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.
Here is the problem... My rights do not come from you and certainly not government. You people can ONLY try to limit, restrict, or completely deny my rights... You can damn sure try.
The 9th Amendment is the common natural right to the enjoyment of life and liberty, it is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
My 2nd Amendment tells you, I am justified in killing those that infringe on my rights. All forms of oppression of my person.
Sorry but the existing interpretation of the second does allow for the restriction of rights. So the existing system supports limitations of the rights in the second. So you will have to convince NRA and the USSC that restrictions are not allowed.
The argument at the moment is the nature and scope of restrictions not the existence of restrictions.
Sorry but the existing interpretation of the second does allow for the restriction of rights.
TRANSLATION: The "existing interpretation" is ridiculously wrong, and can find no language in the 2nd amendment's language to support it.
Quote:
So the existing system supports limitations of the rights in the second.
TRANSLATION: So is the existing system.
The 2nd amendment clearly has no language allowing any exceptions to its command that the govt not restrict or take away the people's right to KBA. And any "interpretation" is mere wishful thinking, unable to point out any language in the amendment that supports it.
TRANSLATION: Congress and other governments have passed a number of unconstitutional restrictions on the RKBA, in violation of the 2nd amendment. And since the USSC has said those restrictions exist and they're not going to address them in whatever current case the Court is hearing, we're going to try as hard as we can to pretend the Court has somehow "approved" them when it hasn't.
There are many posters here on POC who believe 2A is to be taken literally, word for word, and when you read it that way, there is no "....except for felons, insane people or terrorists" in 2A. So tell me how you reconcile a strict verbatim interpretation of 2A yet believe it does not allow insane people to have guns?
You cannot have it both ways. If it is permissible to restrict who gets to enjoy 2A rights, it must be permissible to put other restrictions in place.
If you are allowed to interact with society as a free person, then the 2nd Amendment applies to you.
If you are allowed to interact with society as a free person, then the 2nd Amendment applies to you.
If you (or a government agent such as a cop or judge) takes someone's gun away, he can sue you for violating his 2nd amendment rights. And a jury will have to decide whether the 2nd amendment's prohibition on govt regulation or restriction should apply to that particular case. And the jury has the power to decide that despite the ironclad language of the 2nd, they can find you Not Guilty if they decide you a good enough reason to take the gun away. And their verdict is final.
TRANSLATION: Congress and other governments have passed a number of unconstitutional restrictions on the RKBA, in violation of the 2nd amendment. And since the USSC has said those restrictions exist and they're not going to address them in whatever current case the Court is hearing, we're going to try as hard as we can to pretend the Court has somehow "approved" them when it hasn't.
The Heller decision...
****************************************
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote.
****************************************
****************************************
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote.
****************************************
That is pretty definitive.
And courts are never wrong? Slavery was legal at one point, but it was ok, because the courts allowed it?
The left knows exactly what the 2nd means. Simple case in point was the AW ban of 94. They could have outright banned semi autos but they didn't because they know it would be fast tracked to SCOTUS and they will lose. Not only that case but every other house of cards these other BS laws they've come up with. So instead of going after what they really want, but can't have, they will keep pushing at every little way they can with ridiculous laws like waiting periods, one purchase a month, ammo bans.
And courts are never wrong? Slavery was legal at one point, but it was ok, because the courts allowed it?
The claim was that the USSC never said any thing definitive about restrictions on the Second. But they did.
And I agree that the interpretation is wrong. Though I would also point out it is supported by the grand conspiracy who do not was the open interpretation of the Second.
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.
