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.
In that case, don't you strongly believe that anybody who is prison for using a gun to commit a crime, such as murder, should get their gun back when they are let out of prison?
I believe people currently incarcerated for violent crimes with or without the use of a gun should remain in prison with no parole......ever.
Why do you want people who have demonstrated that they are incapable of living in society without committing violent crimes to be let out and walk among your family?
But anyone convicted of a non violent crime should have ALL Constitutional rights restored upon completion of their sentence.
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed" · [more]
synonyms:
undermine · erode · diminish · weaken · impair · damage · compromise · limit · curb · check
Doesn't say "no exceptions".
Also, asking someone to register their gun does not diminish, weaken, damage or curb their right to own the gun.
Putting restrictions on who may legally obtain firearms does infringe their rights though, (such as background checks).
Its why Im totally against background checks for firearms.
Firearms have changed but the Second Amendment has not.
How the **** do you get "living document" out of that?
"It's a living document" is the excuse that big-govt advocvates use, to pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it says.
Without such an escape hatch, they can't get away with violating it - a situation they abhor.
Actually obeying the rules, is NOT the way they want to live their lives.
(Actually, that's why conservatives say that laws should be few and far between, too. In that, conservatives' attitude is similar to liberals'. But conservatives believe people SHOULD obey the law, in the few times it DOES touch what they are doing. Liberals believe they should be free to flout or ignore the laws if they don't like them)
The 2nd amendment is a law forbidding government from restricting people from owning or carry a gun or other such weapon. And it makes NO exceptions... meaning, the right to keep and bear arms IS absolute.
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, knew that if you give big-govt advocates an inch, they would take a mile. And so the 2nd was written to not even give them an inch.
You are talking about what went on in the 1700's, and I am talking about today's gun owners, who are all talk, and no action.
The little pea shooters these fools call guns, and their right to have them, would be quelled in one day if the government were to suddenly declare gun ownership null and void.
The citizenry would not revolt, as many gun owners feel they would.
With all due respect, cal, you have no idea what would happen. Stating opinion as fact is why the MSM has lost the trust of the people in the US.
You are talking about what went on in the 1700's, and I am talking about today's gun owners, who are all talk, and no action.
The little pea shooters these fools call guns, and their right to have them, would be quelled in one day if the government were to suddenly declare gun ownership null and void.
The citizenry would not revolt, as many gun owners feel they would.
The British Colonies also didn't demand independence the first time Tea was taxed or the Stamp Act went into effect.
As for the US government "quelling" anything, there would be nothing to quell since gun owners would simply ignore the unconstitutional edict until the courts toss it into the historical **** heap of Congressional overreach.
Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other type of extreme criminal", and etc.
To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.
So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.
Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't legally take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.
Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.
So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?
Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.
The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.
So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?
It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.
But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.
And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.
Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?
Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.
My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.
And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.
The ONLY entity that can legally take away a person's right to keep and bear arms, is a JURY of his peers.
I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.
Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.
I never said the cops shouldn't take the murderer's gun away. The murderer said that, with bodies still bleeding around him. Whereupon the cop whacked him over the head with a billy club and took it from him anyway.
And later when the murderer brought charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the jury let the cop walk. The cop had no more worries since double jeopardy isn't allowed. And the murderer went to the chair as he deserved. And that's exactly how the system should work.
The ONLY entity that can legally take away that murderer's right to keep and bear arms, is a JURY of his peers. And the jury can only do it on a case-by case basis, since a jury doesn't even exist until a case is brought in court.
And when some govt official tried to take the gun of a law-abiding citizen, the jury did NOT let the govt official walk. In that case, they threw him into jail with all those nice criminals, where they could discuss obeying the Constitution, and the advantages of jury nullification, all they wanted. And, again, that's exactly how the system should work. And was designed to work, in fact, by those founders the leftist fanatics keep desperately denigrating and insulting.
Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute... because of the many horrifying examples that happen when it isn't. And imperfect as we are, the closer we come to making it that way, the safer and more prosperous (and, BTW, the freer) our society will be.
"So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?"
There is PLENTY on record as to what they meant.
I understand your point but, you didn't have to repeat it over and over, so I stopped reading early into your rant.
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.
