Finally a serious question about 2nd Ammendmet

[coastal-boy]

These quotes come directly from the cut and paste by Colonel Hogan from the Heller Decision:

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Note how the Supreme Court explicitly names those Amendments that refer to "individual rights". Guess what...no Second Amendment.

Why?

Because if you read further, you see this:

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.

Because the Supreme Court explicitly states that the Right (to own a weapon) IS NOT granted by the Constitution. Furthermore, that Right IS NOT dependent on the Constitution for its existence. All the Second Amendment does is declare that that RIGHT shall not be infringed.

Infringed from what?

That is where the conclusion of the Decision comes into play:

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

The Supreme Court states that the right to own a weapon was “pre-existent” to the Constitution.

THIS is why the Constitutionality of outlawing certain types of weapons, ammo and magazines have been upheld in the past…because outlawing particular items are not an infringement of the basic Right, which is the ONLY item guaranteed by the Constitution. We still have the right to own a gun. Because the Supreme Court states that the Second Amendment is NOT defining an individual’s right, it is by default defining a collective right, which permits the regulation of said right.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You know Vette's right. The US has the highest population of any country in the world. Nobody even comes close last time I checked we had roughly ten times the population of the next nearest country.

 

[HAL_9000]

You didn't answer the question.

Guns are already regulated much like cars.

Serial numbers vs. VINs, registration laws, and restrictions on usage.

Not to mention manufacturing laws. What types can be sold, used in public, etc.

 

[shoulderblade]

You are such a Canadian patriot, I'll bet do all your cross-boarder shopping only at American malls which fly a Canadian flag.

I think it is a matter of showing respect. I worked for many years in a factory that flew the American flag along with the Canadian and Ontario.

One of my kids asked me what the US flag was doing there . I told them that we had American coustumers and it was there to show respect for them.

So there.

 

[1sickbastard]

I think it is a matter of showing respect. I worked for many years in a factory that flew the American flag along with the Canadian and Ontario.

One of my kids asked me what the US flag was doing there . I told them that we had American coustumers and it was there to show respect for them.

So there.

Respect I understand. For that matter I even sing "Oh Canada" at hockey games (yes I sing "the Star Spangled Banner" as well).

What I was busting his chops about was the 'holier than thou, my country is better than yours' attitude (displaying a distinct lack of respect).

I've nothing against a patriot who loves his/her country. Nationalism, on the other hand, is just as silly as racism.

Or any other 'ism'.

 

[John Doe]

You know Vette's right. The US has the highest population of any country in the world. Nobody even comes close last time I checked we had roughly ten times the population of the next nearest country.

Is this sarcasm?

 

[BusyAfternoon]

Automobiles, tractors, lawn mowers, stairs, bar stools, table saws, airplanes, wild women, sharp knives, bull dogs, electricity, booze, and a thousand other things should be considered dangerous and life threatening..........maybe they should all be restricted?

If we made up a list of dangerous, life threatening items that can kill people, it might reach from
here to the moon.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/380577_457935457597059_1731665752_n.jpg
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." ~Thomas Jefferson

 

[Wat_Tyler]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/398048_422632517818985_1268842143_n.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/398048_422632517818985_1268842143_n.jpg

http://spectator.org/assets/db/13584679246077.jpg
No. You're not GAY!

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Oh, thank the gods.


I was worried there for a minute.


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/397984_10151182443411981_471972816_n.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh, thank the gods.


I was worried there for a minute.


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/397984_10151182443411981_471972816_n.jpg

Why Jack and Jane had only Tip and Mittens...


Boo is sleeping with the goldfish.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/602736_476947365703226_1796636741_n.jpg

Woof!​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Grumpy old dogs...

 

[BotanyBoy]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/380577_457935457597059_1731665752_n.jpg

Doesn't matter..

AR15 = WMD.....must be banned, prohibition fails and regulation with access wins in every social issue but this one, because I'm a dumb ass liberal who likes to change tune to a very GOP'ish Prohibition stance when it suits my fear and ignorance.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/419750_422472901168280_1509973925_n.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/419750_422472901168280_1509973925_n.jpg

The Liberals fear that at some point in time their culture wars might produce a shot heard around the world...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Guns are a problem for Democrats cuz guns are an obstacle in the path of Niggaz using the suburbs as an ATM.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Guns are already regulated much like cars.

Serial numbers vs. VINs, registration laws, and restrictions on usage.

Not to mention manufacturing laws. What types can be sold, used in public, etc.

You still haven't answered the question. Do you want gun use to be regulated like car use?

 

[about_average]

Just because you assign me a position that I've never taken does not mean I have to read anything again.

Well, then enlighten us which rights identified in the two documents are either:
1. Privileges rather than rights as stated
or
2. Can not be taken away

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/734525_325270410922805_1596983803_n.jpg

 

[Sean Renaud]

Automobiles, tractors, lawn mowers, stairs, bar stools, table saws, airplanes, wild women, sharp knives, bull dogs, electricity, booze, and a thousand other things should be considered dangerous and life threatening..........maybe they should all be restricted?

If we made up a list of dangerous, life threatening items that can kill people, it might reach from
here to the moon.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/380577_457935457597059_1731665752_n.jpg
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." ~Thomas Jefferson

How many homicides are commited with a bat each year? Since your point really hinges on that ignorance surely you know?

Doesn't matter..

AR15 = WMD.....must be banned, prohibition fails and regulation with access wins in every social issue but this one, because I'm a dumb ass liberal who likes to change tune to a very GOP'ish Prohibition stance when it suits my fear and ignorance.

C'mon. You'd made such good progress the last week or so. Don't slip back into ignorance.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Well, then enlighten us which rights identified in the two documents are either:
1. Privileges rather than rights as stated
or
2. Can not be taken away

I made no mention of a document.

 

[about_average]

I made no mention of a document.

That's a non sequitur. I'm not aware of anyone who did. Very poor dodge.

Apparently you've forgotten that you said rights can't be taken away., only privileges. That's ok, it's easy to forget all the BS you post.
The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution both identify certain rights, all of which can be taken away.
Again, I'm asking, which rights in those two documents do you claim can't be taken way, or are actually privileges rather than rights and those involved with them were wrong about what they were writing and signing?

Unless you're changing your stance, it's a question so simple even you should be able to figure it out.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This is why you're full of shit, from Heller:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16

It only counts if you cite the entire case. If you leave anything out it obviously means you're hiding something.

I've put the fucker on iggy. I never do that, but anyone that stupid does not deserve to be heard. He just made it into the Lovelynice Hall of Lame.