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.
Great history lesson. How is it relevant? Yes, people have WILDLY different interpretations of the 2A. Because as it's written the 2A is very vague. So we rely on SCOTUS. Now. SCOTUS has ruled that background checks are Constitutional.
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is no more vague than "freedom of speech". What it actually is is open-ended. Basically we say "Sure, we should have freedom of speech and all, but there have to be some things you can't say, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, because that could get people hurt."
That doesn't mean the first amendment is vague. It means it is unrealistic. Same with the second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790
It's pretty clear how the OP feels about the SCOTUS ruling on background checks. How do you feel? Do you think background checks are Constitutional?
If we're talking the "original" Constitution, Federal background checks are not Constitutional. State background checks are. But the Supreme Court can make any ruling it wants.
"The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling. Probably the worst thing that has happened in America in my time is the decay of confidence in the courts. No one can be sure any more that in a given case they will uphold the plainest mandate of the Constitution. On the contrary, everyone begins to be more or less convinced in advance that they won't. Judges are chosen not because they know the Constitution and are in favor of it, but precisely because they appear to be against it." - H.L. Mencken
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790
Once again, irrelevant to the subject of the thread. We're not talking about "Democrats taking away guns." The thread is about the constitutionality of background checks as they pertain to the sale of guns.
The Supreme Court no more cares about the Constitution than AOC or Donald Trump. They'll "vote" for whatever they want the Constitution to mean, while making some legal argument to justify it.
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is no more vague than "freedom of speech". What it actually is is open-ended. Basically we say "Sure, we should have freedom of speech and all, but there have to be some things you can't say, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, because that could get people hurt."
That doesn't mean the first amendment is vague. It means it is unrealistic. Same with the second.
If we're talking the "original" Constitution, Federal background checks are not Constitutional. State background checks are. But the Supreme Court can make any ruling it wants.
"The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling. Probably the worst thing that has happened in America in my time is the decay of confidence in the courts. No one can be sure any more that in a given case they will uphold the plainest mandate of the Constitution. On the contrary, everyone begins to be more or less convinced in advance that they won't. Judges are chosen not because they know the Constitution and are in favor of it, but precisely because they appear to be against it." - H.L. Mencken
The Supreme Court no more cares about the Constitution than AOC or Donald Trump. They'll "vote" for whatever they want the Constitution to mean, while making some legal argument to justify it.
Yep, the Supreme Court is in place to protect the US govt first and foremost.
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is no more vague than "freedom of speech". What it actually is is open-ended. Basically we say "Sure, we should have freedom of speech and all, but there have to be some things you can't say, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, because that could get people hurt."
That doesn't mean the first amendment is vague. It means it is unrealistic. Same with the second.
If we're talking the "original" Constitution, Federal background checks are not Constitutional. State background checks are. But the Supreme Court can make any ruling it wants.
"The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling. Probably the worst thing that has happened in America in my time is the decay of confidence in the courts. No one can be sure any more that in a given case they will uphold the plainest mandate of the Constitution. On the contrary, everyone begins to be more or less convinced in advance that they won't. Judges are chosen not because they know the Constitution and are in favor of it, but precisely because they appear to be against it." - H.L. Mencken
The Supreme Court no more cares about the Constitution than AOC or Donald Trump. They'll "vote" for whatever they want the Constitution to mean, while making some legal argument to justify it.
That's not a limitation on what you can say.
It doesn't ban the word "fire".
So it's not a limitation of free speech.
It's a law against causing a dangerous situation that endangers others.
You can't yell "bomb" or "snake" in a crowded theater either.
But you be on your own property and yell FIRE at the top of your lungs all you want.
So, the implication of using this as an analogy for limits on the 2nd amendment are basically a straw man argument.
Because you can shoot a gun in a crowded theater either.
It's a law against causing a dangerous situation that endangers others.
Exactly. Can the government restrict the first amendment in the name of public safety? Can the government restrict the second amendment in the name of public safety?
The original reference to "crowded theater" was an argument put forward in the Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States. In that case, a man named Charles T. Schenck, who was opposed to the military draft, had distributed flyers to draft-aged men, urging them to resist being drafted.
The government argued that by doing so he was inciting a riot, and so urging people to resist the draft is not protected speech under the first amendment.
With that said, there is a difference between speech that DID cause harm(eg riot), and speech that COULD cause harm. Prior to the Schenck case, speech was only criminal when it DID cause harm. So if your words caused the deaths of other people, you were held responsible for their deaths. After the Schenck case, the Supreme Court decided that if your words simply have the potential to cause harm, the government can prevent you from saying them.
This same dynamic is what we're debating in regards to the second amendment. Can the government restrict the second amendment in order to prevent potential harm? For instance, virtually all people believe that it should be illegal for felons and the mentally-ill to own guns because we believe the danger they pose is sufficient to warrant such a restriction. All liberals really want is to extend this logic to more people(eg patriots, bible-thumpers, sovereign-citizens, etc).
The liberal also wants to criminalize what they call "hate-speech", because they believe it does, or at least can incite violence against minorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Because you can't shoot a gun in a crowded theater either.
The second amendment says "keep and bear arms", not "shoot my gun wherever I want for any reason".
Last edited by Redshadowz; 04-15-2021 at 05:47 AM..
Okay, so, stay with me here. If you don't want military grade weapons in the hands of dangerously insane people, or violent felons/drug traffickers, how to you intend to prevent that from happening? Hmmm?
The title of the thread is "background checks for firearms is unconstitutional." If you don't do background checks, how are you going to keep guns out of the hands of dangerously unstable people or violent felons? Hmmmm?
--
Okay, so, stay with me here. I have REPEATEDLY stated I am OK with background checks to protect AGAINST "dangerously insane people, or violent felons/drug traffickers" form getting guns", long as they are as fast as when a police office stops you for a routines traffic violation and gets your ENTIRE criminal record, even form other states, in a manner of a few seconds.
I am NOT for a 3 day, 10 or whatever time delay there is.
WHY? Because many women have been KILLED by the person they are buying the gun to protect themselves from. Even when a restraining order has been issued against them.
With today's technology, there is NO reason for a delay.
If you credit card can be checked INSTANTLY, there is no reason your criminal record can't also be instantly.
So please STOP with the asinine assumptions. Try to keep up.
Those are two very good questions. The 2nd amendment, as written, is a bit vague. Unless you're on the FAR left or the FAR right. The same goes with question 3, the FAR left wants it to say one thing, and the FAR right wants it to say something completely different. They BOTH interpret the Constitution in a way that fits their narrative.
The Supreme Court has already spoken to this, on multiple occasions.
An article from the National Review, a CONSERVATIVE magazine (after the DC vs Heller decision)... https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...ond-amendment/
Did you mean, "You can't make people feel SAFE and at the same time confiscate their guns"? Regardless, I'd agree, the government forcibly confiscating guns will not make people feel safe. And that's never going to happen. And that's not what I'm advocating for.
I've said REPEATEDLY that I'm a gun owner and a CCW holder. I support people being able to own guns. But the OP is arguing that ANY background checks are Unconstitutional. In his world there would be NO WAY to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous, violent felons/drug traffickers and dangerously, mentally unstable people. And I think that's insane. And something the VAST majority of Americans and the SCOTUS oppose.
--
"They BOTH interpret the Constitution in a way that fits their narrative."
WRONG. Those who support the 2nd Amendment AGREE with what the WRITERS of it said.
Their quotes have been posted multi dozens of times.
"The 2nd amendment, as written, is a bit vague." IMO , they are VERY CLEAR.
I suggest you read them. Please feel free to ask any question you have, if you cannot decipher what they said.
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is citizen/s mentioned... All people have a right to keep & bear arms.
The privilege of citizens 21 years of age who are non-felons & mentally sane may keep but never bear the small arms government allows..... Sound about right?
"The privilege of citizens 21 years of age" I say 18. If you are old enough to serve in our military.....!
It isn't vague, and the Federalist Papers that explain it aren't vague either. The problem is that no one is actually comfortable with individual citizens having grenade launchers, tanks, and nuclear weapons.
The Heller case was in 2008. It was the first time in our history that the Supreme Court made a decision about the second amendment. Even though laws restricting the second amendment go back to the 1800's, and the law in the Heller case had been in force since the 1970's.
Many were rightly worried that Antonin Scalia had wanted to retry Roe v. Wade. And that if Trump or some other Republican stacked the court with more Scalias, it would be overturned. I don't know how definitive the Heller case is, since not only was it was a 5-4 decision, but two years later a nearly identical case, McDonald v. Chicago, was also a 5-4 decision.
It seems to me that the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law depends on whoever is currently sitting on the bench.
No. People who feel unsafe won't be willing to give up their guns unless they honestly believed giving up their guns would make them more safe.
The democrats have basically been bringing in millions of illegals, stirring up riots and racial resentment, and then demand gun control. It's a bit much to handle.
"It seems to me that the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law depends on whoever is currently sitting on the bench."
And previous decisions HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED by newer courts.
"No. People who feel unsafe won't be willing to give up their guns" Especially now that so many on the left are FOR banning the police including members of congress.
We're talking about the 2A, not the Federalist papers. The Federalist papers aren't the law of the land. And of COURSE the 2A is vague, hence the wildly different interpretations of it. And you're right--the vast majority of Americans aren't comfortable with individual citizens having grenade launchers. But the OP is saying, among other things, that restricting people from owning grenade launchers is a violation of the 2A. He's saying that ANY restrictions on guns/weapons is a violation of the 2A. So, his interpretation of the 2A is different than yours. 2A=vague.
Nonsense.
Alas, that's the system we have. Do you have a better way? Should we all just accept YOUR interpretation of the 2A? Because YOUR interpretation is, of course, the correct one.
Irrelevant. We're talking about the 2A and you deflect to the scary Democrats and illegal aliens. Not a strong way to make your argument.
--
" And of COURSE the 2A is vague"
Your example does NOT show vagueness, just different opinion.
Okay, time to explain what's already obvious to normal people. That is, people who have normal proficiency in today's American English.
When I say "In modern language it says this", I mean that "I will express it in modern language in a way that has EXACTLY THE SAME MEANING as what the Founders intended and expressed when they wrote it 200-plus years ago".
Clear now? What I wrote has meaning IDENTICAL to the original 2nd amendment.
The reason it's obvious is, what purpose could I possibly have in writing down a DIFFERENT meaning from what the Founders wrote?
Well, I suppose sometimes people have a reason to write down something that has a different meaning from the original. As you pointed out, liberals do it all the time, in an effort to lie and fool people into thinking the 2nd amendment means something other than what it plainly says.
Only by lying about their agenda, and lying about the facts that oppose it, can they make their agenda look either good or workable.
And the ant-gunners NEVER read what the writers of the 2nd amendment thought and said at the time on the issue.
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.
Yes, people have WILDLY different interpretations of the 2A. Because as it's written the 2A is very vague. So we rely on SCOTUS. Now. SCOTUS has ruled that background checks are Constitutional.
