2nd Amendment and Antis, Interpreting the Law of The Land

[eric.cartman]

It just occurred to me, according to antis, the 2nd is useless, hear me out:

1) It's not an individual right, rather some BS collective right of the states.
2) 2nd A. doesn't apply to the states through the 14th amendment.
3) Federal Gov. can regulate/ban guns, aka AWB'94.

So let's see, 2nd A. gives states the right to organize militia. But 14th amendment doesn't guarantee that right for the states. And it's OK for the fed to bad guns, but wait, i thought if 14th didn't apply, then 2nd A. restrained the Feds. Apparently not.

Yet at the same time those enlightened judges/politicians/etc seek and find unenumerated rights, aka gay marriage and abortion (don't mean to start a flame war on this one, just giving controversial examples), of which the constitution makes no mention (although through liberty and pursuit of happinnes i can see how, under the constitution, those are protected, except the abortion thing, duh).

Can someone please explain the anti logic when it comes down to the constitution and the 2nd A.? Do they think we are all morons? Or are we (I) missing something? After all, "the right of the people" is rather simple English.

Please enlighten me!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

For the anti-gun-rights crowd and other liberals, logic means nothing to them - especially when it gets in their way - unless they can twist it full about to fit their agenda. The Constitution means nothing to them other than the process outlined in it that they use and sometimes misuse to get elected.

For the rest of us, the Constitution offers opportunities to serve. They see it as an opportunity to rule.

Woody

Be careful who you choose to stand behind and support. If you are unwilling to take care of yourself, you must take whatever care that comes along. I've yet to see a flock of sheep, no matter how well cared for and tended, that doesn't get fleeced from time to time and eventually end up on the dinner table. Not many sheep die a natural death. B.E. Wood

Lest we forget:

Remember, remember, come election in November,
the shamnesty debacle and plot.
I have not a muse why the shamnesty ruse
should ever be forgot.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Don't you get it?

The Constitution for the United States is a LIVING DOCUMENT!

Because it is a living document, it has feelings, like we do! It can mean one thing this week and then something completely different next week...kinda depending on how we FEEL about it!

Are you completely heartless?

 

[DKSuddeth]

An anti once tried to tell me that the 2nd amendment is about states maintaining a militia, like the national guard, until I pointed out this little gem in the constitution...

Art. 1, Sec 10, Clause 3....

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Now how can the 2nd be a right of the states to maintain a militia if they can't keep troops without the consent of congress?

 

[yokel]

Please enlighten me!

It's narrow-minded thinking; it's a neosocialist agenda. And it's just dumb.

 

[geekWithA.45]

The natural consequence of the anti's line of thought is that any right they don't like, no matter how explicitly protected, comes to a nullity.

If one part of the document can be nullified through an act of mental wanking, then, any part of the document can be nullified through an equivalent act of mental wankage.

Therefore, the document's value is the utility of the paper it's written on to wipe one's posterior.

 

[shooter_tx]

If the antis ever get the numbers to repeal the 2A, will the ACLU go to bat for us and help the Supremes to see that the RKBA is protected via "penumbras" and "emanations"?

 

[shooter_tx]

Try this one.....

An anti once tried to tell me that the 2nd amendment is about states maintaining a militia, like the national guard

When some really "smart" people try to tell me that the phrase "the people" in the 2A refers to some collective right for the states to maintain militias (such as the NG), I always ask:

Then why doesn't the 2A read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

They usually start doing either or .

I have yet to meet an intellectually honest anti. <sigh>

 

[Axman]

2) 2nd A. doesn't apply to the states through the 14th amendment.

I assume this is the section this is referring to...

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

My interpretation is that Amendment 14, Section 1 prohibits the states from making laws regarding the immunities stated in the 2A. Meaning that we are immune when legally keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying on our person) our arms. With that in mind we are not to be denied the right to arms by the 2A and are equally protected under the law of the second amendment.

 

[Alphazulu6]

The only right in the Constitution that is up for debate currently is the 2nd ammendment. They can take it away and we must remember this. The 18th ammendment went away because the of the public.

This is something that will be fought over forever and in light of recent events I feel it is only getting worse.

 

[crazed_ss]

The natural consequence of the anti's line of thought is that any right they don't like, no matter how explicitly protected, comes to a nullity.

If one part of the document can be nullified through an act of mental wanking, then, any part of the document can be nullified through an equivalent act of mental wankage.

To be fair, I've noticed the same exact line of reasoning from gun owners. If I started a poll here, I could almost guarantee 90% of people will support changing the 14th Amendment to take away guaranteed citizenship for all persons born on US Soil. The argument that I constantly hear against the 14th Amendment is that the founding fathers would have never envisioned a bunch of illegals coming here and having anchor babies, so that part about "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" doesnt really mean what it says.

Similary, antis will argue that the founding fathers never envsioned AR-15s and AK-47s so that whole thing about keeping and bearing arms doesnt mean what is says.

 

[phaed]

Can someone please explain the anti logic

oxymoron

 

[obxned]

Based on their recent experiences, those who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a lot more concerned with the oppression of a bad government than they were with foreign invasion.

They never specifically addressed the issues of personal protection or hunting or competition shooting because they could not even conceive of anyone questioning or restricting these activities. These were all normal activities of the citizens, and, in their minds, no sane leader would try to interfere with that.

 

[yinyangdc]

[QUOTEThe argument that I constantly hear against the 14th Amendment is that the founding fathers would have never envisioned a bunch of illegals coming here and having anchor babies, so that part about "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" doesnt really mean what it says.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it does mean what it says. It's just that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part gets ignored.

 

[unspellable]

sec I

Thers is a difference. The 2A protects a pre-exisiting inherent unalianable right. The antis would ignore the plain meaning.

On the other hand, it's not an inherent right for an alian to become a citizen. The constituion can define who is eligible and who is not. Those who oppose birth in the US creating a right of citizenship do not debate the meaning of the section or propose to violate it, they propose to amend it by due process. No verbal or logical gymnastics such as you get from the anti 2A crowd.

 

[kurtmax]

Don't even start with the living document stuff. I had to put up with that baloney in University even...

 

[crazed_ss]

Thers is a difference. The 2A protects a pre-exisiting inherent unalianable right. The antis would ignore the plain meaning.

On the other hand, it's not an inherent right for an alian to become a citizen. The constituion can define who is eligible and who is not. Those who oppose birth in the US creating a right of citizenship do not debate the meaning of the section or propose to violate it, they propose to amend it by due process. No verbal or logical gymnastics such as you get from the anti 2A crowd

Self-defense might be an inherent right, but owning a Sig P220 isnt. Nowhere in the Bible, Koran, Torah does it say man should automatically have a firearm. My point is, dont be a hypocrite. Dont jump all over the antis because they think the 2nd is all wrong and then turn around and support removing parts of the 14th because you think the anchor baby problem is out of hand. IMO, you take the bad with the good. If the 2A allows Cho to buy a Glock and shoot up a school.. oh well.. that's the price we pay for our little slice of freedom here in America.

 

[Beatnik]

Self-defense might be an inherent right, but owning a Sig P220 isnt. Nowhere in the Bible, Koran, Torah does it say man should automatically have a firearm. My point is, dont be a hypocrite. Dont jump all over the antis because they think the 2nd is all wrong and then turn around and support removing parts of the 14th because you think the anchor baby problem is out of hand.

<deep breath>

Nobody mentioned religion, and I don't see how it helps the conversation.
"God given" rights can be described as "inalienable", or "natural", and have nothing to do with a particular faith. We simply believe that they are inherent and therefore different from concepts like citizenship, which is not guaranteed by a natural right.

As far as jumping all over the antis, you completely missed the points of that post, which was 1) that nobody is arguing against their right to hate a particular point of the constitution and 2) that their method of disposing of it is dishonest.

All of the anti birthright people would agree that birthright citizenship is there, it says what it says, and it's law - and that the proper way to get rid of it is one of the two methods outlined in the constitution itself, not by dishonest rewording or mistranslations from 18th century verbage.

IMO, you take the bad with the good. If the 2A allows Cho to buy a Glock and shoot up a school.. oh well.. that's the price we pay for our little slice of freedom here in America.

Ok.... if you think that the situation at Virginia Tech amounted to freedom, I don't know what to say. Our big slice of freedom in Virginia is countered by a bigger slice of communism on campus.

Besides, the second you say something like that, you've lost the argument with an anti. You just stated that periodically dealing with 32 dead college kids is an acceptable price for firearms ownership... I'm not even anti, and I disagree with that totally.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

IMO, you take the bad with the good. If the 2A allows Cho to buy a Glock and shoot up a school.. oh well.. that's the price we pay for our little slice of freedom here in America.

I see nothing in the Second Amendment that would "allow" Cho or his ilk to shoot up a school or anything else for that matter. What Cho did with his Glock has no bearing on the keeping and bearing of arms. Everything Cho did with his Glock that day is, and was at the time, illegal. The law he broke that day was - and still is - constitutional. He could have poisoned them all. He could have run people down with a vehicle. He could have set fire to the place and possibly killed hundreds instead of tens.

His actions had nothing to do with the Second Amendment protected right. Those he killed did die needlessly, however, because none of them who died were "allowed" to be armed in those classrooms. THAT, my friend, IS unconstitutional.

I'm off for another good cry, lamenting the loss of the thousands who died on September 11, 2001, for the lack of a gun on each of those planes due to more unconstitutional law....

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[geekWithA.45]

Self-defense might be an inherent right, but owning a Sig P220 isnt.

Reaaaallyyy now? Posessing the instrumentality of excercising a fundamental right isn't a right?

Goody! I shall now begin confiscating Bibles, Torahs, Upanishads, Bhagavad Ghitas, Korans, megaphones, soapboxes, printing presses, and anything else necessary for the free excercise of fundamental rights.

I've always wanted a vast pile of those.


Awww, what the heck! Let's go for broke!

Life is a fundamental right, isn't it? And your brain is an instrumentality of that right, yes?

[zombie]

Braaaaains!

[/zombie]

 

[poor_richard]

I often hear/read people saying that “there isn’t a right to ….(fill in the blank).” I guess the mentality behind that is that the referred right isn’t listed in the BOR. Examples often used are: “drive a car”, “fly in an airplane”, “privacy”, and someone even mentioned “owning a P220”. Others use the same logic to declare that there is no right to “privacy”. As the OP stated, these rights are unremunerated. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist as rights.

The 10th Amendment says:

“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 9th Amendment says:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” ​

My understanding is that the SCOTUS ruled that we don’t have a right to drive. That (alleged decision) is wrong. Of course we have a right to drive, although that right can be regulated by the states if they chose. Just because it is a right doesn’t mean it can be exercised unfettered, or unregulated. The States are give the power to regulate by the 10th Amendment, just as they are recognized as rights by the 9th Amendment.

I may not have been a bad idea to add another amendment to the BOR stating:

“A persons right’s exist up to and until those rights infringe upon the rights of another or others.”​

I don’t know. I think it’s just common sense, so maybe it would have been bad to add it. In modern society (and based on the opinions of some on this board) people seem to think their personal feelings should override someone else’s rights. “Feelings” aren’t rights. We don’t even have the ability to chose how we “feel”, much less a right to have them, or be free from them.

While we do have a right to own a P220, but that doesn’t compel, or obligate someone else to sell it to us (it‘s their property). However the government is restricted from regulating such as it does infringe upon that right (not that it matters).

The reality is: The Second Amendment (along with most of the USC) it dead. It was killed a long time ago, and that death was reinforced as recently as the Parker decision in which the black robed gods decreed that the government could regulate that which was previously restricted to them from doing.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

In my world, neither the Constitution nor its Second Amendment are dead. Though abusively misused and ignored by many in government, it is for me quite alive and well and worth defending. I live by it. Without it, I am not free. If the Constitution is to die, it will be along with me and my ilk.

“A persons right’s exist up to and until those rights infringe upon the rights of another or others.”

You might want to drop the "or others" from your proposed amendment. There are no "collective" rights. Besides, if you violate a single person's rights, it can be said that you've violated every single person's rights if there is more than one person affected by your misdeed(s). Each person has standing. If it requires more than one victim to your certain abuse to be considered a violation of rights, then justice can not be served for the wronged individual if the other(or all of the others) refuse to complain, and vice versa. I know it appears to be just semantics, but if you leave such a door open... What's that they say about unintended consequences?

Woody

 

[poor_richard]

Woody,

Very good points. I agree.

 

[crazed_ss]

Besides, the second you say something like that, you've lost the argument with an anti. You just stated that periodically dealing with 32 dead college kids is an acceptable price for firearms ownership... I'm not even anti, and I disagree with that totally.

Sorry, but that's reality. If everyone is allowed to have complete access time firearms, then it's almost a forgone conclusion that a couple people will do bad things with firearms. You cant stop those people from doing bad things with guns without stomping all over the rights of people who arent doing bad things.

So my argument stands.. inicidents like Virginia Tech are an unintended by product of allowing everyone a gun. Anchor babies are an unintended consequence of birthright citizenship.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So my argument stands.. inicidents like Virginia Tech are an unintended by product of allowing everyone a gun.

You have to admit that at the scene of the travesty at VT, not everyone was allowed a gun, and in fact NO one was allowed a gun. The byproduct; or better said, the "disastrous consequence"; is that the law forbidding the victims to be armed cost them their lives. Had just one of them been armed, how far do you think Cho would have gotten? One dead? Two dead? Maybe none dead except for him!

What happened at VT is not an unintended consequence of everyone being "allowed" to have a gun. It's the consequences of NOT "allowing" everyone to be armed! That is the stuff you get when the antis "interpret" the Law of the Land.

Woody

"Freedom is good for the individual, good for the human condition, and good for society as well. It is the only way individual accountability can be valid, for a person who is not free to do as he sees fit cannot be blamed... or genuinely rewarded." K.L.Dimond