The possession of Arms is not absolute and neither are firearms. Like abortion, they are subject to regulation.
Protected from what ? There is nothing in the constitution that says any arm or firearm is “ protected.” People are protected from harm and injury as an assumed responsibility of the govt. but no where in the constitution is there a direct or indirect stated assumption that we must ‘ protect” firearms” ....from what ? Rust, being destroyed ?
And since the second amendment does not specify just which arms are protected from the actions of government, such means all arms in general are protected equally, be they firearms or otherwise.
Arms are not protected from actions of the government. It’s senseless to use words assigned to animate objects, then assign them to inanimate. The govt. routinely destroys weapons unintended for civilian use. They certainly aren’t “ protected.”
Is the government also engaged in routinely destroying privately owned firearms, arguing that they were not intended for civilian use just because they were sold on the private market? Government is free to do whatever it may want with its own property that it has bought and paid for. The same does not apply to the property of private individuals who used their own money to acquire it.
Doesn't matter. they are arms. just as the Episcopal or Methodist Faiths are religions. Its pathetic you are unable to understand Arms covers "assault weapons" and religion covers various Christian Denominations. What words cover abortion? It is an unenumerated "court created" "right".
You must be stating your wishes since that is clearly contrary to legal scholarship and the Heller decision. You seem to think government actions that are corrupt are actually proper and constitutional. I get the fact that you want to ban or restrict guns because you don't like the politics of gun owners. I also get the fact that deep down-you know damn well that such restrictions are contrary to the intentions of the founders and the words of the constitution. But you support political expediency rather than constitutional honesty: it is common among the anti gun movement members.
Many times, I taught constitutional law. How about you? Can you cite me your law review articles on the issue? Roe v Wade is usually seen as one of the worst reasoned supreme court cases in history. Read John Hart Ely's article and get back to me https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6179&context=ylj
I am not sure why this topic has wings under this OP, but I do see Row vs Wade as symptomatic of the type judicial activism advocated by GCAs for interpreting the 2A, rather than pursuing the prescribed amendment process. Questions unanswered in the Roe vs Wade decision … At what point along the continuum of conception to birth is independent personhood, and Constitutional protections to be conferred? Note, some legislatures have deemed the killing of a fetus in the womb a criminal act subject to criminal charges commensurate to those of a a life after birth. What criteria constitutes a living person subject to Constitutional protections. A heartbeat? An accident victim can be kept alive by machine without a heart and later revived with a transplanted heart or artificial analog. Brain activity? At what level? Can a woman be subject to legal penalties for endangering a fetus by dangerous activity, negligence, drug abuse outside the context of the abortion choice? Given any fetus is the product of the DNA contributed by both a woman and the contributing male partner, what are the rights of the other potential parent? Interesting because after birth, the male is required to provide child support…with the exception of anonymous donors. There are inconsistencies and unresolved questions in the logic applied in the Roe vs Wade decision that should be considered within the framework of the Constitution. It appears to me the decision was made by a convolution and instance of judicial legislative activism… when, rather than that approach, the mechanism and process for establishing abortion as a protected right already existed within the framework of the Constitution… the Amendment process.
If you knew anything about constitutional law, you’d stop repeating the “fraudian” idea that guns or any inanimate objects are protected. People’s rights, wealfare and access are but inanimate objects are not. It’s not unusual to hear gunners talk about firearms as a personal object, but dude, they aren’t animate or alive.
Ha ha Another gunner making the same mistake. Totally believable you guys talk about your toys like they’re little pets or worse, living beings with rights of their own. I’ve never heard such a group of self proclaimed experts that can’t enounciate the difference between objects and people. Objects HAVE NO RIGHTS. Objects are not protected from anything in the constitution.
Another male givin* his expert opinion on Roe v Wade. How many times was this guy raped or ever forced to bear a child agaisnt his health and well being. Let me guess.....never.
Do you understand that to be a ligimate CERTIFIED teacher of a particular subject, especially law, you need to have some connection to the English Language as it refers to our constitution. Now, pretend experts can make all the claims they want, but it’s farcical to believe when they keep saying the 2a protects firearms. Why don’t you argue instead that it protects people’s and their right to self defense instead of assigning some fictitious right to an inanimate object ?
Hilarious. The 2@ doesn’t say in any way shape or form that any firearm is “protected “ dude. The constitution doesn’t protect firearms from anything ! Quote it dude or stop sayin it.
I see you have no reference as usual that says a fiream is “protected”. Do you understand how funny your argument is when you keep repeating the same fallacy.
Another misunderstanding on the part of yourself. The rights within the second amendment pertain to the legal ownership and use of said inanimate objects by the people at large. That right to legal ownership means the government cannot prohibit the ownership of firearms that are available on the private market.
To bear is to own. Now your making yourself look foolish. Totally incorrect and that statement can not be backed up with any facts what so ever.
The 2@ says no such thing by decision and you can’t quote anything in any court decision any where that says it’s unqualified. Firearms ARE NOT PROTECTED...... Let’s get it straight mr expert ( self) . The rights of qualified persons to own some types of firearms are protected. Otherwise, you are Wrong and uninformed and absolute delusional. The feds and every state prohibit unqualified individuals from ownership of firearms on the private market. . But only 17 states mandate that unqualified people have background checks.
At least you’re not pretending that firearms are protected anymore, are you ? The fake legalize can’t hide those dilusional ideas.
That would be the "arms" part of "the right to keep and bear arms". To believe otherwise, you must first lie to yourself.
Does the first amendment not protect books? Can books, as well as any other physical medium necessary for conveying certain ideas, be prohibited and outlawed? Not simply specific examples of books and media, but as an entire category of medium.
No, the first amendment DOES Not Protect books or any specific type inanimate object. How long are you going to persist with this ridiculous notion. Do you have a thing with inanimate objects ? Otherwise, people couldn’t burn their own trash if it contained an old book. That is being redundant and ill suited for a debate. The constitution protects PEOPLE’S RIGHTS and accesses to materials , not the objects of intent. It books have all been stored online or as files, are you going to whine because the books were not available ? Dah. No, firearms are NOT PROTECTED .
Again, what law review articles have you written supporting your claims and what was the holding of Heller and McDonald. I get the fact that you dislike the politics of gun owners and you want to harass them with silly laws --and to do so, you must pretend those laws aren't violations of our constitutional rights, but this revisionist nonsense is just plain hilarious
