so it is your belief that someone cannot be deemed a sex offender after they say serve 10 years for statutory rape and an armed robber cannot be disbarred of owning arms after he serves say ten years for armed robbery or attempted murder with a gun?
Look, dude, you're right. The first congress who passed the final version of the 2ND amendment in 1789 didn't mean for the 2ND amendment to be a universal right to own a gun in the US. The originators of the 2ND meant for the 2ND to be a regulation of guns in state militias. Read the first phase in the 2ND amendment. That's all you need to know to understand the thinking of the first congress...Most people just pay attention to the last 13 words at the very end of the 2ND. Now, amendments can be subsequently re-interpreted by SCOTUS. In this case, SCOTUS has decided to interpret the 2ND to be a universal guns rights amendment. Hey, at one time, slavery was constitutional according to SCOTUS, no less, with the Dred Scott decision of 1858.
There is no right answer. The Constitution is absolute. Read it literally and any citizen is allowed to possess any kind of weapon he wants. However, the writers of the Constitution were realists. They know that they cannot cover every possible circumstance. If they did that, they would still be working on it. They expected us to use a bit of common sense. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. As such, we accept some common sense measures. Because of this there will always be controversy about the Constitution.
Well, I don't think the 2nd A was meant to regulate anything. Just that the framers didn't want the states to neglect their state militias. That is discussed in the thread "History 101:...." http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ But yes, when SCOTUS legislates they reinterpret the constitution. Which is not bad when the reasoning is based on history, precedent and facts. Heller was not.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." isn't a call to regulate state militias?
Of course not! You were confused by the word "regulated"? "Regulated" is just an adjective. It's used to describe the noun "militia". Just like "free" is an adjective used to describe "state". Which doesn't mean that the 2nd A is what makes states free. The absolute clause simply explains the reason for the main clause. As explained here... http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/
it's my belief that sex offenders should be sentenced longer, thus not violating the constitution is it your belief we should give sex offenders lighter sentences and violate the constitution? Sentencing is where the punishment is, so if we want to punish someone for life... that comes during sentencing
non responsive. are you saying that a prison sentence is the only permissible punishment that a court can impose.
yes, you are being non-responsive I am saying sentencing is where you issue punishment I do not believe in giving short sentences and putting people on a list for example, if someone is dangerous enough to be on a list, they should not be on the street
rights are rights, if you have to have a privilege to have a right, they are not longer rights.... they are privileges
and it's fine to ban them during the sentence, that is my point, after one has completed their sentence, it's complete, punishment is over when the sentence is over if we want to punish longer, we have longer sentences, we do not weaken our constitutional rights
so you now are a big supporter of the second amendment? so if a court imposes a lifetime ban on firearms ownership for say a guy who has committed violence with firearms several times, you have an issue with that?
always have been, read my history I think someone that has committed violence with a firearm several times should get lwop, heck one time is enough for lwop imo end the war on drugs and put people in prison for long sentences for real crimes, we see too many bad people with long rap sheets on the streets
I disagree. But we put way too many people in prison who aren't a danger to society while allowing those who truly are, way too many breaks
The right of the people. Not the militia Not the people in the militia The right of the people. Thus: No one has a right to serve in the militia, and no one has a right to "keep and bear" a firearm owned by someone else, so the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" -must- include the ownership of firearms by individuals not serving in the militia, for purposes not related to same. The protection of this right secures the 'well regulated militia " by ensuring the people will always have access to the weapons necessary for same. Thus, the individual right as espoused by Heller, etc.
**** me running, that little bit of dicta is the only thing you laypeople ever retain and its BAD LAW. Learn something else, I would suggest a case that hasn't been overturned. Maybe try Heller v Dc?
Equal protection clause. If you think that's stupid, then amend it out like it was amended in. Until and unless you do that, you don't get to create second class citizens. If they're that dangerous, don't let them out.
I said plenty, you just don't understand the terms involved because you don't know anything about the cases you're referring to. Fire in a theatre isn't good law, and it wasn't good law in the case that contained the NON-BINDING dicta you just flippantly mentioned as if it were valid law. I suggest that rather than a non-controlling portion of Schenk you read Heller instead.
