The 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by 6Gunner, Mar 22, 2019.

  1. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the relevant part: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever
     
  2. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, I thought you guys were getting it right. This bot response is sad. Sorry.
     
    Reality likes this.
  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    our Constitution is Express not Implied by right wing fantasy.
     
  4. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bleep bloop
     
  5. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And this rote response when confused really could use some changing up
     
    Longshot likes this.
  6. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bots are getting more and more sophisticated.
     
  7. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Abridgment is not the same as infringement. The latter refers to a prohibition for any reason, the former to limitations on the right.

    Congress is not necessarily needed for the latter, as local governments can do that.
     
  8. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That's because the states do that by themselves. And they don't infringe on the right but abridge it, which means limiting the right in different ways and for different reasons.
     
  9. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That's point is actually correct. Why are you unable to address it?
     
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank Goodness for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.
     
  11. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think they are becoming more obvious, although, they do better than most of the GCAs posting here that continually recycle the same arguments and talking points.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  12. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    why should i care what the right wing fantasizes about, with our federal doctrine of separation of powers?
     
  13. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I’m going to disagree. There is no constitutional difference between “abridge” and “infringe.” Both words are used in the Bill of Rights, and they have been defined similarly. Both words refer to both the total deprivation of a right and to incremental encroachments of the right that fall short of total denial. Your argument runs afoul of Heller, for example, which dealt only with a partial ban against a one particular type of firearm. And there are a number of cases that hold the partial infringement of a right—denying some portion but not all activity covered by the right—to be unconstitutional infringements of the right.

    The issue with your two given examples lies in the fact that both are outside the scope of the RKBA. Denying a juvenile firearms is an infringement. Yet it is not an infringement of the RKBA because the scope of the RKBA has never been extended to juvenile possession. The same applies to felons. The scope of the right has never been extended to cover them. The only difference here is they were once right holders who lost their rights as the result of being held accountable for their criminal actions in a trial in which they are afforded due process.

    I do not believe we should be in the business of excusing even a partial invasion of recognized individual rights by renaming the interference an “abridgement” rather than an “infringement.” A rose is still a rose. An encroachment is still an encroachment.

    The bottom line is this…The rights listed in the BoR are individual rights—held by the individual—enforceable against the government by the individual. The RKBA is merely one of these recognized individual rights. They are the protection I have when the government interacts with me. There is not a single one of these rights which requires a collective or universal deprivation of the right from all citizens to trigger the enforcement of these rights by those individuals whose rights are being infringed. Take, for example, another right similarly described as a “right of the people”—the 4th Amendment’s individual right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. It does not require the warrantless invasion by the police of every house on my street to trigger my right to challenge a warrantless invasion of my own house. The right applies to me and mine, and you and yours. It does not require the invasion of the rights of all to make the invasion of the rights of the one unconstitutional. The same applies to the RKBA. If the law or government action encroaches upon an aspect of the protected scope of the right, then it is of no constitutional significance how many people are actually affected by it. Each individual who is affected may challenge the infringement of his individual right—regardless of whether the infringement amounts to a partial or a complete ban on exercising his individual right.

    The suggestion that a denial of even a portion of a right to one while allowing the right to another is somehow a constitutionally permissible “abridgement” rather than an unconstitutional “infringement” of a recognized individual right is itself a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. If the claim that a restriction is constitutional because it only applies to a smaller class of individuals rather than the “people” as a whole, then African Americans would still be paying a poll tax to vote in Mississippi.

    At least that is my thought. Please feel free to agree or disagree as you will.
     
    An Taibhse, Turtledude and 6Gunner like this.
  14. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your presence and contribution to ongoing discussions has been missed.
     
    Turtledude and 6Gunner like this.
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Why are we wasting our tax monies on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?
     
  16. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Truth!
     
  17. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    My understanding is that the right to bear arms is a natural right. That is, it takes place by default and requires no government permission. That's why colonists were armed even before 2A was written, and that includes juveniles.

    However, the natural right was abridged for various reasons, which means it was limited. That's why slaves during the same period were not allowed to bear arms unless their masters thought it safe to do so. Also with abridgment, convicts were not allowed the same right. Later, juveniles were not allowed the same unless for special reasons, and with various regulations.

    Take not, as well, that regulations affecting the right to bear arms vary across states. That's why infringement is not the same as abridgment.
     
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Our federal Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not individual rights.
     
  19. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Heller decision settled that issue, one argued for the last 200+ years by better intellects than you that have sought the magic words in the 2A that would make everyone realize suddenly your interpretation is correct. You can argue until CRISPR technology provides the potential to give pigs the ability to fly, but, that won’t change the ruling or the subsequent body of legal precedent that is being built in the courts that will reinforce the decision. Until then, every permutation of interpretation you use to disrupt this thread, has already be tried and dismissed, as your assertion above. You may as well be arguing that the Constitution is an invalid and outdated guide for governing....good luck on that.
     
    Turtledude and 6Gunner like this.
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    a simple legal error. we have a Ninth Amendment; our Second Amendment is Express not Implied in Any way. What is expressed in the first clause is more supreme than any Thing, the right wing can Imply.
     
  21. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    'does not compute, does not compute, does not compute!!!
     

Share This Page