Conservatives Believe We SHOULD Infringe on the Right To Bear Arms

I'm taking Constitutional Law at Stanford through the Open Courseware program. it's very cool and free so I highly recommend that any of you wanting take college classes for free!

Anyway, the professor teaching Constitutional Law at Stanford is what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others would call a "Socialist, Liberal Fascist".
According him, not only has the 2nd Amendment ALREADY been infringed upon, it was DESIGNED to be infringed on right out of the gate!
Not only that, but he maintains that the most extreme Conservatives in the country, ENDORSE INFRINGING UPON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS right now! And he's right about that, btw.
Even the most Conservative Americans generally feel that:
Machine guns should not be owned.
Rocket launchers should not be owned.
Background checks should be conducted.
People who have been diagnosed as schizophrenic / homicidal should not be allowed to own guns.

All of the above is infringing upon the right to bear arms.
And thank God we infringe, eh?
So basically, the argument is not whether we should infringe, it's that both groups want to decide to what degree we infringe and how - and they simply disagree on what makes sense.

 

Ask your professor if he would make all guns illegal if he could. Then post his answer.

 

You dont get to speak for all conservatives, neither does that socialist professor.

 

. . . is a fool. Good thing you are not paying for this propaganda.

Ask him to explain the principles of conferred powers and retained rights.

What We the People have conferred to government We the People can not claim as a right.

Those interests that We the People did not surrender and thus retained, the government can not (legitimately) claim any power over.

No power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen . . . SO NONE EXISTS.

The question is not what does the 2nd Amendment allow the citizens to do; the question is, what does the Constitution allow the government to do?

Tell that ignoramus that and get back to us . . .

 

So lot of hostility and hysterics here!

To those of you above, I invite you to simply answer with a Yes or No to the below:
1. Do you believe machine guns should be legal?
2. How about .50 Cals?
3. Phalynx Gun Systems?
4. Do you think someone who has been diagnosed with homicidal tendencies should be allowed to carry an AR-15 to the mall?

Of course, you're welcome to expound after your Yes or No but I'll be curious to see if there are direct replies and a bit of reason vs. the dodges, petty insults, rants and hysterics which make having an intelligent and civil conversation on the subject seem almost impossible - at least with the more extreme among the Conservatives, who seem to be suffering from severe allodoxaphobia nowadays.

BTW, I guess you guys aren't familiar with open courseware, Coursera etc... These programs are free for you! They are internet based and comprised of videos of the live lectures. You buy the books (but don't have to), do the homework and so on - if you want to. It is REALLY cool! So if things Like ConLaw aren't your cup of tea, you can learn computer engineering, psychology, physics, history or whatever!
The downside is, there is very limited discussion with the professors. Only once or twice during the course and since it's free, there are literally thousands of students in each course. But hey, the price is right!

 

The objectors here confuse the concept of "licence" with "right". A right, extended, is licence which is usually not good for anyone. So it is with the Second Amendment. The US Sup Ct has acknowledged that it is constitutional to have the ability to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. This emphasises the fact that any right has limits.

The lecturer is perfectly correct and would withstand any challenges issued so far.

Coursera is neat btw.,

 

Well, they are legal to own.

If you pay the $200 transfer tax and undergo the background check, a private citizen can own machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank artillery, . . . Hundreds of thousands of "Title II" arms are in the citizens arsenal.

Machine guns like the old Tommy gun and full auto Uzi sub-machine guns, the selective fire M-4/M-16 Assault rifles fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment (as laid out in Miller, explained in Cases and re-affirmed in Heller). But, as acknowledged in Heller, under challenge the government could present an adequate argument to allow it to continue the present regulations (under any standard of scrutiny).

50 caliber what?

A "Ma Deuce" or a Bolt action target rife or a muzzleloader?

And we come to the complete disconnect from the Constitution that your professor and you suffer from.

I would argue that the most fundamental principle of the Constitution is that it is a charter of conferred powers, powers the people once possessed but then, in a very limited fashion, surrendered specific powers to permit the federal government to perform specific duties.

Among those duties is to declare war, raise, support, provide for and control the military forces. I therefore believe there is no claimable right for a citizen to own weapons like missiles or rockets or aerial bombs, Phalanx systems or WMDs because we have surrendered those interests to the federal government and at that point, federal preemption and supremacy takes over (unless you want to argue that preemption and supremacy are enforceable on the states but not on the people).

As a direct example of this principle one could look to Article I, Sec 8 cl 11 . . . Privateers could no longer act in their own interest, they needed the permission of Congress to operate so I think the principle behind that grant / reservation of power over civilians owning / operating weapons of war (perhaps the most devastating of the day) can be extended to government's ability to restrict civilian ownership of modern weapons of open and indiscriminate warfare.

So, even if someone thinks they should have the right to own a weapon of open and indiscriminate warfare, I think the government, under that challenge, could sustain a power to restrict possession and use of that arm by civilians and that would be Constitutionally legitimate.

There is a specific set of conditions that allow government to disable the gun rights of a citizen (after due process).

It isn't subjective. Someone can't have their rights disabled even if "everyone" who knows them thinks they are a creepy loner who had dead eyes and they just know they are going to go off . . .

So, if you can fit your, "diagnosed with homicidal tendencies" into one of these legal criteria enforceable under law, then I can give you an answer. Until then you are just spouting gibberish.

18 U.S.C. § 922(d) - It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

​

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
( is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . .
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


​

LOL

If what you have posted here is an indicator of your understanding of the Constitution, I wouldn't be singing their praises.

I think you are getting cheated.

 

Who gives a damm?

Wrong question. The issue here isn't what any individual thinks ought to be legal, but whether the weapon in question can be deemed illegal in light of 2A.

Depends on who made the diagnosis. Let us not forget, after all, that Nidal Hasan was a "qualified" psychiatrist.

 

Certainly makes for an intreseting argument.

 

Not quite true. What you are perhaps failing to take into account, other than 2A itself, is the fact that any state can constitutionally make war if it is "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay", which means every state can maintain such weaponry, other than "ships of war", as it deems appropriate for its own defense.

 

So then those rights are INFRINGED upon! They have to go through a background check! Gasp!



[/QUOTE] 50 caliber what?

A "Ma Deuce" or a Bolt action target rife or a muzzleloader?[/QUOTE]

A .50 Cal machine gun. say mounted on the hood of your car or on your porch. To deny this is INFRINGING!



[/QUOTE] And we come to the complete disconnect from the Constitution that your professor and you suffer from.[/QUOTE]

Ah. Another special "internet expert" who's you know, just so much smarter than say, a Constitutional Law professor. And your credentials are? NM. We know what they are. You are able to spot other people who 'suffer from" not having your special insight, endowed to you by your father on planet Krypton. Got it.

[/QUOTE] I would argue that the most fundamental principle of the Constitution is that it is a charter of conferred powers, powers the people once possessed but then, in a very limited fashion, surrendered specific powers to permit the federal government to perform specific duties.
Among those duties is to declare war, raise, support, provide for and control the military forces. I therefore believe there is no claimable right for a citizen to own weapons like missiles or rockets or aerial bombs, Phalanx systems or WMDs because we have surrendered those interests to the federal government and at that point, federal preemption and supremacy takes over (unless you want to argue that preemption and supremacy are enforceable on the states but not on the people).[/QUOTE]
INFRINGER!!!! So then you believe the 2nd Amendment needs to be interpreted! Infringed upon! You socialist facist liberal you! ;o)

[/QUOTE] As a direct example of this principle one could look to Article I, Sec 8 cl 11 . . . Privateers could no longer act in their own interest, they needed the permission of Congress to operate so I think the principle behind that grant / reservation of power over civilians owning / operating weapons of war (perhaps the most devastating of the day) can be extended to government's ability to restrict civilian ownership of modern weapons of open and indiscriminate warfare.[/QUOTE]

Then again, the USC also states that those owning guns can be called forward to muster for inspection of themselves and their arms at the whim of the president. Oops.

[/QUOTE] So, even if someone thinks they should have the right to own a weapon of open and indiscriminate warfare, I think the government, under that challenge, could sustain a power to restrict possession and use of that arm by civilians and that would be Constitutionally legitimate.[/QUOTE] INFRINGER! The Constitution shall be tken LITERALLY! Not interpreted by you to infringe upon my right to carry a nice SAW machine gun into morning services!


[/QUOTE] There is a specific set of conditions that allow government to disable the gun rights of a citizen (after due process).

It isn't subjective. Someone can't have their rights disabled even if "everyone" who knows them thinks they are a creepy loner who had dead eyes and they just know they are going to go off . . .

So, if you can fit your, "diagnosed with homicidal tendencies" into one of these legal criteria enforceable under law, then I can give you an answer. Until then you are just spouting gibberish.

18 U.S.C. § 922(d) - It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

​

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
( is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . .
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.[/QUOTE]

That is NOT in the original USC! So you're one of those Liberals who feels that common sense can be exercised??? Shame on you!


​

LOL



If what you have posted here is an indicator of your understanding of the Constitution, I wouldn't be singing their praises.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah. Because you know, internet experts are just so hard to find.



[/QUOTE]I think you are getting cheated.[/QUOTE]

This concerns me deeply. I'm I'm I'm just so, so concerned. Just think. If it wasn't for the idiots at MIT, Stanford etc... I could be really knowledgeable like you know, anonymous whackjobs on the internet. I'm..... concerned. LOL!

 

A phalanx in the back yard would be nice...teach those pesky squirells not to tease my dog

 

I'm a conservative and I'm for a strict reading of the entire document. The nation is in the tank because we let the supreme court assume powers not named in the constitution. Then, they decide with the assumed powers that the federal gov't had a great deal of power over the states because of interstate commerce. The federal gov't has never stopped growing ever since.

 

Well the LITERAL meaning would include nukes too! Many of the colonists owned cannons and some were specialists at making bombs with black powder (although it was scarce because of the F/I war). So "armament" meant ANY kind of gun, cannon or bomb available.

 

Weapons to be used by the troops states are forbidden to keep?

Did we step into one of those 60's "what if they threw a war and nobody came" posters?

I think that clause was put in there to repel slave insurrections.

Heck of a better argument than the bogus Bogus theory.

 

No, to be used by the state's militia, the existence of which the framers deemed necessary to the security of a free state.

Utterly preposterous, since an insurrection is clearly not an invasion.

 

First I would ask after reading that post, are you an adult?

Second I would ask, nearly 3500 posts and you haven't figured out quote tags yet?

Then I would just point out that the right to arms isn't created, granted, given or established by the 2nd Amendment so I do not support "interpreting" the Amendment to try to discern what the right to arms is. Nor do I examine the 2nd to explain to me what the scope of the right is or what constitutes a violation of the right.

The right to arms exists because no power was granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. All the 2nd "does" is to redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers it was never granted.

So . . . the question of what is a constitutional law is not, -- "is this an 'INFRINGEMENT' of the 2nd Amendment"?
The question is, is this action a legitimate, constitutionally authorized exercise of power? (not that I expect you to understand that distinction but I threw it out there anyway)

Where does it say that?

In the Militia clauses (both Article I, § 8, cl. 16 and Art, II, § 2, cl. 1) the private citizen is excluded from any control of Congress or the President.

Congress can only govern the part of the state's organized militia that are employed in the service of the United States.
Similarly, the President is only CiC of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States.

So . . . A private citizen, not enrolled in his state's militia, and his state having no part of its militia called into actual service or employed in service of the nation, is twice removed from having any federal authority being brought to bear upon him. (expressio unius est exclusio alterius)

Correct, it is the US Code; nothing gets by you . . . .

Just a quick 'continuity of thought' check to close this post . . .

Does the 1st Amendment allow a citizen to print their own currency?
How many counterfeiters has the ACLU defended?
Doesn't the ACLU know what "Congress shall make no law" means?
Are you going to condemn the ACLU for their acceptance of this "INFRINGEMENT" of rights?

I'm just asking, is your, 'the people retain all powers concurrently with the federal government' sophistry just for the right to arms or are you willing to extend it to all Constitutional operations?

 

1. Am I an adult? Hmmm. Let's see. You come into the thread insulting me and a Stanford Law professor because he happens to point out a fact: As written in the USC, the Right to Bear Arms is already infringed upon and even the most extreme Right Wingers condone this. Then you come off with your little condescending "I'm an internet expert!" bs which is about a credible as late night informercials - and you wonder why I don't take you seriously? Poor baby. Perhaps if you learned to play nicely with others, the kids in the sandbox wouldn't pick on you. Just a thought.

2. Tags? No I'm not an internet expert like you.

3. So the whackjobs, ignorant and special "internet people" use phrases like "The Constitution is Clear! It should be taken literally!". Then they duck, dodge and make BS excuses like "I mean unless WE like a particular interpretation! Then it's fine to interpret it!". Which was the professor's point. Not that I would expect you to understand that...

4. Just a continuity of thought to close you up... How many viewpoints that would be considered Conservative do you strongly disagree with? I mean, do you think for yourself at all because thusfar, the only thing that you have shown is that at least you are smarter than the idiots who can't even post: they have to paste pictures. You still don't realize that the sum and substance of your post amounts to this though:
The USC should be interpreted - as long as I like the interpretation.
Oh and that you're just noottt quite bright enough to spot the difference between a LibDem and an Independent. But at least you have the picture guy beat! ;o)

 

I hope you're not taking that idiot seriously.

 

Why do you think that is such a profound statement? The only way to grant that statement the weight you are giving it is to assign to "conservatives" a postion in opposition . . . That's called a strawman and that is the total sum of your premise and that is pathetic.

I love debate, I enjoy hearing others opinions and challenging my own. I have enjoyed the gun rights vs gun control discussion for over 20 years and back then the pro-gun side was the losing side - all the case law was on th anti's side and some excellent legal debates could be had. Sadly, what passes for the pro-control side today has devolved into posts like yours containing only logical fallacies. I don't suffer fools and I enjoy calling them out. You don't deserve any deference or respect because you are arguing nonsense.

To just put a cherry on top of your idiocy, you claimed to want, "direct replies and a bit of reason vs. the dodges, petty insults, rants and hysterics which make having an intelligent and civil conversation on the subject seem almost impossible" but the only person here who can't handle other people's opinions is you . . .

So then you admit your premise is BS -- extreme right-wing conservatives will accept no INFRINGEMENT! but "condone" said INFRINGEMENT!

And I note that you haven't addressed a single point I make nor answered a single question I asked.

You think you are picking on me? Christ on a Pink Pony you are delusional. You can't understand an actual constitutional argument so there is zero possibility you can compose a reasoned argument on the Constitution. You have a child-like understanding and continue with that in your rants.

No, you'd rather force a reader to come out with crossed eyes after trying to read your gibberish. The ability to compose a readable statement is as important as composing an understandable argument. Currently you are like 0 for 8. If that post wasn't directed to me I would have just scrolled right by the hieroglyphics.

LOL. the strawman you are fighting only exists in your own mind. Assigning a position for your opponent and ignoring their real argument is the surest sign of a weak mind and even weaker position.

I only support the correct interpretation in accordance with the fundamental principles.

I have come to harbor deep contempt for social/cultural conservatives that allow religious dogma to mold their thoughts on the extent of government powers. They envision and expect government to regulate, prohibit and punish their fellow citizens for what these arbiters perceive to be their fellow citizen's immoral behavior. So, I consider them as dangerous to liberty as "living constitution" or just --"F" the Constitution-- leftists.

I detest being lumped in with them and honestly feel a strong distinction needs to be drawn between political conservatives (Constitution focused) and social/cultural conservatives because on many political issues, especially the role of government in the lives of citizens, the two are at polar opposites of political philosophy.

And "you're just noottt quite bright enough to spot" that the only one throwing around political identifiers is you. I haven't assigned you any political identity; only you have used them to erect strawmen for your argument . . . perhaps your complaint should be directed to the guy you see in the mirror because he's the only one assigning the "Socialist, Liberal Fascist" label to the positions you are arguing.

 

Hey No, guess what, it was one of your beloved Democommies that took Machine guns out of honest citizens hands over what the Chicago gangs did to one another, you remember, that little number they call the St Valentine's Day Slaughter. That's where we got the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the same people gave us the The Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Then your beloved Neo-Comms (notice the name changed, they are now the New American Communist party) Gun Control Act of 1968, Armed Career Criminal Act, Firearms Owners Protection Act, Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, Crime Control Act of 1990, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Printz v. United States, National Instant Criminal Background Check, all of which has made no difference. And you want to debate whether a Conservative agrees with this nonsense or not?? Since it's already the law, what do you expect them to do about it??? Liars and criminals have been the cause of most of the bad legislation in the last 80 years.

 

BINGO!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, NO, a cannon is a what???? FIREARM, not an EXPLOSIVE!!!!!