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

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Joe knows, Dec 17, 2022.

  1. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,256
    Likes Received:
    20,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    why are two second amendment advocates feuding? is it due to the paucity of reasoned arguments from the anti gun side
     
  2. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,256
    Likes Received:
    20,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    read the fourteenth amendment and get back to me. When the states agreed to the fourteenth amendment, they agreed that much of the bill of rights would now be enforceable at a federal level. so that meets this part of the tenth:


    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    The FOURTEENTH Amendment and subsequent incorporation now DELEGATED powers to the UNITED STATES by (an amendment) to the Constitution
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And to guarantee that militia, it protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    Not the right of the militia.
    Not the right to of the people in the militia.
    Not the right of the people to keep and bear arms in or for the militia
    The right of the people, in their totality.
    To keep and bear arm, in its totality.

    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2022
    Turtledude likes this.
  4. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What really happens with these 2A discussions is most people whether for or against some of the 2A have infringements they agree with.
    What is different between pro and anti gun advocates is where each person puts their line in the sand.
    And all have their excuses why their infringements are ok while others infringements are not.

    But the 2A is quite explicit. "Shall Not be Infringed".

    The other thing that happens is words and definitions change as time moves on.
     
    Galileo likes this.
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Under your definition of "infringement" which carries zero validity.
     
  6. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's actually not my definition.

    ...
    infringement
    Primary tabs
    An infringement is a violation, a breach, or an unauthorized act. Infringement occurs in various situations. A harm to one’s right is an infringement.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/infringement
     
  7. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Shouldn't the goal be to minimize infringements to anyone's rights?
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  8. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps. Why do some then think it's ok to infringe on arms like automatic rifles, grenade launchers, M50 Machine guns, etc.
    But want no infringements on other arms like handguns or smaller type arms?

    Per the explicit 2A, all should not be infringed.
     
  9. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True enough , but it all started with Marbury v Madison.

    NFA 1934 had no Constitutional basis.

    Why should we allow any more unconstitutional infringements?
     
  10. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I assume any infringements people want or like is to make the general public safer in most instances.
     
  11. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What if those infringements aren't Constitutional?
     
  12. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then the USSC will get involved.
     
  13. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like they already have?

    What new gun laws would be Constitutional in your mind?
     
    Joe knows likes this.
  14. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,256
    Likes Received:
    20,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    you play this game constantly to try to pretend that your desired infringements -mainly the ones the democrats push-are no worse than those who think the states can ban someone in jail or out on bond for a felony indictment, from buying guns.
     
  15. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,256
    Likes Received:
    20,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    thats wishful thinking. the entire purpose of the hughes amendment was to try to derail a pro gun bill that the anti gun democrats didn't have the votes to stop
     
    Rucker61 likes this.
  16. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The government decides what is lawful so by your logic the government gets to decide what is an infringement.
     
  17. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think a lot of people support "common sense" infringements of their interpretion of the amendment, but what is common sense can be very subjective....

    As I understand, the Supreme Court says that gun laws must pass the historical tradition test. I'm not sure what gun laws those would be. Federal gun laws that have been passed since the 1930s? State gun laws? Per Turtledude's logic, state gun laws are already invalidated by the 14th Amendment so it wouldn't matter if such laws could pass the test.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2022
  18. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's why we have three parts of government with a built in balance of powers.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  19. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Google "Bruen Bianchi Frosh" and "Bruen Duncan Bonta".
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  20. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, like they already have. That is one of their main purposes for existence.

    In my mind, because I know this gun rights issue is purely political, because I know things change over time, because I know words written over 200 yrs ago, don't have the same meaning and impact 200 yrs later.
    If one is a strict stick to the words that are written, I am not, there shall be no, none, zero infringement on arms. That includes automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and every other arm as defined by law.
    Now, one has to ask and answer, what is an infringement? Should it be as easy to buy a knife as it is to buy an automatic rifle? For if the laws are different, that technically is an infringement.

    My personal opinion, which is what I assume you are asking about, is anything that allows one to mass murder others with relative ease, should be infringed.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2022
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only game played in in your own mind. Which is why responding to you is useless for the most part.
    It's hard to take you seriously.
    You never stick to what is posted and always make up crap and project what you think others have posted.
     
  22. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is true, and if law goes before USSC then it determines the infringement.
    All of which will change over the course of time.
     
  23. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with the common sense infringements. That's why most no one cares automatic rifles, grenade launchers, claymore mines, etc are infringed. And it is very subjective.
    Which is why it's such a hot political topic.

    Even the USSC changes with society and time. Just see R v W, abortion rulings.
    All others who make claims lie using the 10thA or 14thA, is just their personal opinion to allow for certain infringements. Their own line in the sand, IMO.

    R v W ruling(Dodge) sent it back to the States. I really have no issue with that for the 2A.

    But again, per the explicit words of the 2A, Shall Not Be Infringed, is pretty specific and explicit.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2022
  24. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mass murder is 4 dead. We've had mass murders with "assault weapons", semiautomatic rifles not classified as "assault weapons", bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, pump shotguns, double barrel shotguns, pistols, revolvers, rinfire rifles and rimfire pistols.

    The vast majority of homicides have one or two victims. Basing laws on mass shootings does nothing to prevent almost all homicides.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2022
    Turtledude likes this.
  25. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok?
    You asked my opinion. I gave it.

    What infringements are you for?
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2022

Share This Page