Right to Bear Arms

[Libsmasher]

The challenge is that, unlike abortion, "...the Right of the people to keep and bear arms..." is clearly enumerated in the Constitution. When one studies the writings of the Founding Fathers, there's no doubt (to an intellectually honest person) what they meant when they wrote those words, and there is no ambiguity.

The reason the other is still hotly debated is because it isn't clearly enumerated, and SCOTUS went through some mighty severe contortions to determine that cold blooded murder of the most innocent among us was a "privacy issue".

Excellent point - the second amendment couldn't be more clear, and was brushed away (along with other parts of the constitution) for many years. Abortion, on the other hand, has no basis at all in the constitution, and was invented from whole cloth by Harry Blackmun.

P.S.: Lose the "SCOTUS" - that sounds like a disease that attacks the genital area.

 

[Federal Farmer]

P.S.: Lose the "SCOTUS" - that sounds like a disease that attacks the genital area.

That would be "SCROTUS; besides, SCOTUS is a lot more efficient that having to spell out Supreme Court.

 

[Andy]

That would be "SCROTUS; besides, SCOTUS is a lot more efficient that having to spell out Supreme Court.

Here I thought it was the idea of the generally liberal court trying to "screw us" shortened a bunch.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Here I thought it was the idea of the generally liberal court trying to "screw us" shortened a bunch.

Nope, just Supreme Court Of The United States. The same as POTUS being shorthand for President of the United States.

 

[SW85]

What concerns me is that four justices did not agree that it was an individual right.

Actually they were unanimous that it was an individual right. The four dissenting opinions concerned how broadly that individual right was subject to regulation.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Actually they were unanimous that it was an individual right. The four dissenting opinions concerned how broadly that individual right was subject to regulation.

And therein is the rub. How can an individual "Right" have any restrictions on it? Perhaps my copy of the Constitution isn't as complete as I was led to believe, but I fail to see the word "except" anywhere in the Second Amendment, or in any of the others for that matter. The fact is that all of these "exceptions" to our Rights are inventions of the mind, and are nowhere supported by any of the writings of the Founding Fathers. They didn't say that we all have a freedom of speech "except" that you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, or say something that might hurt someone else's feelings, nor did they say that you have a right to "...keep and bear arms..." "except" in a bank, government building, school, or anywhere else that someone doesn't want you to. Rights have no restrictions, for if they do, they aren't Rights at all, only privileges, and the last time I checked, it was NOT the "Bill of Privileges".

 

[SW85]

And therein is the rub. How can an individual "Right" have any restrictions on it? Perhaps my copy of the Constitution isn't as complete as I was led to believe, but I fail to see the word "except" anywhere in the Second Amendment, or in any of the others for that matter. The fact is that all of these "exceptions" to our Rights are inventions of the mind, and are nowhere supported by any of the writings of the Founding Fathers. They didn't say that we all have a freedom of speech "except" that you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, or say something that might hurt someone else's feelings, nor did they say that you have a right to "...keep and bear arms..." "except" in a bank, government building, school, or anywhere else that someone doesn't want you to. Rights have no restrictions, for if they do, they aren't Rights at all, only privileges, and the last time I checked, it was NOT the "Bill of Privileges".

All rights are subject to restriction so they don't interfere with the rights of others. This does not reduce them to the status of privileges.

In principle, I agree with the majority, though. A categorical ban on handguns falls is unreasonable. And the dissent was simply sloppy and unreasoned.

 

[Andy]

All rights are subject to restriction so they don't interfere with the rights of others. This does not reduce them to the status of privileges.

In principle, I agree with the majority, though. A categorical ban on handguns falls is unreasonable. And the dissent was simply sloppy and unreasoned.

Ok, explain how my right to own a firearm, ever interferes with someone anyone else's rights?

The right to bare arms is absolute. There are no exceptions.

 

[SW85]

Ok, explain how my right to own a firearm, ever interferes with someone anyone else's rights?

A good example would include local ordinances regulating firearm shooting ranges for the sake of noise control, or restricting where firearms ranges can be located for safety's sake.

I don't know exactly what kind of answer you want from me; I am, after all, pro-gun. But few rights are "absolute" in the sense that society has no right to balance it with other rights.

Most localities issue licenses to hold parades or marches in public streets, for instance. Are you going to call this a restriction on free assembly, even though it is done for obvious reasons?

 

[Andy]

A good example would include local ordinances regulating firearm shooting ranges for the sake of noise control, or restricting where firearms ranges can be located for safety's sake.

I was referring to gun ownership, and at the federal level. This is local, and doesn't involve ownership.

But few rights are "absolute" in the sense that society has no right to balance it with other rights.

You can lose your rights by breaking the law. But short of illegal activity, I don't see where any right isn't absolute.

Most localities issue licenses to hold parades or marches in public streets, for instance. Are you going to call this a restriction on free assembly, even though it is done for obvious reasons?

That's because they are using a public street. But the right to free assembly can not be infringed. It's absolute.

I can have a free assembly in my home, and constitutionally there is nothing the federal government can legally do.

 

[Federal Farmer]

All rights are subject to restriction so they don't interfere with the rights of others. This does not reduce them to the status of privileges.

While it is true that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, quoting Claude Adrien Helvétius, said "the right to swing your fist ends at your neighbors nose", it is not a restriction on swinging your fist at all, only from doing so illegally. Justice Holmes also famously noted (in Schenck v US) the commonly MIS-quoted phrase that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic". The Right to "...keep and bear arms..." is in no way a license to USE those firearms for any illegal purpose, and it is in the USE of those firearms where the restrictions are appropriately to be placed (murder, assault with a firearm, etc.), but not on the keeping or bearing of the firearms.

Placing any restriction on the Right of the people to "...keep and bear arms..." based on the fear that someone may do something with them that they're not supposed to do is as faulty a piece of logic as attempting to regulate that all females must wear chastity belts on the fear that they may engage in prostitution. After all, ALL females have the 'equipment' for the act, but very few of them actually misuse it in that manner.

 

[Andy]

This also bugs me that this false argument is even in existence.

The liberal and tyrannical factions of our government want to do away with the constitution completely. Now sense that wouldn't go over real well, they systematically attack each freedom in turn.

Freedom of speech is a great example. When it was created, the fact it was an absolute right was never in question. But the liberal faction can't have that because it prevents them from controlling national voices.

So they invented this theory that Freedom of speech isn't absolute because you can't go into a movie house and shout falsely shout fire. Therefore freedom of speech isn't absolute and you can regulate it at will.

But the whole basis for this argument is false. Freedom of Speech has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with shouting fire in a privately owned building, or anything similar.

Freedom of speech has to do with a private citizens right to speak against the government. The end. Nothing else. No other situation is covered. It doesn't cover art displayed at a museum. It doesn't cover selling smut door to door. It doesn't cover walking around nude on a public beach. None of that. Just the right of a citizen to publicly speak against the federal government, and nothing else.

It covers Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the no-name liberal talk show hosts no one ever listens too. It covers Sean Hannity and Allen Colmes. It doesn't cover Larry Liar Flint and Howard Stern (who's name I had to look up, and I'm proud of that).

 

[GenSeneca]

The Right to "...keep and bear arms..." is in no way a license to USE those firearms for any illegal purpose, and it is in the USE of those firearms where the restrictions are appropriately to be placed (murder, assault with a firearm, etc.), but not on the keeping or bearing of the firearms.

Placing any restriction on the Right of the people to "...keep and bear arms..." based on the fear that someone may do something with them that they're not supposed to do is as faulty a piece of logic as attempting to regulate that all females must wear chastity belts on the fear that they may engage in prostitution. After all, ALL females have the 'equipment' for the act, but very few of them actually misuse it in that manner.

QFT

Well said. If I want to own a tank, RPG and fully auto MG, I should be allowed to acquire and keep them. What I should not be able to do, is use those weapons to violate the rights of others.

Most cities have an ordinance that says you CANNOT discharge a firearm withing city limits... Does that stop Criminals? Hell noes.... Lets say you get mugged by a guy with a knife and you're packin heat... before you can shoot the guy you have to know the "Self Defense" argument requires at least a few qualifiers:
1. You have to try to get away at least 3 times. (as if)
2. You have to fear your life is in imminent danger. (Remember, he brought a knife to a gun fight)
3. You have to provide warning, and an opportunity for the guy to run away, before opening fire. (Not in my DNA)
The odds are in the favor of the Criminal, who doesn't give a crap about the laws because he never plans to stand before a judge to receive his sentence.

If a punk pulls a knife on me, I blow his freakin head off and spit on his corpse... then bill his family for the bullet. I would of course end up in jail, with extra time for spitting - abuse of a corpse - I would be found guilty of violating numerous local, state and federal laws pertaining to proper use, ownership and discharge of firearms as well as "violating" the civil rights of the jackass who attacked me.... and PLEASE GOD don't let it be someone with a skin pigment different from my own - I would be charged with a hate crime for sure.

 

[Andy]

And likely an extra life without parole for not having a child safety lock. Child endangerment because gun might have accidently gone off while he was stabbing you, and hit a kid somewhere.

Liberals always support the criminals in society, rather than law abiding citizens. Just like they support the enemies of the US, rather than their own country.

 

[Federal Farmer]

This also bugs me that this false argument is even in existence.

Hi Andy,

The fact of what Justice Holmes was presenting has always been the case, it's the penalty for doing so that is in question. At the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights was penned and ratified, there were many remedies available that we are no longer allowed to 'legally' avail ourselves of, including shooting someone who didn't know when to STFU.

The Right to freedom of speech was then, as it is today, absolute, what was not was freedom from responsibility for what you said. Take a look at the case of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Hamilton went around, shooting off his mouth about Burr, and even after repeated attempts on the part of Burr to get Hamilton to stop, he steadfastly refused to keep shooting off his mouth, so Burr shot Hamilton. Today the law says that we can no longer challenge someone to a duel, so we have to resort to the courts to deal with idiots who slander and defame us.

I want to be clear here, as one who took an Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution...", it is incumbent upon me to stand there, in front of you if necessary, and defend your Right to say whatever you want to, no matter how much I may disagree with what it is that you're saying. But be forewarned, the moment you're finished, I'm getting out of the way of the angry mob who wants to hang and burn you! And since we all know that burning the flag is now covered by "freedom of speech", I see no reason why burning an idiot shouldn't be covered as well, especially since the flag is far more valuable than the idiot.