For the first 202 years, no background checks were required; it wasn't necessary to get the government's permission in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

In Miller, the Supreme Court said that only weapons suited for military use are protected. In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected.

Of course none of these restrictions meet the "shall not be infringed" clause.

So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"? If you don't support "shall not be infringed" then do you really support the 2nd Amendment?

You might actually support a limited right (privilege) for some people to keep and bear some arms but that doesn't meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment requires, "shall not be infringed".

Very many gun owners here, and across the nation, talk about reasonable infringements, calling them reasonable restrictions. Their hearts are in the right place; they're emotional about gun deaths and murdered children - more so than the gun grabbers on the left - so they ignore, or are otherwise willing to accept, reasonable infringements.

Gun owners and advocates of the right to keep and bear arms regularly talk about the emotionally-driven responses on the left while supporting gun control driven by their own emotions. Both are wrong. The Constitution must drive the law, not emotions.

Gun owners regularly point out that only the law-abiding obey the gun laws but then, out of emotion, support all sorts of gun control laws that have been proven to do nothing to reduce crime - but they just don't have the no-compromise commitment to their principles or to the 2nd Amendment to publicly call for the end of every infringement and to say that they're all unconstitutional.

So, I'll just say, as the title of this thread says, realizing this will be a hard pill for you to swallow and admit to yourselves, and other than perhaps one or two others on this site, perhaps one or two percent of other gun owners in the nation, no, you may be pro gun, you may like guns, but you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

Excellent post.

I consider the same thoughts every time I visit my local gun stores and overhear their employees discussing background check failures and other common reasons for gun right restrictions, such as customers who visit local shooting ranges with foregrips and stocks on their AR pistols, which of course automatically turns said AR pistols into short barreled rifles and subjects them to government tax stamps. I truly despise any FFL or rangemaster who would report such NFA violations to law enforcement; such so-called second amendment gurus are fucking traitors.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Supreme Court is not infallible. The Heller decision was as much a mistake as was their first ruling on Roe vs. Wade.

And Roe vs. Wade has been for all practical purposes, overturned.

The court stated that weapons in common use were protected meaning those military style weapons

 

[woodwork201]

You are a bit myopic. The first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech appears to be more of an absolute. But it’s not.

The problem with your ability to rationally discuss these matters is that you start off with an unstated but very much ignorant premise. You seem to assume that there is zero room for interpretation. You’re wrong.

The Constitution, itself, isn’t the product of absolutists or fantasists. The Framers attempted to craft a Constitutional republic of limited power and authority including the enumeration of powers and the reservation of rights to the States and to the People. But they weren’t, in that process, attempting to create a eunuch.

Similarly, official recognition of the right to freedom of speech didn’t entail any “right” to chat with the enemy in time of war to reveal troop movements. And, of course, it didn’t intend to permit falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. This is why the recognized and guaranteed right to bear arms doesn’t apply to felons and can validly come with reasonable and limited requirements for licensing and so forth.

Rules of war aren't in the Constitution, they're included by common law. It's treason to share troop movements with the enemy and treason is in t he Constitution.

And there's no room for interpretation of the explicit limitations in the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment, for instance, protects from unreasonable search and seizures but it defines neither reasonable nor unreasonable. But the use of the word unreasonable proves that the Founders were aware of the concept of reasonable and able to specify it when it was their intent. The result is that the 4th must be interpreted but must be interpreted based on original intent but applied to modern technology.

The 8th Amendment doesn't define excessive bail so it has to be interpreted. We don't apply the same dollar amounts to bail that they did in 1791 but we still apply the level of consideration for what's excessive. For instance 500,000 for the bodega owner in NYC was excessive and it was lowered to 50K.

On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment has no such vagueness. It says "Shall not be infringed". You can interpret that all day long, for 231 years, and it still means "Shall not be infringed". As I proved to you, the Founders understood the concept of reasonable exceptions, as they used it in the 4th Amendment. Had they meant to except reasonable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, they would have included the same thing in the 2nd Amendment, such as, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed." Had they said that, then you might be right but that's not what they said.

The Framers actually weren't attempting to create a republic of limited power and authority; they actually DID create a republic of limited power and authority.

And though they didn't explicitly authorize yelling fire in a theater, they did explicitly forbid Congress from making it illegal, thus, to this very day, there is no Federal law forbidding yelling fire in a theater, is there?

Are you suggesting that the Founders would have agreed to getting government permission and paying a fee in order to vote? Or getting government permission to speak out against the government?

Maybe you believe that the Founders would have accepted a court fee to have your attorney with you in a trial? Or perhaps a fee in order to have a trial in the first place? If you choose not to pay the fee then the judge makes the ruling of guilt or innocence.

If the right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to felons, then wouldn't that apply to all rights? There's no specific exception in the 2nd Amendment about felons so it must be inferred so wouldn't it be inferred for all rights? If you're a convicted felon then the next time you're charged with a crime, no lawyer, no jury. If you're a convicted felon, you can be held in chains and beaten daily for 10 years sentence because cruel and inhuman no longer applies to you. So no trial, no jury, and daily beatings for once-convicted felons. Got it.

 

[woodwork201]

Assume that's true. Then, you would appreciate me setting the record straight.

Did you know that Jefferson owned a machine gun?

Puckle gun - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And an "assault weapon"

Girardoni air rifle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You didn't know that did you?

You quoted a guy who would probably deem you a tyrant and a traitor for your anti-gun stances.

"I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

(Jefferson discussing the fight over the establishment of one form of Christianity in the U.S. to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800)

 

[woodwork201]

Oh look. The one true Scotsman.
We must be blessed.

Per you:
-There is no line. There's no "dangerous or unusual" clause in the Constitution, gun controller. You're a fucking idiot and completely unwilling, because you know you're unable, to defend your claim that dangerous or unusual arms, or arms not in common use, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
- There is no dangerous and unusual line in the Constitution; the line doesn't exist, gun controller. Tell where the line comes from and what weapons you believe fall into that category, gun controller.
- There's no "except" in there.

Tell us why you believe people have the right to own and use nuclear weapons.
Oh. You don't?
So, there must be a line between the weapons the people have the right to own and the weapons they don't.
And that line must be somewhere between firearms, which you agree we have the right to own and use, and nuclear weapons, which you agree we do not.
Contrary to your claim, and proof of mine.

Most gun murders are committed by people with less training and practice than you have. I posted a video of a shootout with the cops where well over a hundred rounds were fired at less than 10 yards, multiple bad guys, multiple cops, and not a single person hit, amazingly, not even a bystander.

Training doesn't always make the day and lack of training doesn't always mean you can't hit what you're aiming for. You might still save yourself or others.

But you owe it to yourself and others to get out and do some practicing.

And knowing you're not an expert shot, even in an emergency, try to take your time.

 

[woodwork201]

I don't like to name call but that is about the most ignorant "argument" I've come across.

How so? What part? Because calling something ignorant without any argument against it is far more ignorant.

 

[woodwork201]

If fact, they literally said the 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.

In 1939, what do you suppose this included?
In 2022, what do you suppose this includes?

You've argued many times that the 2nd Amendment does NOT protect military weapons and only protects those in common use.

Scalia said common use. Miller said Military. The Constitution says both. What do you say?

 

[JGalt]

The court stated that weapons in common use were protected meaning those military style weapons

Ooops. I fucked up.

 

[woodwork201]

v Bruen:
...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Yet for the first 147 years there was no historic ban on any felon owning a gun outside of the prison environment. For the first 177 years there was no historic ban on any non-violent felon owning a gun outside the prison environment. But you insist that banning felons is acceptable. You can't have it both ways.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"?

Yes.

If one supports the Second Amendment then he supports Second Amendment case law; the Constitution exists solely in the contexts of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

Firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the Supreme Court are perfectly lawful and neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Measures such as background checks and licensing requirements neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Indeed, to lie about background checks or licensing requirements ‘violating’ or ‘infringing upon’ the Second Amendment is to be an enemy of the Second Amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yet for the first 147 years there was no historic ban on any felon owning a gun outside of the prison environment. For the first 177 years there was no historic ban on any non-violent felon owning a gun outside the prison environment. But you insist that banning felons is acceptable. You can't have it both ways.

Banning felons is not ok if the government said they did their time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes.

If one supports the Second Amendment then he supports Second Amendment case law; the Constitution exists solely in the contexts of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

Firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the Supreme Court are perfectly lawful and neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Measures such as background checks and licensing requirements neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Indeed, to lie about background checks or licensing requirements ‘violating’ or ‘infringing upon’ the Second Amendment is to be an enemy of the Second Amendment.

Wrong just an outright uninformed lie.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ooops. I fucked up.

The courts have always ruled military style weapons are protected by the second amendment.

 

[woodwork201]

Excellent post.

I consider the same thoughts every time I visit my local gun stores and overhear their employees discussing background check failures and other common reasons for gun right restrictions, such as customers who visit local shooting ranges with foregrips and stocks on their AR pistols, which of course automatically turns said AR pistols into short barreled rifles and subjects them to government tax stamps. I truly despise any FFL or rangemaster who would report such NFA violations to law enforcement; such so-called second amendment gurus are fucking traitors.

Most of the very loudest, self-proclaimed, defenders of the 2nd Amendment are actually very enthusiastic gun controllers. Many fake gun rights defenders here are to the 2nd Amendment what Ray Epps is to peaceful protest.

For their own protection, a range cannot ignore illegal (even if constitutionally protected) activity on their property. But their assumption if they see a short-barrelled rifle is that it's permitted. When I park my car in their parking space, they don't check my insurance or my driver's license. When I use my long-barrelled rifle, they don't demand proof that I'm not a felon.

I agree with you. The gun store should follow the law and not exceed the law. The range should follow the law and not exceed the law.

 

[pknopp]

Banning felons is not ok if the government said they did their time.

Banning their right to own a gun can indeed be a part of the sentence. 8 years in prison and a ban on owning a gun. There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop that as long as it was done through due process.

Whether we should is a seperate question.