re: 2A doesn't give us the right to bear arms.

quote:

---

Just to play devils advocate, y’all realize even Scalia in Heller held that the 2A is not beyond reasonable restriction and cited laws against felons having firearms.

---

Yep, even Scalia could be a tyrant.

quote:

---

Do y’all think laws against felons having firearms is unconstitutional as well?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

I’m pro 2A and don’t like most of this new bill but

---

There it is. Fudd.

quote:

---

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...all men are... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

---

quote:

---

Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure. This acknowledgement was the very foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America. What are those unalienable rights with which we are endowed? They may be described in many ways, but English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1766, "these may be reduced to three principal articles:

the right of personal security (life);

the right of personal liberty; and,

the right of private property.."

America's written Constitution was to protect and secure God-given individual rights to life, liberty, and property. If we ever allow this foundation to be eroded and lose faith that these rights are a gift directly from GOD to each individual, then we lose the basis of the greatness of the miracle of America.

---

The Second Amendment is our sole guarantee that our government cannot expunge this inherent right. Unfortunately, our (s)elected "representation" has been allowing this right to be infringed upon for a century now.

It has already been trampled. Only a matter of time before it's completely erased.

Freedom is absolute.

quote:

---

If “shall not be infringed” is an absolutely restrictive clause, explain why “Congress shall make no law” is not also absolutely restrictive.

---

In what context? The "shall make no law" is absolutely restrictive when it comes to the establishment of religion. As for free exercise the prohibitions are only on certain actions for a "compelling state interest" and in almost all cases have dealt when there is a conflict with another person's actual right. Indeed, the Supreme Court has even stated that "the freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute." Braunfield v. Brown The government doesn't win on too many issues dealing with the first amendment's religion, and never wins win the intent is to specifically deprive an individual and group of that right.

Now, we have allowed more restrictions on speech, but not enough to support an argument that the right is subject to reasonable restriction just because it makes governance easier. Speech is also only limited when its on time, place, and manner or subject to an infringement of other's rights. Indeed, there must be an imminent lawless action for restrictions on speech for enticement. Brandenburg

Proposals to limit 2nd Amendment rights fall far beyond these encroachments on absolute language. You are depriving a person both of their property and the right to bear arms based on fear or threats.

I cannot speak for others, but I doubt many would object to a LEO disarming an individual when they had a loaded weapon pointed at another and threatening to shoot. That would be a government action that is against the absolute language of the text, but likely to be acceptable to all.

Nevertheless, the argument that if "its not absolute, then we are just arguing about the boundaries" is intellectually bankrupt. The government must have more than a mere expectancy of more efficiency, more than a desire by the entire population; they must also have a "compelling interest" and use "The least restrictive means". Depriving someone of their constituational rights without a hearing for 21 days is neither of these things.

quote:

---

I'm pro gun but "infringe" does not mean no (however you define) reasonable restrictions.

---

Hmmm…. The first law passed regulating the possession of firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The US Constitution was ratified in 1789, so for 145 years you could posses whatever you wanted. That is a lot of politicians, judges, and elections that tell me for most of this country’s history it was pretty clear, shall not infringe meant NO restrictions.

quote:

---

Demshoes

---

ummm - yes - that is precisely what it says.

"infringe" is possibly the weakest attempt to restrict rights to bear arms. It says you cannot do even THAT.

quote:

---

One side says “can not infringe” the other says “well regulated”, and both are wrong.

---

And "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" speaks for itself.

quote:

---

I'm pro gun but

---

I bet you tell people

quote:

---

I'm not racist but

---

All the time too

quote:

---

The First Amendment grants the right to free speech. Are there no restrictions on that right? The Fourth Amendment grants the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Are there no restrictions on that right?

---

You will have to point out where it states that those two rights cannot be infringed upon.