SmarterthanYou
rebel
still refuse? you're dismissed, oh ignorant one.
The 2nd Amendment Protects the Others
- Thread starter tsuke
- Start date
still refuse? you're dismissed, oh ignorant one.
Miller is poorly written and unless one is willing to delve into the source of the reasoning for the Court's decision, (Aymette v State), one is left to read between the lines and invent illegitimate conditions and circumstances not supported by SCOTUS ("militia right" or "state's right" interpretations).
If one wants to read an honest assessment of the meaning and action of Miller upon federal gun laws, one should read Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942):
"At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, . . . "
The Miller Court was not presented with any evidence that demonstrated any militia / military usefulness of a sawed-off shotgun and it did not go looking for any on its own (only the government presented any argument to the Court). The Cases court above honestly notes the absurdity of that position and plainly says that under any reasonable examination, such an arm does have military application and usefulness and thus the possession and use of such an arm by a private citizen certainly would be / should be / is -- in principle -- constitutionally protected.
So, after reading that, why do you think the possession and use of a sawed-off shotgun isn't constitutionally protected?
Why wouldn't they be?
Heller unwaveringly follows SCOTUS precedent and commentary on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate and distinct things) and McDonald follows exactly the Court's treatment of pre-existing, fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment, applying them to the states.
If there can be a criticism leveled against the Heller opinion it is that Scalia erred in trying to undertake a textual analysis of the Amendment. Such an examination and explanation was unnecessary and as we have seen dangerous to liberty. The Heller opinion should have been two pages long and focused only on the fact that the 2nd Amendment does not create, establish, grant or give the right thus the right is not in any manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution) for its existence. That fact dispenses with all permutations of collective right theory and enforces rights as exceptions of powers not granted to Congress (and by extension, the DC government).
"Unrestricted" gun rights? Really? This is total unadulterated left wing BS. As evidenced by OBJECTIVE (something no leftist comprehends as everything is subjective to personal definition) realities....just in the past 5 years there have been many RESTRICTIONS placed upon gun ownership in the United State not to mention the previous 220yrs + of legislated COMMON STATE and FEDERAL laws that limit and restrict weapons of all types. What no common law can do is take away the right of every US citizen to protect his/her personal property and life via the guarantee of the right to bare arms. How that right is "regulated" is entirely up to the PEOPLE...the 2nd amendment right is no different than the right of speech, the right of voting, the right not to self incriminate...etc., ALL subject to regulation via acts of the PEOPLE and their representatives.
There is no so thing as an UNREGULATED RIGHT that exists in the United States.....not even the right to life and liberty, or no jail cells would exist or there would be no death penalty. There are practical and objective concerns for all rights....no absolute rights exist as based upon the accepted social definitions of morality or the lack thereof...defined by THE PEOPLE and reflected in all state and federal laws.
www.state.com/articles_news_and_politics/crime/2013/12/gun_control_laws_by_states_mapped.html
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you might be confusing people, because I certainly believe that sawed off shotguns are protected, as well as machine guns.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and we see another idiot that has no concept of the constitution as the founders presented us with. But keep on with the whole 'government control is awesome', statist.
I quoted Guille and addressed that question to them.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
whoops, my bad. carry on.
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Yup. When the guns are gone, everything is gone.
Right....and you enlightened everyone with your knowledge.
LMAO Truth is Truth....opinion's vary. You presented no evidence that anything presented was false or subjective. Name one 'right' in this nation that is not subject to regulation via the voice of the people. Just one. Life is regulated and limited to the right to life until you cross the threshold of another citizens RIGHT TO THE SAME....then your life is transferred to the state in the form of a justice and penal system. The same for liberty, you are free.....up to and including the restrictions placed upon such liberty via the legislation of common law. If this were not factual there would be no punishment when someone freely chooses to commit a crime. The same limitations and restrictions apply to the right to vote....the right to own and or posses and bear arms.....if you are a convicted felon...just walk down the street bearing arms....or attempt to vote.
Simply because you refuse to accept the reality that ABSOLUTE RIGHTS can never exist in a truly free REPUBLIC that is self governed by THE PEOPLE ....you will never be able to respond to such truth with anything other the ad homenim insult which just demonstrates your lack of knowledge and articulation skills.
There is a difference between a limited government oversight.....the conservative position held by our founders who called such need a "necessary evil"...and the leftist/social communist point of view where they propagate the false message that all rights and limitations come from BIG GOVERNMENT instead of the people.
Again....the people reserve the right to regulate and restrict, that regulation and restriction is called an act of legislation. You know the same people/states who drafted, defined and ratified the Constitution and Following Bill of Rights.
Again its a simple challenge. Show "me" or anyone.....just one right that has never been limited or had some type of restriction placed upon it. JUST ONE. If you could have you would have instead of engaging in a tactic used by all radicals......the attempted insult in order to deflect away from your own ignorance.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Right....and you enlightened everyone with your knowledge.
The same limitations and restrictions apply to the right to vote....the right to own and or posses and bear arms.....if you are a convicted felon...just walk down the street bearing arms....or attempt to vote.
Simply because you refuse to accept the reality that ABSOLUTE RIGHTS can never exist in a truly free REPUBLIC that is self governed by THE PEOPLE ....you will never be able to respond to such truth with anything other the ad homenim insult which just demonstrates your lack of knowledge and articulation skills.
There is a difference between a limited government oversight.....the conservative position held by our founders who called such need a "necessary evil"...and the leftist/social communist point of view where they propagate the false message that all rights and limitations come from BIG GOVERNMENT instead of the people.
Again....the people reserve the right to regulate and restrict, that regulation and restriction is called an act of legislation. You know the same people/states who drafted, defined and ratified the Constitution and Following Bill of Rights.
Again its a simple challenge. Show "me" or anyone.....just one right that has never been limited or had some type of restriction placed upon it. JUST ONE. If you could have you would have instead of engaging in a tactic used by all radicals......the attempted insult in order to deflect away from your own ignorance.
holy fuck, has NOBODY ever heard of the 5th Amendment? and the whole 'all or nothing' crap you people base our rights on is bullshit. the founders would have laughed you back to england. you should really familiarize yourself with how the democrats stretched the commerce clause out of all meaning and proportion when implementing their first federal gun control law. I tell you this because NUMEROUS commentaries to 'we the people' made it extremely clear that congress had NO POWER to restrict our right to arms, at least until the 1930s when a power hungry congress started taxing everything for control. Since it's been done for so long, you sheeple just accept stupid logic such as all rights have reasonable restrictions.
Again.....you have failed to show JUST ONE right that has not been subject to regulation by THE PEOPLE. The 5th amendment does not rescind the people's right to pass acts of legislation that does nothing else but regulate and restrict.
According to your logic or the lack thereof....everyone has the right to possess (bare) arms and use them when they engage their liberty...even if that possession of arms leads to crimes and murder of your fellow citizens...its everyone for themselves....might makes right, survival of the fittest....all coming directly from the manifesto of the group known as DARWINIAN cultists. Rights and the regulation thereof in a free society have one purpose....to serve the people, ALL THE PEOPLE.
Of course....the past 230 years of regulation and common sense restrictions of rights....proves nothing to someone that KNOWS EVERYTHING and clearly is smarter than the PEOPLE who drafted, defined and ratified that same 5th amendment you are now saying prohibits the very people who drafted and ratified it from making laws and regulations. As if the 10th amendment never existed that explains in detail the authority of the PEOPLE/STATES to make law as they see fit as long as said law does not conflict with THEIR CONTRACT among themselves.....the US CONSTITUTION.
We are all sure that the same people who drafted and ratified the 5th is going to place limits upon their self government authority......again reason and logic and OBJECTIVITY clearly are missing from your bigoted preconceptions of just what type of government represents and serves YOU.....we live in a REPUBLIC...a representative republic with the people reserving the right to be the only authority that can and does legislate laws that regulate and restrict.
Again....you have said nothing, you have presented no evidence of just ONE right found in the Constitution, Bill of Rights as well as the natural rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence that has not been regulated in some form by a reflection of the PEOPLES/STATES (as in federal representation) moral codes....know as COMMON LAW.
Once again....THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS that exist anywhere upon earth, everything is subject to the governing powers that have been appointed (even if they are a necessary evil)
You must comprehend the objective difference between something being regulated or totally rescinded. What you are ignorantly missing is the fact that "CONGRESS".....is a reflection of THE PEOPLE/STATES, all congress critters come from STATES, all congressmen are appointed by vote to represent and serve the best interests of the people who sent them to act on their behalf at the federal level of government. When congress passes an act of legislation....it is granting to the federal government authority not mentioned or covered in the Constitution...just as described in the 10th amendment.
You are pretending that CONGRESS has nothing to do with the STATES. It is through CONGRESS that the people/states engage their authority of self government.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
are you trying to tell us that the constitution was written, along with the bill of rights, that specifically provides the authority of the people to restrict rights? please show us where.
this is more of the stupid 'all or nothing' bullshit that idiots have to jump to in order to think themselves right. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, is saying that an absolute right allows someone to violate the rights of others.
OMG, so many stupid fucking morons BEGGING for slavery, it hurts my brain.
Again.....where is that ONE RIGHT that has never seen regulation or restriction. Why waste your time (or rather mine) with such bloviation in an attempt to deflect that NO SUCH RIGHT HAS EVER EXISTED? The 10th is clear...the people/states reserve the right to make laws.
And of course.....THE PEOPLE drafted the constitution and following bill of rights and ratified the same, they would never, limit their authority of self government. Regulation of a right is nothing close to doing away with a right....no one possesses the authority to rescind the second amendment unless it is in the form of another amendment drafted and ratified by THE PEOPLE.....but there is nothing to stop the people from making common sense regulations concerning any right.
Example: no one has the right to possess and bare arms for the purpose of committing an act of crime against their fellow citizens....you will lose that right when you become convicted of such and become a felon. That is a restriction and regulation based upon common sense and common law. Just like no one can vote more than once.....that is a regulation concerning the right to vote. No one is allowed to publicly slander another citizen...that is a restriction of FREE SPEECH....etc. There are no absolute rights in this nation.....all are subject to regulation via THE PEOPLE who allowed those rights to exist in the first place....as in WE THE PEOPLE.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
again, BEGGING FOR SLAVERY!!!!!! you idiots have no clue about what the framers intended, or if you do you choose to ignore it in favor of controlling your fellow citizens because you're terrified of their freedoms.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You have to wonder, why did people start going batshit about liberalizing guns and giving anyone the right to execute anyone else if they feel "threatened"* as soon as the civil rights act and anti-lynching laws were passed by the 60's? These non-self-defense laws are just the new form of lynching. White supremacy is the font from which all rightist ideology springs.
*At least in the judgement of the prosecutor - so black people get short shrift even when they were clearly within an inch of their life, whereas if you're a white male it's a free for all and stand your ground laws essentially give an unlimited right to murder anyone in society you want, who is not also a white male.
*At least in the judgement of the prosecutor - so black people get short shrift even when they were clearly within an inch of their life, whereas if you're a white male it's a free for all and stand your ground laws essentially give an unlimited right to murder anyone in society you want, who is not also a white male.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
you should allow people to thank your post
I had damo turn it off