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

“Shall not be infringed” what does that mean? It’s pretty obvious to me and anyone who knows how to read. It means there shall be no infringements made at any governance level on the right to bear nor the states right to a militia. I’m positive that this was not added as a joke.

in fact Tench Coxe understood this amendment as just that. He wrote about it in the Pennsylvania gazette plenty of time while trying to sell the constitution to the American public. He was also a law graduate and understood this amendment very well. He claimed the state nor the federal government had the power to strip this right. His exact quote is as follows:

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

~Tench Coxe

It’s obvious that the term “shall not be infringed” was meant quite literally and all restrictions on this right is unconstitutional whether the Supreme Court ruled otherwise or not. Many Supreme Court rulings need to be overturned to align with the constitution. There is a way to change the constitution that is an amendment process and the courts are not in that process. They can not solely change its meaning.

 

To qualify for the protections afforded to the exercise of right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd Amendment, you must...
- Be part of '[the people"
- Own/possess/use a "bearable arm"
- Use that "bearable arm" in such a way that does not wrongfully harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Within these parameters, your exercise of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

That’s all written in the amendment? I must have missed that. The 2nd is absolute and it shall not be infringed. This has been reiterated by writings at the time of ratification. This amendment belongs to everyone including those who do not own arms. They still have this right even if they choose not to practice it.

 

A convicted felon does not have a 2nd Amendment right to use a nuclear weapon to rob a bank.
Agree?

 

Or even to defend his home.

 

No one has a right to rob a bank. Poor analogy.

He has a right to his rights back, or you need to keep him in jail.

 

If they served their time they should regain their rights

 

It's fine that you believe that, but under current law and jurisprudence, they don't
That takes care of:
- Be part of 'the people"

Did you notice you didn't address the rest of my post?
Because the rest of my post addresses:
- Own/possess/use a "bearable arm"
- Use that "bearable arm" in such a way that does not wrongfully harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Do you believe there is a 2nd Amendment right to use a nuclear weapon to rob a bank?

 

There is no doubt that many rights can be forfeited due to a valid criminal conviction.

 

It’s not legal to rob a bank no matter what weapon you choose. It’s not feasible for anyone to obtain a nuclear device. This is just a straw man’s argument

 

No....
It demonstrates my claim to be true:

To qualify for the protections afforded to the exercise of right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd Amendment, you must...
- Be part of '[the people" -- no criminals, etc
- Own/possess/use a "bearable arm" -- no nukes, etc
- Use that "bearable arm" in such a way that does not wrongfully harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- no robberies, etc

Within these parameters, your exercise of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Outside these parameters, the state can create restrictions that do not violate the 2nd.

 

Yes, your pointing to strawmen arguments. I think that the constitution definitely permits the ownership as originally designed of all weapons to the public. If Elon wanted to make a nuclear bomb then I would say he is constitutionally allowed to do so. Do I support it no but is it constitutional yes. Could we make one, no because we can’t afford to do so. And no one is allowed to rob a bank. That was a stupid question

 

Does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to keep and bear arms for felons?
Does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons?
Does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to use a firearm to rob a bank?
No?
Then there's no strawman argument -- the 2nd does not protect the right for every person to use every weapon for every purpose.
You agree.

Thus:
To qualify for the protections afforded to the exercise of right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd Amendment, you must...
- Be part of '[the people" -- no criminals, etc
- Own/possess/use a "bearable arm" -- no nukes, etc
- Use that "bearable arm" in such a way that does not wrongfully harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- no robberies, etc
Within these parameters, your exercise of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Yes.
No.
No.

 

I am on the fence about "you did your time, you get your rights back" because I believe if a convicted criminal cannot be trusted with a gun, then that criminal should not be released from prison.
-BUT-
Current law, and current jurisprudence, holds that "the people", as the term is used in the 2nd, does not include convicted felons, as their right to keep and bear arms has been removed through due process.

 

The second amendment gives the night of the sword to the people including EX felons. Nothing permits you to rob a bank so that question is completely moronic. And every citizen is granted the right of the second amendment just as all have the right to choose whichever religion they want. Even ex felons should have all their rights restored after they serve their time.

as far as nuke’s, if you can afford it the constitution says you should be able to get it. Will they let you no they won’t. But the 2nd’s original intent was to give the people the right of all arms. If you want to amend it then advocate for it

 

The Second Amendment doesn't give any rights.

 

At this point, it is clear you do not want to understand.

 

Current law and current jurisprudence holds that magazine bans, the NFA, and all sorts of other plainly erroneous **** is perfectly legal. Various courts have refused to follow Bruen, and/or made entirely specious distinctions such as mags and ammo not being part of 'arms', and that's currently perfectly legal.
It is against the plain text of the 2nd amendment, and thus abhorrent. If you want to explain how it passes Bruen's spear, the burden is on you. As the government doesn't get to say "its the law prove it shouldn't be", and you stand in the position of the government making this silly, nonsensical argument, you may start any time you're ready.


Sorry this really pisses me off to hear it from you so I felt compelled to add:

"the people" as used in the BOR doesn't apply to convicted felons?
Groovy: While you're at it you can additionally explain that 'the people' in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendment doesn't apply to felons.
Be sure to explain that all those cases holding otherwise are wrong and why.

 

For now.
And the prohibition against felons may very be reviewed / struck under the Bruen test.
"The people", however, does not include every individual within the jurisdiction of the United States, so the argument that not everyone enjoys the protection of the 2nd is not, on its face, unsound.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/259
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

 

Not everyone is not the position advanced. Citizen felons having been released after their sentences, is.
Now I'm actively ashamed of you, I can't believe you would try such a deflection with me or on this subject or in favor of the argument you advance. You know better.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/when-the-fourth-amendment-applies.html#:~:text=The Fourth Amendment only protects,governed by the Fourth Amendment.
Applying this principle, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individuals generally maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their bodies, clothing, and personal belongings. Homeowners possess a privacy interest that extends inside their homes and in the curtilage immediately surrounding the outside of their homes, but not in the "open fields" and "wooded areas" extending beyond the curtilage. While people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cars, the expectation of privacy is less than a homeowner's privacy interest in their home.


The 4th amendment applies to CITIZENS for certain, and in fact binds the police and government even in the case of immigrants including illegals.

FFS, part of the argument in support of the individual right is the fact that the term "the people" is used and as otherwise used in the bill of rights indicates an individual right possessed by the whole of the citizenry in their each and sundry individual capacities.

Still further: As stated current jurisprudence holds any number of things that violate Bruen or any number of other cases, or simply the plain text of the 2a.
Appealing to their authority is fallacious.

Pass your argument through Bruen's Spear by citing the historical laws or precedents analogous to your demand in place at the time of the founding.

 

My point was that "the people" does not, prima facie, include "absolutely everyone".
As such, the statement a certain subset of individuals does not fall within 'the people" and therefore do not enjoy the protection of the 2nd, cannot be rejected out of hand.

Even Heller alludes to this:

...the Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...
..We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans...

As I said - it may be that the prohibitions against felons owning / possessing firearms gets overturned by the test in v Bruen, but the fact the 2nd protects the rights held by "the people" does not necessitate this.

 

The people, prima facie, includes all US citizens within the territorial borders of these united states.
Your position is that felons are not included.
You'll need to pass your position through Bruen's Spear. Do so, or cease making the assertion.

Now you want to use the common dicta cited by grabbers in Heller, to which the same arguments that apply as against the grabbers apply to you, a grabber.

Your understanding of Bruen is lacking as well. Again: Bruen holds that ANY gun control law is per se suspect and must pass the spear, there is no balancing test, and the GOVERNMENT or proponent of the gun control law must meet the burden of proof.

So pass your laughably non-sensical, historically unsupported, foolishly based argument through the spear or shut up about it already.

 

And, therefore, not EVERYBODY. Just like I said:
"The people" does not include every individual within the jurisdiction of the United States, so the argument that not everyone enjoys the protection of the 2nd is not, on its face, unsound.
Therefore, per my argument, it is -possible- that 'the people" does not include felons.

 

And, therefore, EVERYBODY was not what was posed nor what you denied previously. Citizen felons post sentence was.
Citizen felons post sentence, are covered by "the people".

You said a bit more than possible. Cease this foolish deflection, it wastes both of our time and I grow more and more disgusted the more you do it.