As stated previously, there could easily be a re-examination of what "infringed" means. There are already limitations on firearm ownership (age, criminality, mental state). If that is not infringement, other measures could be considered equally non-infringing, for example. Stay tuned! Language and the Constitution are not dead!
I disagree. we have always allowed certain rights to be abrogated by the government if the law is followed and due process is available. Prisoners, for example, lose many constitutional rights. They lose these specific rights upon incarceration: these are the most obvious 1) the right of assembly 2) fourth amendment rights 3) keeping and bearing arms they also lose many implied rights such as free travel etc. those who try to pretend that since the second amendment doesn't guarantee prisoners rights, somehow the second amendment is not really important are making as silly an argument as claiming the right of privacy or assembly do not exist either https://howtojustice.org/im-going-to-prison/rights-lost-in-prison/
Criminals and mental defectives had their 2A rights removed via due process of the law. That isn't infringement. The 21 year old age minimum is absolutely an infringement.
what is hilarious is watching people who don't want any citizen owning guns, complaining that criminals cannot own them. It's as genuine as gun banners who claim that the second amendment should cover nukes.
Ever heard of playing devil's advocate? The Fifth Amendment says that property (which could include guns) can be taken with due process of law. However, the Second Amendment simply says "shall not be infringed". No exceptions are made. Nothing is said about due process. So is there a contradiction between the two amendments if one says guns can't be confiscated and the other says that sometimes guns can be confiscated?
extremists being those who thinks "well regulated" was a grant of power to the federal government in the second?
OR (3): to maintain in a good, fitting, or orderly condition Linguists analyzed the words "keep" and "bear" next to "arms" in all the literature of the 18th century using two databases that include ALL writings in the 18th century (books, letters, pamphlets, ... everything). NOT one single instance in which they meant "own guns". But this is an inseparable idiom "keep and bear arms". There is NO instance in which this is used in anything other than a military scenario. Now... your task: prove linguists wrong. Find a SINGLE instance of "keep and bear arms" that referred to owning guns, or anything similar. You can access the databases here. https://lawcorpus.byu.edu/
can you find a single comment by ANY founder that even remotely hints that they didn't see KEEPING as including OWNING or POSSESSING you ignore the fact that the bill of rights was authored right after the first defining action of the new nation-A WAR so most references to keeping and bearing would involve military reasons https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2007/07-290/07-290.pdf while I can't cut and paste from that document-it clearly demonstrates that the military only context fails
you do understand that the only reason why was due to the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause by the FDR regime
Ah! There you go. You want me to prove a negative. If you CLAIM that they do YOU present the document saying that they DID see "keep and bear arms" in the 2nd A to mean "owning". AGAIN... my case keeps getting stronger when the poster who holds the fallacious argument demands proof of a negative instead of them proving the positive claim they are making. EVERYTHING written in the 18th century... and even in the 19th century... before during and after the Bill of Rights that mentions "keep and bear arms" involved military scenarios. CLEARLY so did the 2nd A. Who owned the guns never even crossed their mind.
When the constitution was written, including the 2nd amendment, only the general population was the militia and the military. There was very little of any army. Their was some navy but that could not be called as a militia. "Keeping and bearing arms" did not involve the military as there virtually was none.
If keeping and bearing arms only applied to the military, the words "the people" would never have been part of the 2A's text. "The people" means the same thing in the 2nd Amendment that it does in the 1st Amendment.
You are late, and in the wrong thread. We already established, not only that the general population was NOT the well-regulated militia mentioned in the 2nd A, but that whether it did or not is absolutely irrelevant. Correct. There was NO standing army. Therefore, they relied on the states to maintain their militias trained and ready to be called by Congress in defense of the state at a moment's notice. Because some states were already neglecting theirs. Which was VERY dangerous. The discussion in Congress about what wording to use for the 2nd A made it very clear that THIS, not who owned the guns, was what they intended to address. So, they enacted the 2nd A for the ONLY purpose of forcing the states to keep their militias trained and ready for combat in case Congress needed to call them. Look... there are many arguments you can make as to why some "right" to own weapons might be desirable. I would likely disagree with them, but at least they would be good arguments. The 2nd A is NOT a good argument. If it were analyzed by a non-partisan Supreme Court that was not intent on using the bench to legislate, it would be immediately clear that it's the WORST argument you can find.
Yeah, 'cause then it would also apply to an army of robots, right? Sorry, but I'm not taking dumb arguments seriously today.
it's like playing whack-a-troll game. Using his stilted and erroneous definitions, the government can ban owning, possessing, carrying, using, buying, storing, displaying, fixing, etc firearms. It's beyond dishonest.
OK Golem=pretend you are an attorney and pretend you are arguing for the Biden regime that has banned the OWNING of any and all firearms and Justice Kavanaugh or Thomas is asking you what the people can do in light of this law.
