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

"Keep" = ownership
"Bear" = use
If the 2nd amendment does not protect the USE of a firearm, then it is worthless as the state can make all uses illegal.

 

You're literally endorsing an interpretation that would negate the individual right status of the 2a.
You're like a child who shits on the floor and thinks they're helping.

 

Felons do not lose the right to assemble or associate. They get out having served their nickel or what have you, and they can assemble and associate with anyone they'd like to in the normal manner of consenting adults.

You're thinking of someone on parole who did not have the right to leave prison because their sentence still had time to run. They were offered a contractual out and took it when they were not required to. That contractual out is them waiving rights for a time in exchange for the good and valuable consideration of not being locked up.

Parole given is incredibly distinguishable from time served and authority to seize them expended, just as being currently seized under the 4th amendment is distinguishable from time served and authority to seize them expended. Just as being a minor child is distinguishable from being an adult, as you're well aware a minor child and an insane person are essentially the same thing in this respect though minority is time limited and insanity is not.
You're a lawyer. Don't make me explain being seized under the 4th amendment to you as if you were a child or a dog. Don't make me explain minority and majority.


I'll put to you what I put to him:

Pass your prohibition through the Spear of Bruen. Show me the analogous laws from the 1790s.

Better still: Show me in 4a jurisprudence where "the people" doesn't mean the individual citizens.

 

No they're bearable arms. As were cannon of the day.

Or you can show me the analogous law from the 1790s restricting ownership of cannon.
But you and I both know there was no such law.

 

You can't rob a bank. The 2a does not authorize robbing people. FFS.

Nukes: Let's assume we're talking something man portable. The use of such a device would per se endanger the entirety of the nation, and in many cases foreign nations, from nuclear fallout.
In that way, there would be no legal use where you could be sure you did not harm an innocent, given that the 'backstop event' would occur over the next 150 years.

So no nukes, because they spray uncontrollable, unaimable, radiation omnidirectionally creating a hazard that persists for a century or more. You can have a nice RPG7 though. How about that?

 

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (03/11/2021)
Assault Weapons Ban of 2021

This bill makes it a crime to knowingly import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/736

...
assault weapon
noun

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault weapon

...
Seem similar. Although the bill you provided doesn't actually define assault weapon.

Now how does this fit or change what I said about magazines and ammunition? Being ordnance.

 

Yes. But the poster who made a claim that a felon can not use a nuke arm to rob a bank made the specific claim about a felon.
So, I merely asked a question about a non felon. Nothing more.

 

What? Where?
I asked you to clarify your statement about nuke weapons being used in a bank.

These are your words.
I simply asked you if NON felons could do so. For clarification.

 

They are per the strict interpretation of the 2A.
But we all know, those types and more have many infringements to owning and bearing.
And as you see from this thread, gun right advocates have no problem with many infringements. Meaning the words are definitely not absolute. Very little in the world is absolute. Especially words and meanings.

 

since there was no federal law that attempted to restrict them, the second amendment would not come into play. Artillery with explosive shells were not contemplated as weapons that a citizen would keep and BEAR. that no one =at a federal level=attempted to ban them, doesn't mean anything. The underlying natural right (read Cruikshank-noting that the right is not dependent on the constitution for its existence) that the second is based upon is the natural right of self defense and weapons designed to attack an area are not the arms the founders were thinking of. Here is a great discussion of that fact
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts


YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.

Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent.

 

what items does the second amendment protect against government bans or restrictions serious enough to deter lawful people from owning them?

 

I think those who have completed their sentence should have all rights restored

 

You didn't read the actual text of the bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/736/text

"Automatic" weapons aren't classified in law as "assault weapons", and "various" fails to capture the necessary details. Ruger Mini-14s are semiautomatic rifles with virtually the same capabilities as AR-15s, but they aren't "assault weapons". In Maryland, heavy barrel AR-15s aren't assault weapons".

If you want to make a law about a class of items, it has no legal definition until it is actually defined by law. A dictionary definition means nothing. If Congress replaced the legal description outlined in S.736 with the dictionary definition, how would the law be enforced?

 

Your statement is false, Scotsman.

 

Of course it has to be defined by the law. Most often they are same or very similar definitions to dictionary definitions.
But words and definitions change over time, more quickly in dictionaries than in laws.

 

So you're going to stop using dictionary definitions in regards to laws, I presume.

 

If I know there's a difference, yes. I will and have used the legal definitions.

If I don't know there's a difference, then I will use dictionary.
I am not in law in any fashion, so I don't have know all the law definitions.

 

So you believe “shall not be infringed” was a joke

 

Not a joke, just not absolute.
Words are never absolute. Words and definitions change all the time.

The only constant in the world is change.

 

I have asked you several times as to what weapons do you believe are protected against federal bannings or difficult to comply with restrictions by the second amendment. I don't recall seeing an answer

 

An interpretation of the Second Amendment which depends on redefining words can't be trusted.

 

Good thing I didn't do that then - right?

 

especially untrustworthy are ones that are created by someone who starts with the premise that guns need to be banned and they work backwards to reinterpret the second amendment so as to allow bans. Ones that ignore what the founders constantly stated-in both letters and documented speeches are particularly of dubious validity

 

Except the constitution can’t be changed from its original intent without amending it

 

As usual, a Jew wants to seize all of the guns. They introduce almost all of the gun control bills.