English 101 for anti 2nd amendment advocates and those who don’t think it’s absolute

If the right of "the people" is protected, then the right of those who are NOT of 'the people" is not.
So, if not everybody is part of 'the people", it leaves open the possibility that ex-cons are also not part of "the people".
As it is possible that ex-cons are not part of the people. then it is also possible the protections of the 2nd amendment does not apply to them.

You apparently refuse to accept this possibility.

Not necessarily so.

 

Citizens are, per se, the people.

That's how it works with LITERALLY everything else in the bill of rights that uses that term. It is, LITERALLY, the strongest argument for what makes the right to keep and bear arms an individual right.
And you're here undermining it. Did Golem hack your account?

Citizens are, per se, the people. Show a case where 'the people' doesn't apply to US citizens, as that is your incredibly insupportable claim.

Its not a possibility, and yes necessarily so. My argument embraces the literal plain language of the text at issue. You want to make an argument other than the plain text? Then you need to take the following steps:

1) Show how the text is ambiguous.
2) Show how your interpretation of the term 'the people' as used in the bill of rights is consistent with the other uses in the bill of rights. Do note: Every other amendment using that term applies to an individual right of the citizenry. Felons don't lose their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or to peaceably assemble etc., so you're already behind the 8 ball there.

This is the same tired, easily disproven argument that Golem uses. The same one you'll see Roberts embrace at the next opportunity to try to play decision maker. Lacking intrinsic logic, seeking only a result desired from bias and a need to evade the unqualified command of the 2nd amendment.

 

But not necessarily as the term is used in the 2nd.
A 4yr old is a citizen. He does not have, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd Amendment.
An imprisoned felon is a citizen. He does not have, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Thus, as the term is used in the 2nd, citizenry does not necessarily make you part of "the people".

And so, we're back to:
As it is possible that ex-cons are not part of the people. then it is also possible the protections of the 2nd amendment does not apply to them.

You apparently refuse to accept this possibility.

Done, above, lines 1-4.

 

A person in a state of minority has all of those rights, they're simply held at the discretion of their legal guardian IE their parent.
A felon convicted while imprisoned, is analogous to that child. They have their rights, mostly, they're simply suspended in many cases at the discretion of their legal guardian, in this case the warden.
A felon once their sentence is served, not paroled but completed, is analogous to a person attaining majority. They are their own legal guardian and their rights are their own.
That's what equal protection and the common law demand. That's what the plain language of the constitution demands.
You have three options: Obtain a constitutional amendment, which you'll be unable to do. Or: Keep them imprisoned if they're that dangerous by altering the positive law as it relates to their sentencing prior to conviction.
Or conversely, offer them parole immediately and for an extremely extended period of time long past their initial sentence if they but cede numerous rights to you.

You do not have a fourth option of 'consider them not the people'.

 

All you have done here is demonstrate how neither citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd amendment.
So, as the term is used in the 2nd, citizenry does not necessarily make you part of "the people".
As such, we're back to:
As it is possible that ex-cons are not part of the people. then it is also possible the protections of the 2nd amendment does not apply to them.

 

All I've done is demonstrate that your exception only applies to someone who is under legal guardianship either because they are a minor child or currently imprisoned, in line with the common law which the constitution works alongside.
That's rather different than what was posed initially, and which you have spent all day deflecting from in the most amateur fashion, that of citizen felons having served their sentence somehow not being 'the people'.

You've refused to back your argument up with anything but your faulty opinion.
1) Show how the text is ambiguous.
2) Show how your interpretation of the term 'the people' as used in the bill of rights is consistent with the other uses in the bill of rights. Do note: Every other amendment using that term applies to an individual right of the citizenry. Felons don't lose their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or to peaceably assemble etc., so you're already behind the 8 ball there.

You're unable to do either of those things, so I expect you to stop this nonsense.

 

This is just another way of saying they do not have the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, regardless of the fact they are citizens.
This means "citizen" does not mean the same as "the people" as the term is used in the 2nd, as per your claim.
You right to keep and bear arms is only protected if you are part of 'the people".
Currently, ex-cons are not, and its completely possible this will remain, even after the Bruen test.

I'm headed home now. Nice talk.

 

That's not what that means, but you go right on ahead thinking it grabber.
Citizens per se are 'the people'. Again: Demonstrate an instance where 'the people' as used in the 4a doesn't apply because 'felon'.

Show the law from the founding era analogous with current prohibition then.

I'm not mad. Just disappointed in you.

 

we certainly know that those convicted of felonies can lose certain constitutional rights. felons lose lots of rights-including the right of assembly and association for example

 

It's a group right not a right held individually by the members. You are not a militia of one.

 

well that fiction is not supported by even the worst supreme court case (miller) and certainly not by any of the justices on Heller. Nor by almost every accredited law schools' constitutional law professors

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So is there an individual right to abolish government? No, it's a right of the people not one person. Some of you would benefit greatly from examining the meaning of the people in actual 18th Century sources. Discussing whether felons lose their Second Amendment rights is nonsensical. There is no due process exception in the Second Amendment. There didn't need to be since it doesn't protect an individual right.

 

It isn't and has never been just a group right. The Second Amendment cannot protect the arms of the militia nor can it protect anyone's right to bear arms in the service of the militia.

 

Do I enjoy the right to free speech and protection against unreasonable search and seizure in my home as an individual?

 

well the lautenberg amendment's retroactive application of police officers and members of the military destroy that pathetic argument

 

Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law professor, says you're wrong.

"Equally anachronistically, libertarians read 'the people' to mean atomized private persons, each hunting in his own private Idaho, rather than the citizenry acting collectively. But, when the Constitution speaks of 'the people' rather than 'persons,' the collective connotation is primary. 'We the People' in the preamble do ordain and establish the Constitution as public citizens meeting together in conventions and acting in concert, not as private individuals pursuing our respective hobbies."
https://newrepublic.com/article/73718/second-thoughts

 

Here are some from the late 18th and early 19th centuries, written by the very same legislatures that ratified the Second Amendment.

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.

 

Means arms like Automatic rifles, LAWs, Grenade launchers, Claymor mines etc, CAN NOT be infringed upon. Yet they are.

 

Are these in common use for lawful purposes?

 

Laws grenade launchers and claymore mines raise a tenth amendment issue, not second amendment. They are ordnance rather than arms within the meaning of the terms the founders used and are not weapons or akin to weapons that citizens would normally keep or bear.

 

But a person never convicted of anything can use a nuclear weapon to rob a bank? Agree?

 

The 10th can NOT INFRINGE upon the 2nd. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is absolute specific. If we believe words have absolute meaning.

 

oh you don't want to go there since Akhil is a good friend of mine and we spent much time at Yale discussing this. He no longer supports that-and in 2016, mentioning me by name-when he was presenting his lecture on the bill of rights during reunion weekend at SSS hall -May 28, 2016 IIRC noted that clearly the second amendment unequivocally recognizes an individual right

 

Would that not be an infringement to the absolute 2A?

 

you seem completely ignorant of my argument. The tenth amendment argument is that since the federal government was given no power to regulate weapons that are not ones a citizen would ordinarily keep and bear, a federal ban is beyond the proper power of the federal government