I have a comprehensive understanding of the Constitution (in practice and in theory). Some of this forum and in our country vehemently support certain elements of the Constitution that fit their narrative, while they conveniently ignore others. With all due respect to your founding fathers, they were operating and drafting rule, policy and law in a time many many years ago. They had no way of being able to extrapolate the actions of society that we live in today which would necessitate a revisit of and insertion of common-sense law more befitting of current times. Times have changed since the Constitution and Amendments were drafted. Would you agree?
My understanding of the 2nd and my rights with it
- Thread starter Bassbob
- Start date
No one is questioning our Right to keep and bear arms in a general sense. I too keep an bear arms, obviously. Let me ask you this, when you fly to go on a hunting trip or for business, which I do often, do you keep and bear arms while sitting in your seat or do you stow them in the cargo area of the aircraft? My point is there are FAA rules and regulations that prohibit when and where we keep and bear our arms. That is not an afront to your 2A Rights. Would you agree?
Bassbob
Emissary
That's BS. The constitution is NOT a living document. You want to change things to fit with the times there is a mechanism for that. It means what it means and doesn't mean what it doesn't mean. Just because congress or a group of citizens think the meaning should be altered doesn't make it constitutional. And yeah, there is a certain segment of the population and congress that likes to cherry pick parts of the constitution that fit their narrative. I'll give you a hint. It isn't any of the kind of guys hanging around here, with a couple of exceptions.
JCJ , being able to carry a weapon is not a privilege !! It is a Right that has been bastardized into a privilege by those who want to take our rights away. " The right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed!"
Any other way of reading that sentence is someone wanting to do what our forefathers fought against!
Any other way of reading that sentence is someone wanting to do what our forefathers fought against!
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
Getting into this kind of late but I'd like to add just a couple things ..... The first 'bolded' line in your quoted text ("while they conveniently ignore others") is exactly the reason the constitution should be/must be adhered to. Those who conveniently ignore it, or parts of it, are the very reason that the 2nd 'bolded' line ("the actions of society that we live in today") is a truth. Those 'actions' are the very description of why so much of today's society is outside the bounds of the intent of the constitution. And the 3rd 'bolded' line ("would necessitate a revisit of and insertion of common-sense law more befitting of current times") is the very reason the founders inserted Article 5 in the document itself. They had no reason to "extrapolate" anything. They foresaw a possible, maybe even probable need for changes to more accurately reflect a future society's needs so they provided the very actions (constitutional actions) required to make any necessary changes/amendments to the constitution. Remember, it's Article 5.
Typical of those you've mentioned in the 1st 'bolded' line would be examples of the non-constitutional way of making changes. Generally that would be left leaning judges who regularly legislate from the bench and either fail to follow or ignore those parts of the constitution that don't fit their narrative. Loved by those who call the constitution a 'Living Document' meaning it is open to change ..... NO it's not, except by means of Article 5. It is a 'living document' in that it lives forever as it stands. By reason of foresight/forethought of/by our founders, they provided the constitutional way in which to make those changes. Following that design protects the rights of every citizen.
The constitution says what it means and means what it says, as do the amendments to it. And as an aside I note where you use the phrase "your founding fathers" indicating they might not have been your founders........ would you care to elaborate on that a little just for clarification.
As to your assertion about the FAA rules and regulations ....... Hell yes, they are an "afront", even if not an infringement to our 2nd amendment rights. However, the allowance is that the airport, aircraft and other assorted assets are private property. As such, just as your local grocery store owner 'can' make the rules for his/her private property establishment, we must recognize them or stay out of his store. The FAA rules and even the local store owner's rules do not infringe on our rights in public and in public spaces and we can make the decision on whether or not to frequent their places. The real infringement comes when we are dis-allowed to bear our arms when entering a gov't building, a school, or similar. Why, because those are 'publicly' (citizenry) owned spaces. By virtue of the constitution and the 2nd amendment, the gov't has no authority to implement those restrictions ...... which is when they become an infringement with absolutely no sensible explanation.
You, or me, or anyone as a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner do not automatically become a non law-abiding citizen in the real sense simply by stepping across the threshold or through the door of a gov't building. Or if you're standing at a distance from a school of 1000' you're law-abiding, but if you take one step toward that school and now are only 999' from it, you somehow automatically become a non law-abiding citizen by virtue of the stupid and nonsensical law regarding gov't buildings. That is the definition of infringement in the truest sense of the word.
Your airline scenario is not analogous to discussion of Amendment II. Airlines are private property. They can and should operate consistent with maximizing their profits.
James Madison memorialized our natural rights to keep and bear arms for only one reason: should constitutional safeguards fail thus allowing a tyrant to seize power, We the People would have ability to retake our country by force of arms. Let's pray that such a scenario remains in abstract thought.
James Madison explicated our Amendment II rights in his The Federalist No. 46.
You're shooting all bull's eyes, Bassbob. Our constitution as a living document baloney is a dangerous neoconservative construct. Neocons are Christianity, We the People, and the United States of America's gravest threat. Neocons devised secret machinations to destroy President Trump. Neocons' primary objective is globalism ruled by their super government. They might have already achieved it. To disclose it and begin assimilating Americans into their New World Order where we'll envy Venezuelans' standard of living, they'll have to obliterate Amendment II one tiny compromise at a time.
Tell a huge lie often enough and people will believe it.
Lock n' Load
Custom
...shall not be infringed. End of story except for violent criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable.
Keystone19250
SAINT
And I don’t believe I said anything about being forced, I believe it’s in everyone’s best interest to learn everything they can about the function of and the laws surrounding the use of firearms.
Knowledge is power.
Bassbob
Emissary
This quote is from so long ago I’m not sure who I was responding to. Probably not you though because whoever it was was advocating mandatory training programs.
Keystone19250
SAINT
It was me sir and it’s all good. My opinion is I believe in training when it comes to being allowed to carry a firearm, not because I want to make it mandatory but purely for the fact that I feel it important to understand the law. Trust me I love living in a constitutional carry state where I can carry concealed without a permit however when time allows I will be taking the course to receive my state issued permit.
Bassbob
Emissary
I’m all for training. I do it. A lot. I love living in a constitutional carry state too. I won’t be renewing my permit ever. Because (A) the class you take is not training and (B) when you need a permit from the government to carry it’s no longer a right. It’s a government allowed privilege.
Peglegjoe
Professional
That has NOTHING to do with your RIGHT to keep and bear.
I have the right to keep and bear, and I carry daily. Have for years. I have yet to put muzzle on someone, or shoot anything other than paper and steel. That, is called "personal responsibility", and that is a lost concept in today's society of "there's always someone else to blame" and "it's the other guy's fault".
Every single individual citizen in this great Nation, has the RIGHT to decide if they want to keep and bear arms.
Every single individual citizen in this great Nation, has the responsibility to decide how to use said arms.
The USAGE is what should be (and is) restricted by the legal system of this nation - NOT the keep and bear.
The Constitution IS a "living document", and it was created as such. That's what amendments are for. And, as amendments...they have a PROCESS to be followed. Any change to our Constitution, needs to be done through the amendment process - not through legal legislation. Period. Courts, and judges, and PACs, do NOT get to choose - the PEOPLE do. Hence "government by the people and for the people".
As for the bull$hit "weapons of war" argument we're hearing today, and their "supporting argument" that "the Constitution was written in times of flintlocks and muskets"? Well....what do you think weapons of war WERE when the document was written??? Nowhere in the document is a clause that says "except cannon", or "except rifled barrels". It says, plainly and simply...ARMS.
Lastly, as for violent criminals, we simply need to do away with life sentences. If your crime is THAT serious, frankly, why are we (the taxpayer) being saddled with the expense and responsibility of providing 3 hots and a cot for you, for decades? If you are THAT hateful, and THAT unlikely to ever be "rehabilitated", then "life in prison" needs to become "death penalty". Period. It is more responsible for us as a society, and it is more humane to the criminal because their worries are over - they don't have to live with decades of potential pain and "oppression" in GenPop (and in today's lexicon, they don't have to live with the "risk of COVID"). Screw the whiny, liberal bull$hit argument that it's "inhumane" to "kill anyone" - if you take another human life, you have forfeit your right to be a part of civilized society.
And, I daresay, some public executions would go a long way to the concept of deterrence. I suspect we'd see a HUGE drop in the overall crime rate, if we start (in the words of comic Ron White) "killing you back".
Part of the issue we have with our crime rate right now is, we're retracting all penalties. Why be afraid to commit a crime, when there's no penalty? But, the liberals are using that method to feed the fire of "gun bans" for all of us - if they allow criminals to run rampant with no penalties through mass-releases; if they defund police to the point that nobody can arrest these criminals in the first place; and if the (desired) effect of spiking gun violence upsets enough ignorant, mainstream-media-addicted people, they think they'll get their way and get their "gun ban" rammed through our legal system. Punish the citizens by revoking or severely restricting the 2A, and reward the criminals.
Are Democrats pulling an Operation Fast and Furious scam?
During Obama’s first term, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, implemented Operation Fast and Furious. The ostensible purpose was for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to catch straw purchasers who bought guns in America and sold...www.americanthinker.com
THIS, is where the attack on our 2A rights is coming from today. It is not the Government's responsibility to provide for its citizens - Government's ONLY responsibility is to provide safety to its citizens, so we may be free to make the choices we see fit in order to govern our OWN lives, make our OWN money, create our OWN happiness, and provide for our OWN families. These are OUR choices to make, not the Government's.
And so is the right to keep and bear arms. It is OUR choice, as citizens - if someone wants to own a gun, THEY ALONE can make that choice. If someone does NOT want to own a gun, it is also their choice. For themselves. They don't get to make that decision for me. I do. Just like I don't get to make the decision for someone else - I can't force someone to own a gun, any more than they can force me to not own one.
Two things, from my perspective:
1. There is support for the claim that the Founders did intend the Constitution to be a living documents. I recall an 1816 letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote something to the effect of "laws and institutions should go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind” and "as people's understanding advances, institutions should advance along with it." I vaguely remember there being others but I can't for the life of me remember what they were. I'm pulling that out of context and only from memory but it does lend support to a living Constitution. I'd be grateful for any clarification people with a better knowledge of the history of the subject can provide.
2. As to our rights, remember that no right is absolute in this country, no matter from what source it is derived. There are limits on the First Amendment and there are limits on the Second Amendment and they have been held constitutional. I encourage everyone to read the Heller decision, in which Scalia clearly says the Second can be limited. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean we can own whatever we want and do whatever we want, according to SCOTUS. We on this forum can read the language of the Second however we want and a robust debate is a wonderful thing, but ultimately it is not unconstitutional to place certain restrictions on firearm ownership. I haven't seen any great test for what is and is not a permissible restriction of the right, aside from a strict scrutiny analysis, so I guess each restriction will have to be litigated to determine its lawfulness.
1. There is support for the claim that the Founders did intend the Constitution to be a living documents. I recall an 1816 letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote something to the effect of "laws and institutions should go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind” and "as people's understanding advances, institutions should advance along with it." I vaguely remember there being others but I can't for the life of me remember what they were. I'm pulling that out of context and only from memory but it does lend support to a living Constitution. I'd be grateful for any clarification people with a better knowledge of the history of the subject can provide.
2. As to our rights, remember that no right is absolute in this country, no matter from what source it is derived. There are limits on the First Amendment and there are limits on the Second Amendment and they have been held constitutional. I encourage everyone to read the Heller decision, in which Scalia clearly says the Second can be limited. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean we can own whatever we want and do whatever we want, according to SCOTUS. We on this forum can read the language of the Second however we want and a robust debate is a wonderful thing, but ultimately it is not unconstitutional to place certain restrictions on firearm ownership. I haven't seen any great test for what is and is not a permissible restriction of the right, aside from a strict scrutiny analysis, so I guess each restriction will have to be litigated to determine its lawfulness.
There is only one amendment that has the following line written in it ---> " Shall not be infringed ! Weapons of war has been mentioned and I will say now back when these amendments were written , many people owned cannons and carried the modern guns of war for the day . They also openly carried long knives , hatchets , and even swords.
The second amendment was written with these things above in mind . As I have said before , the second amendment has been bastardized into what we have today .
The second amendment was written with these things above in mind . As I have said before , the second amendment has been bastardized into what we have today .
The First begins with "Congress shall make no law..." I'd say that says about the same thing as "...shall not be infringed." I don't see the second as having any unique breadth. I'm not trying to fight you, but it's important we make a solid effort to understand the texts we're discussing and understand the state of the law and the basis for where we are now. It's a bad thing as an advocate to rely on incomplete understandings of the subject matter.
39 delegates signed the Constitution of the United States and Jefferson was not one of them, one man's word should not supercede all of the founding fathers anyway. Also who is Justice Scalia to determine what our rights mean based on his personal opinion? There is a major indifference of what a politician thinks should be law to what actually is our birth rights, whatever party is in power at the time gets to determine the current justices when there is an opening and using them to push that party's agenda circumventing the Bill of Rights and playing politics with freedoms.
It's very easy to cherry pick a couple statements made throughout different periods in history to fit a narrative but it doesn't always validate an argument.
Just my thoughts!
Bassbob
Emissary
This. Exactly