The "Permission" to Keep and Bear Arms

The difference between a right and a privilege, explained in the most simple way possible:

Right: One does not need to ask to do these.

Click to expand...

Privilege: One must ask to do these. These can be revoked at any time for any reason.

Click to expand...

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!!!

Centac and Rabbi keep changing the subject when cornered. You both stated or supported that the Constitution has no bearing and is not supreme over state laws. Again:

Article VI

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Respond to this before moving on. Please. I'm interested as is everyone else.

Post number 148 is not mine. I don't know what happened there. My name is attached to it, but I didn't write it.

"So as long as we live in a country where we are allowed to own single shot .22 rifles, we aren't being denied our Second Amendment rights?"

Correct - you are keeping and bearing an arm. If you are going to interpret it literally, there is your literal result. Dogmatism sucks when it bites ya on the butt, huh?

Click to expand...

The only one bitten by these semantics is you.

When the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that means "if there is infringement, that's a no-no."

Limitation of the right is equal to infringement of the right. There is no difference between the application of the meaning of those two words. So limiting the number of guns I can have, or what kind I can have, is an infringement. So is limiting the type of guns to single-shot .22s.


Sorry, folks. Debating this with centac is feeling more and more like pushing around a 7-year-old kid. It leaves me feeling guilty, like I'm taking advantage when I should not.

-Jeffrey

Dude, I am still waiting for a legit, non-felon who cannot have a gun - so far I have one guy whose bitchy cause he wants an Oerlikon and another whose hung up on paperwork - he'll get his guns, he just wants the RIGHT NOW, like a kid wants ice-cream.

So far we have at very most nad broadly interpreted, 2. Wow, the regime is making great oppresive inroads

Dude, I am still waiting for a legit, non-felon who cannot have a gun - so far I have one guy whose bitchy cause he wants an Oerlikon and another whose hung up on paperwork - he'll get his guns, he just wants the RIGHT NOW, like a kid wants ice-cream.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see you apply the same b.s. argument to someone who wishes to write a thesis against some government policy, and has to wait for the paperwork on his journalism permit to come through.

A right delayed is a right denied. Do you think they coined that phrase just for the hell of it?


Any non-felon in Morton Grove may not possess a handgun, isn't that right?
Any non-felon in New York City may not possess any firearm, unless he obtains a permit from the city which the city never gives (or, gives only to those who are well-connected, rich, famous, or some combination of the three).

Are you saying that he doesn't have a legitimate gripe, because all he has to do to have recourse (the right to have guns) is become well-connected, rich, or famous?

-Jeffrey

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!!!

Centac and Rabbi keep changing the subject when cornered. You both stated or supported that the Constitution has no bearing and is not supreme over state laws. Again:

Article VI

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Respond to this before moving on. Please. I'm interested as is everyone else.

Click to expand...

GhostRider, While I am not here to do people's legal research for them, here is an opinion from the Tn AG that cites the relevant case laws as to why the 2A deos not apply to the states. Please go read not only this piece but also the case laws cited before you respond.
Constitutional Law is a legitimate scholarly field. It is not subject to the interpretation of any yahoo with a high school education.


http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/agopinions/op2003-165.pdf

another whose hung up on paperwork - he'll get his guns, he just wants the RIGHT NOW, like a kid wants ice-cream.

Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the part about my family having already been attacked while hung up on paperwork - the part where defending my family via exercise of a Constitutional right was severely infringed because of a pointless paperwork requirement (how is paperwork supposed to be better than than defense of dependents?).

The 2nd Amendment specifically states "shall not be infringed", and specifically uses the term "arms" with no limitations indicated whatsoever. Being dogmatic about this does not support a minimalist interpretation.

You arent convincing me that the 2nd is in dire straits when I can open the safe, pull out any number of military pattern weapons, possess a Class III, DD, NFA, when I can CCW in the bulk of the states, have seen the AWB sunset and so forth. Jeez, this is like trying to tell someone they DONT have cancer.

Extraneous stuff removed by Art

Article VI

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Centac, I want an answer...

A right delayed is a right denied. Do you think they coined that phrase just for the hell of it?

Click to expand...

There is no such phrase. You coined it. Probably just for the hell of it.

There is no such phrase. You coined it. Probably just for the hell of it.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Oh Rabbi, you're back. Good. Would you care to respond on Mr. Centac's behalf since he seems to be drifting?

Skyalmian, Rabbi is just projecting his lack of awareness of the existence of that common and popular phrase, and claiming that if he doesn't know of it, it does not exist.

God only knows how many planets just blipped out of existence because he has never been to them.

-Jeffrey

Actually the phrase is "Justice delayed is justice denied," and its attributed to Gladstone. It was used in some famous Supreme Court opinion, although I cannot remember which. King just ripped off the phrase, which in any case doesnt have any legal standing.

Sorry missed your post. Interestingly, your link points to a court decision that bases the lack of application at the state level based on the fact that the second amendment is not an individual right at all. The exact same argument used by those opposed to gun ownership entirely. If that's your contention, then the argument should end here because we have absolutely no similar views whatsoever. When taking the opposite consideration, namely that the second amendment is a right of the individual, the argument then becomes should it or should it not override the state (or local) laws. Here is a lot of historical case law to support that indeed it should. And, by the way, are you saying that no one who is not a Constitutional scholar should be allowed to debate the content and meaning?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/02.html#2

You could take it as an unawareness on your part that I have responded to your point above (Post 157) and you just missed it. Please go back and review my response before demonstrating your wit again.

Look Jeffy, I'll type slow - you arent convincing me that the 2nd is in dire straits when I can open the safe, pull out any number of military pattern weapons, possess a Class III, DD, NFA, when I can CCW in the bulk of the states, have seen the AWB sunset and so forth. Jeez, this is like trying to tell someone they DONT have cancer. What is with you people?

Click to expand...

People in many states cannot do these things, and I still maintain that constitutes an infringement, which the Second Amendment explicitly prohibits.

No on here has claimed that things couldn't be worse for gun owners in America, but the majority of people who've posted in this thread (myself included) believe they could and should be better.

Actually the phrase is "Justice delayed is justice denied," and its attributed to Gladstone. It was used in some famous Supreme Court opinion, although I cannot remember which. King just ripped off the phrase, which in any case doesnt have any legal standing.

Click to expand...

It may not have the force of law, Rabbi, but it does have the force of truth.

Are you an actual Rabbi?

How does denying the truth of "Justice delayed is Justice denied" square with Talmudic scholarship?

If someone approached their rabbi about an injustice he was suffering, and the rabbi told him that eventually he'd get his justice, but the rabbi couldn't be bothered for the next six months, would that be okay?


Two people wish to get married. They go to the clerk of courts for a marriage license. The clerk is out of the forms, and doesn't care a whit about the couple or the couple's concerns, schedules, honeymoon reservations, hall rental... and does not plan to order more forms for, say, three months. The wedding is planned for next month.

No one is saying that the couple won't be able to get married... eventually. But why is it right to tell them that they may not enjoy their right to do so NOW?

-Jeffrey

Constitutional Law is a legitimate scholarly field. It is not subject to the interpretation of any yahoo with a high school education.

Click to expand...

this comment burns me up. the founding fathers wrote the constitution in plain language so that as many people as possible could understand it, if it was written in some obscure language that only a few people could read then those people could say it meant whatever they wanted it to say. heck, if only lawyers are allowed to read the Constitution then they can say it means whatever they want. "oh im sorry, i thought it said 'four legs good, two legs bad' i guess your right, it does say four legs good, two legs better!'"
I am just floored that anyone could imply that the other amendments apply to the states but not the second! you could quote as much case law as you want, i don't care, it's as wrong as hypothetical case law that would say that the first amendment only allows the states to own printing presses.
I just can't believe that anyone could overlook federalist #46 and the explanation and reason for the second amendment it contains.

I am just floored that anyone could imply that the other amendments apply to the states but not the second! you could quote as much case law as you want, i don't care, it's as wrong as hypothetical case law that would say that the first amendment only allows the states to own printing presses.

Click to expand...

Translation: dont confuse me with the facts.

Yes, sorry to disappoint you. Law is a complex field inhabited by scholars who spend their whole lives studying it. The Founders were well versed in law as well as philosophy and a few other disciplines. What appears simple is not always so.

anchoryanker,
I read in a religious column in our newspaper that the bible was originally kept out of the hands of anyone who was not clergy for exactly that reason.

When only you can control the reading of the text, only you can contro the interpretation and implementation of it.

How can anyone challenge that what you say is true of the text, when they can't see it; or if they can see it, they aren't capable of reading it.

I just thought it was very interesting to learn that the church used this kind of disingenuous tactic. (Not that that surprises me about the church, though.)

-Jeffrey

Law is a complex field inhabited by scholars who spend their whole lives studying it.

Click to expand...

Rabbi,
Law never breaks down to simple logical principles that can be understood as building blocks of a larger structure?

Surely you are joking.

I wonder if you, acting as a rabbi, tell the same kind of b.s. to your congregation when they ask you (or god forbid challenge you) about the interpretation of the Torah.

Do you hold yourself up on high and tell them that they are too lowly in their understanding, that you have dedicated your life to learning about the Torah, and they will just have to accept what you say about it as gospel truth?

Or do you admit that there is a potential for even commoners to understand things when the principles are laid out clearly?

Do I have to have a degree in architecture in order to understand a brick, a doorway, a window, a water pipe?

Gimme a break.
Your words come across, whether you mean them to or not, as elitist.

-Jeffrey

PeacefulJeffrey, it is members like you that make me sorry this forum does not have an ignore feature.

Um, I'm pretty sure it does.

And if you would rather run away from a discussion, via ignoring me or otherwise, I think that says all I would need to about the merits of your arguments.

I'm still here willing to duke it out claim for claim.

And where are you?

-Jeffrey