Nineseven, I am playing devils advocate so bear with me.
Okay, I understand where you are coming from now, excuse my questioning your intelligence or understanding of the subject matter, when you play the devil’s advocate, it’s hard to really know where you are truly coming from.
I think you shouldn’t argue about the absoluteness of the Second Amendment on one hand and then ignore the absoluteness of the other amendments.
They are absolute as they are written, which I explained in my previous post. I explained where the unreasonable search and seizure clause is absolute even though a warrant can be obtained to infringe upon it because that specific clause is directly provided for in the amendment. There is no quandary there, if you read the amendment, it is absolute.
As for the capital punishment debate, it was clear to me based on the ratifying arguments and discussions that took place at that time that capital punishment did not fit the definition of cruel and unusual.
If you agree that judicial decisions are needed to further define the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments (case law links you included) why should the 2nd amendment be exempt from further judicial examination. It is imho that you believe that “Shall not be infringed” exempts the 2nd Amendment from judicial review and further definition.
Just because you can argue something and a court needs to step in does make the offending argument valid. Plenty of folks continued to argue that the earth was flat despite evidence of the contrary. Now, somewhere along the line, the debate had to be brought to a close, that the flat-earth people were wrong invalidated their argument from the very foundation. Just because someone
can argue something does not weaken the absolute quality of the fact or statement being argued. I furnished those links so that you could see where both sides of the argument came from and why the decisions were made in the way that they were.
I disagree. I think there is plenty wiggle room to define whatever “it” is that shall not be infringed.
There may be, but it is up to the people to decide, for themselves, individually (the entire notion of liberty) what they themselves should find necessary to arm themselves with. It is not the Federal Government’s place.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say or imply the golden rule, let alone in the First Amendment. The crux of your argument is that the 2nd Amendment as is, is the only way to interpret it.
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …
Now, in order to properly explain this to someone that was completely foreign to the concept of what a right truly is, I would need about 500 words, I don’t have the time for that. If all of us have liberty, then the only logical conclusion is that my rights cannot interfere with your rights, otherwise I would have liberty where you would not, and thus there would be no equality. It’s not a terribly difficult concept but it is one that folks conveniently fail to recognize when it suits them. The so-called golden rule does not need to be specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution because it has nothing to do with where one private citizens rights begin and another’s ends, the USC and BoR are restrictions on government interference and have noting to do with my rights versus your rights except that the government cannot establish one set of rights for you, one for me and for themselves. Since we all retain the right to liberty, in order for us to truly do that, my rights cannot infringe upon yours. Yes, there are a couple of problems and gray areas, but they do not negate the entire nature of individual liberties.
The Second Amendment is very specific, as are the other amendments. Your argument that the amendment not containing the specific types of arms means there is wiggle room is no more relevant than the baseless argument that since all modes and forms of communication are not specifically noted in the First Amendment that it is okay to censor speech on the internet or made on electric or digital presses, or to have government established Wiccanism because it is not specifically listed in the first nor was it a religion at the time. To make these kinds of arguments flies in the face of the very intent of the Bill of Rights in the first place. There is no argument. The Bill or Rights and the Constitution is a document that stipulates the limitations on the government to govern the people of this country, no absence of a right specifically noted in the documents is to be construed as non-existence or a lack of validity of that right. If the document is non-specific, then by default the restriction is placed on the government, not the citizen. So if it does not specify which arms cannot be infringed, then no arms can be infringed. If it does not specify which religions are protected or what methods of speech are protected, then all methods of speech and religions are protected.
However, this is not to be taken that one can use these methods to commit crimes against others. You cannot use free speech to harm another criminally (slander, libel), you cannot use your arms to murder you neighbor (homicide), you cannot use your religion to claim exemption from a legally authorized warrant as noted in the Bill of Rights…there is no conflict there because exercising ones rights when engaging in criminal activity that the government has been fully authorized by the governed free people of this nation to restrict and punish is not protected under any article of the constitution. Meaning, you cannot kill your neighbor with your rifle and then claim Second Amendment protection, and the Federal Government cannot outlaw the mere possession of such a rifle. There is no conflict there.
If we apply your own logic to the 1st Amendment to the letter, Congress (not the states or territories) can not make a law that limits my free speech to harm, threaten, scare, defraud, or intimidate others. The 1st Amendment makes no mention of what speech is not allowed. My point is that your argument for an unrestricted to the letter interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is just as impractical as unrestricted to the letter interpretation of the 1st Amendment in our society.
Sure they can, because the USC and BoR are not restrictions on what you and I can do to each other as private citizens under liberty, only on what the government can do to us. Causing harm or infringing on rights where two private citizens or entities are concerned is where criminal and civil code comes in, which we have given the governments the authority to enact and enforce.
You can’t have it both ways so which is it? Do you apply the 2nd Amendment to the letter or do you refer to the founding fathers as to what arms are covered? If I have to refer to the founding fathers about what is covered in the 2nd Amendment, then the 2nd Amendment in its entirety is not a self-evident stand alone statement that is absolute.
It is absolute, but if you want to argue with me, I can only do two things: tell you that it is absolute, which I have and then provide any evidence I have to support my contention or counter the points you make. The argument is what arms are covered in the notion of “arms” of the 2A. It is very clear if you research not because the founders list the arms, but they list the purpose of those arms and furthermore you will understand that if the specific arms are to be regulated it is to be done on an individual basis at the sole discretion of a free citizen concerning only the arms that they choose to bear on their own. The purpose of keeping and bearing arms to resist tyranny in the form of government or invading foreign enemy and defend against them. The arms that they intended for us to bear were military arms. I don’t have the time or the energy to basically rewrite the Federalist and all of the discussions on ratification for you, nor is it my responsibility…if you wanted to know what you were talking about, I suggested you read up on it because IMHO you are approaching this from an easily ignorant standpoint without the proper knowledge to adequately make an informed decision.
IMHO I agree with you that the right to bear arms (Grizzly, Brown, Polar, or Black ) shall not be infringed is pretty absolute. However, what those arms consist of is in question because what is a “militia” and who and how regulated is “well regulated”? These definitions have been attempted to be defined, but there is no consensus on their accuracy. Most of us are familiar with the reasons why automatic weapons are restricted (well regulated?) but what about the flipside of that argument? If a well regulated militia shall have the right to bear arms for the necessity of the Free State, then those arms should be military arms. The .22lr is not a military round thus the right to own a .22lr can be infringed because of it’s uselessness to secure a free state. I ask you nineseven, not maliciously but honestly, using the above logic could the .22lr type firearms not be covered by the 2nd Amendment becasue they do not meet the arms requirements to secure a free state.
Again, go do some reading, it will become readily clear who the militia is. Well regulated is a little more difficult, but in that time period, that phrase generally meant well equipped and trained and had nothing to do with being an arm of the government, as it would defeat the whole purpose of the second amendment in resisting tyranny in or own government.
As for your last question: no, the government does not have the right to restrict us to any type of arms period, it’s not a this or that thing as far as what the government should “allow” us to have, it is the fact that the government has no business regulating it whatsoever. You hear the ‘military arms’ argument most often simply because they are the only ones regulated and restricted and because, in the spirit of the intent of the amendment, they are possibly the most important.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
All apologies if I was a little short, I'm a bit under the weather these past few days. I need to try and take a break from this thread. I cannot change your mind, only reading all of the relevant literature will do that, and if you do not have the desire to do this on your own, then I see nothing more that I can personally do. Peace.
) shall not be infringed is pretty absolute. However, what those arms consist of is in question because what is a “militia” and who and how regulated is “well regulated”? These definitions have been attempted to be defined, but there is no consensus on their accuracy. Most of us are familiar with the reasons why automatic weapons are restricted (well regulated?) but what about the flipside of that argument? If a well regulated militia shall have the right to bear arms for the necessity of the Free State, then those arms should be military arms. The .22lr is not a military round thus the right to own a .22lr can be infringed because of it’s uselessness to secure a free state. I ask you nineseven, not maliciously but honestly, using the above logic could the .22lr type firearms not be covered by the 2nd Amendment becasue they do not meet the arms requirements to secure a free state.
I mean I just can’t believe it; boy it’s almost nuts. The homes being built where hunting and shooting ranges use to be is on the rise to the 50th power. What are people thinking buying that land like the Lead is going to go away, Island Lake just out side of Detroit is one example of nuts moving next to a range and thinking the range is going to go away they blame those guys for everything