Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kitchen Table constitutionalists can ponder the wording of the second amendment all they want. The facts of the matter are that the SCOTUS has stated and clarified exactly what the second amendment means via the Heller Decision. Like it or not, the founding fathers of our nation declared that the SCOTUS has the final say and is the penultimate authority of the meaning of the constitution and it's interpretation. The right of the people to own and carry firearms is subject to reasonable restrictions. The SCOTUS has ruled and their ruling supercedes the legislative and the Executive Branch. The only way to change this is a constitutional amendment ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the people. Suck it up people.
SCOTUS has been wrong countless times before, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that SCOTUS is the final and lasting authority on Constitutional matters.
Interpretations are for people who are incapable of understanding the language and context in which it is used. For example, I need an interpreter if someone wanted to talk to me in just about any language other than english.
The Constitution does not need "interpreting", especially when said interpretation is subject to political ideologies as it has been for numerous decades in every SCOTUS decision. The words and works of the founding fathers are readily available for just about anyone and everyone to read and familiarize themselves with.
The phrase "shall not be infringed" certainly doesn't need any form of interpretation whatsoever. It is plainly defined, and in no way would it be possible to twist those words, or to redefine them for the purpose of making it sound like any form of "reasonable restriction" would ever pass Constitutional muster.
Could it be that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was just plain WRONG when he said, both in his Opinion in the DC v. Heller case, and more recently in a television interview, that "reasonable restrictions" were allowed by the 2nd amendment?
Could it be that the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, left out any such "reasonable restrictions" not by accident, but with the full intention that NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS WERE ALLOWED on the right to keep and bear arms?
How could they forsee so many things?
why not write restrictions in regards to law suits? freedom of the press? You name it. Because they were not seers of the future. Who could ever in their right mind anticipate dirt bags like the colorado shooter?
What about corrupt politicians? Oh yeah they hung them or shot them.
What about corrupt cops?
They didn't endorce welfare either. People were expected to take care of their own needs.
They didn't envision trillion dollar budgets either. Remember they believed in minimal government.
Reasonable restrictions...if a gun owner is not a reasonable person-no gun- If he or she is reasonable- you get to keep your gun. Take a guy like James Holmes- under the doctors care for some forms of mental illness- NOT a reasoning person..no guns for him. A guy like Zimmerman who could have used reason and avoided killing Martin...not reasonable - no gun.. If you have a President that can not be reasoned with and has unreasonable supporters - Reasonable people should be able to vote them out,,,seeing reason these days is so rare- looks like you are stuck with a system that the founding fathers would have found un-worthy of even trying to reason with....They would have ousted them - but today people are afraid to say that some are nuts and have to go...They are just too nice ...
That single assertion betrays an ignorance simultaneously prosaic and profound. Anyone who actually believes that has just forfeit any right to be taken seriously in a discussion on the issue.
Could it be that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was just plain WRONG when he said, both in his Opinion in the DC v. Heller case, and more recently in a television interview, that "reasonable restrictions" were allowed by the 2nd amendment?
Could it be that the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, left out any such "reasonable restrictions" not by accident, but with the full intention that NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS WERE ALLOWED on the right to keep and bear arms?
I have to tell you... it is particular shaky ground when you try to base an affirmative argument on something that was not said.
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.
In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.
Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?
Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
Are you arguing that the 2nd Amendment is absolute, and that it allows us to own any and all arms? How about nuclear arms?
Why didn't the Founding Fathers write "reasonable restrictions" into the 2nd amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.
In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.
Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?
Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
Back in the 1780s, all firearms were single shot black powder muzzle loaders. From handguns to artillery. As far-seeing as the founders were, they didn't see the advent of automatic weapons or even metallic cartridges and repeating arms.
Times and technology change.
Part of the genius of our constitution is that the founders wrote it as a guide to a form of government that had never existed before and they wanted to produce a document flexible enough to change with the times.
Just sayin'...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why didn't the Founding Fathers write "reasonable restrictions" into the 2nd amendment?
