We banned guns & knives...

[gregr]

Right, but the right is not absolute. A church is still subject to zoning laws. You can't decide to have the church of Abraham and Isaac and sacrifice a child unless the voice of God calls you off, etc. Yet none of that is written into the 1st amendment. We, as a society, agree it's not reasonable to hold knives to the throats of children or to build buildings in the island of an interstate.

There are lawsuits over noise ordinances for the Call to Prayer for mosques. Reasonable people can differ on where that level of intrusion into the interest of religion and the interest of people in their homes to be free from excessive noise is drawn. The 1st doesn't spell it out, we as a society have to apply some level judgement. However I think few people would agree I could set up concert level sound systems on my roof and damage the hearing of my neighbors with a Call to Prayer (or church bells) and be protected by the 1st. The rule may end up being relatively arbitrary number selected from a reasonable range, ie XX decibels is the max allowed...just like lead in water, etc. The standard will never be zero.

Dabble in semantics all you want, but there just is no way to explain away the wording: "...shall not be infringed". That means what it says!

 

[hopper68]

Right, but the right is not absolute. A church is still subject to zoning laws. You can't decide to have the church of Abraham and Isaac and sacrifice a child unless the voice of God calls you off, etc. Yet none of that is written into the 1st amendment. We, as a society, agree it's not reasonable to hold knives to the throats of children or to build buildings in the island of an interstate.

There are lawsuits over noise ordinances for the Call to Prayer for mosques. Reasonable people can differ on where that level of intrusion into the interest of religion and the interest of people in their homes to be free from excessive noise is drawn. The 1st doesn't spell it out, we as a society have to apply some level judgement. However I think few people would agree I could set up concert level sound systems on my roof and damage the hearing of my neighbors with a Call to Prayer (or church bells) and be protected by the 1st. The rule may end up being relatively arbitrary number selected from a reasonable range, ie XX decibels is the max allowed...just like lead in water, etc. The standard will never be zero.

Agree or disagree this is reality.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Dabble in semantics all you want, but there just is no way to explain away the wording: "...shall not be infringed". That means what it says!

Should we allow prisoners to have firearms in their cells? "...shall not be infringed", after all, and I see no asterisk to state prisoners are excluded.

 

[Vigilant]

Should we allow prisoners to have firearms in their cells? "...shall not be infringed", after all, and I see no asterisk to state prisoners are excluded.

Sure, why not? They have their arms to bear, nothing saying you have to give them bullets! So now they have clubs, just as they have mop wringers, microwaves, and any number of other impromptu clubs!(purple heavily applied)

 

[gregr]

Should we allow prisoners to have firearms in their cells? "...shall not be infringed", after all, and I see no asterisk to state prisoners are excluded.

Credibility?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Credibility?

The ability to be trusted? Well, prisoners tend to have low credibility as a group. Would you care to answer the question?

 

[gregr]

The ability to be trusted? Well, prisoners tend to have low credibility as a group. Would you care to answer the question?

Understanding what the founders envisioned and intended when they wrote the Second Amendment, that it was meant for the safety and self-defense of the individual, but primarily for the defense of the states, it obviously did not include prisoners. It was meant for every able-bodied man, as George Mason stated: I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. And for those who are in favor of "reasonable, common-sense restrictions, Thomas Jefferson stated this: "All the terrible instruments of war are the Natural Birth Right of the American citizen"

I understand that because you favor certain restrictions on gun ownership you make a tongue-in-cheek comment, but, if you try to defend that position, there`s no credibility there. The Second Amendment states that there shall be no infringement upon gun ownership for law-abiding citizens, period.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Understanding what the founders envisioned and intended when they wrote the Second Amendment, that it was meant for the safety and self-defense of the individual, but primarily for the defense of the states, it obviously did not include prisoners. It was meant for every able-bodied man, as George Mason stated: I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. And for those who are in favor of "reasonable, common-sense restrictions, Thomas Jefferson stated this: "All the terrible instruments of war are the Natural Birth Right of the American citizen"

I understand that because you favor certain restrictions on gun ownership you make a tongue-in-cheek comment, but, if you try to defend that position, there`s no credibility there. The Second Amendment states that there shall be no infringement upon gun ownership for law-abiding citizens, period.

I'm missing "law abiding citizens" in the 2nd amendment. Can you show me where in the amendment you read it?

It's almost like you're making some infringement based on common sense and a sense of reasonableness, as well as context not simply listed in the text. Sort of, well, "interpreting" the Constitution instead of simply reading it and taking it literally and absolutely.

 

[cce1302]

I guess if you accept the premise that it is acceptable to give certain citizens the power to imprison other humans, then all the rest isn't really much of a stretch.

 

[gregr]

I'm missing "law abiding citizens" in the 2nd amendment. Can you show me where in the amendment you read it?

It's almost like you're making some infringement based on common sense and a sense of reasonableness, as well as context not simply listed in the text. Sort of, well, "interpreting" the Constitution instead of simply reading it and taking it literally and absolutely.

If you wanted, you could easily research the Federalist papers, and/or, any other number of writings by the Founders, and ascertain their intent, but that doesn`t suit the narrative you`re advancing. It`s clear the great men who founded this Republic were adamant that law-abiding citizens were in no way to be constricted by government as it pertains to firearms ownership. But you have the freedom to hold aggressively to your mistaken notions.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If you wanted, you could easily research the Federalist papers, and/or, any other number of writings by the Founders, and ascertain their intent, but that doesn`t suit the narrative you`re advancing. It`s clear the great men who founded this Republic were adamant that law-abiding citizens were in no way to be constricted by government as it pertains to firearms ownership. But you have the freedom to hold aggressively to your mistaken notions.

I've read them. Anti-federalist papers as well. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", etc. etc. The founders were not lock-step, either, regardless of "the narrative" either way. I realize they are canonized now, but they had their own feuds, arguments, and opinions. If you really want a return to "original intent", be prepared for a lot of unintended consequences, primarily upon restrictions of acts of the individual states that SCOTUS backdoored themselves into having authority over via the Incorporation Doctrine.

 

[rugertoter]

If someone wants you dead bad enough they will find a way to do it regardless.

I agree, but a moron Liberal does not. Their logic is based in an overwhelming fear, and their inability to overcome it. Idiots.

 

[GIJEW]

My view on the '2A vs reasonable restrictions' is that the people writing those restrictions have lost sight of the difference between regulation and prohibition. Under the slogan of "there oughtta be (another) a law", they've turned rights into priviledges that they decide whether or not to condescend to grant us. We've made a lot of progress in digging ourselves out of that hole but the concept that the burden of proof is on .gov to justify their restrictions, has been lost.

 

[gregr]

I've read them. Anti-federalist papers as well. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", etc. etc. The founders were not lock-step, either, regardless of "the narrative" either way. I realize they are canonized now, but they had their own feuds, arguments, and opinions. If you really want a return to "original intent", be prepared for a lot of unintended consequences, primarily upon restrictions of acts of the individual states that SCOTUS backdoored themselves into having authority over via the Incorporation Doctrine.

I do indeed expect that the Constitution be honored as the Founders intended it to be, that is, to preserve and allow the freedoms they meant. Our Republic has been perverted long and hard enough, beginning mostly with the "New Deal", but it`s egregious to say the least, and it`s partially responsible for the crumbling of the Republic.

By the way, I thought, going back to the earlier point of contention, with me reading so much into the Second Amendment, I`d leave you with this:

Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

 

[gregr]

My view on the '2A vs reasonable restrictions' is that the people writing those restrictions have lost sight of the difference between regulation and prohibition. Under the slogan of "there oughtta be (another) a law", they've turned rights into priviledges that they decide whether or not to condescend to grant us. We've made a lot of progress in digging ourselves out of that hole but the concept that the burden of proof is on .gov to justify their restrictions, has been lost.

True enough on rights having been turned into privileges granted by the state, but I`m still waiting for someone to have a compelling argument for how infringements on the Second Amendment fit with a right, that the Framers stated shall not be infringed...

 

[SSGSAD]

Dabble in semantics all you want, but there just is no way to explain away the wording: "...shall not be infringed". That means what it says!

NOT to a "LIBERAL" !!!!!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

I`ve already boycotted the great communist state of Illinois... It is despicable that they work so hard to limit their citizens God-given, and constitutionally recognized right to self-defense.

Help me square that circle. Original intent, per your Samuel Adams quote, limits Congress (which is the Federal Congress) with the 2nd amendment. It does not limit the states. The Illinois constitution does not mimic the wording of the 2nd amendment, and says something like "subject to police power" in their version.

Let's also look at the context of the quote. The anti-federalist were arguing that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. The Federalists were trying to assuage those fears by showing limits to federal authority, which would later be codified with the Bill of Rights. Remember the original argument is a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because nothing granted the central government the authority to do anything such a list would prohibit to begin with, and that a list could never be all inclusive. In short, it was "if the paper doesn't say you can, you can't", however that argument didn't hold and as a compromise the Bill of Rights was introduced.

The quote you pull is from the debates of if MA should ratify the Constitution. They were very hesitant to do so, and wanted that Bill of Rights. As such, they were making recommendations for changes, which would eventually lead to the "Massachusetts Compromise" and ratification. It's not really a quote, it's the minutes for the meeting of the committee for Feb 6, 1788.

And, as it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth & more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government, The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution...

Original intent cuts both ways, particularly if you want Heller, etc. to be binding on the individual states instead of just the Feds.

https://www.amazon.com/Proceedings-Convention-Commonwealth-Massachusetts-Constitution/dp/1331137306 or there's several e-book versions for free. See page 86 for the minutes for Feb 6.

 

[gregr]

Help me square that circle. Original intent, per your Samuel Adams quote, limits Congress (which is the Federal Congress) with the 2nd amendment. It does not limit the states. The Illinois constitution does not mimic the wording of the 2nd amendment, and says something like "subject to police power" in their version.

Let's also look at the context of the quote. The anti-federalist were arguing that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. The Federalists were trying to assuage those fears by showing limits to federal authority, which would later be codified with the Bill of Rights. Remember the original argument is a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because nothing granted the central government the authority to do anything such a list would prohibit to begin with, and that a list could never be all inclusive. In short, it was "if the paper doesn't say you can, you can't", however that argument didn't hold and as a compromise the Bill of Rights was introduced.

The quote you pull is from the debates of if MA should ratify the Constitution. They were very hesitant to do so, and wanted that Bill of Rights. As such, they were making recommendations for changes, which would eventually lead to the "Massachusetts Compromise" and ratification. It's not really a quote, it's the minutes for the meeting of the committee for Feb 6, 1788.



Original intent cuts both ways, particularly if you want Heller, etc. to be binding on the individual states instead of just the Feds.

https://www.amazon.com/Proceedings-Convention-Commonwealth-Massachusetts-Constitution/dp/1331137306 or there's several e-book versions for free. See page 86 for the minutes for Feb 6.

No reasonable person could ever come to the conclusion that the Framers would stand for either the Federal government, or, the states to trample on a right, that once again, they stated, shall not be infringed. There`s zero ambiguity here, except to someone with an agenda contrary to that statement by the Founders, making crystal clear their intent. You have not, because you can not, present a compelling argument for how infringements fall in line with a right that the men who acknowledged that right stated shall not be infringed.

 

[cce1302]

They live as they see fit. Who are we to judge them?

An attitude of moral superiority that results in legislation that keeps victims defenseless? That goes beyond "liv[ing] as they see fit."


And, yeah, I'm one to judge that regulating hardware doesn't effectively modify behavior. Anybody can see that violence is a heart condition, not an equipment problem.

 

[Denny347]

I guess if you accept the premise that it is acceptable to give certain citizens the power to imprison other humans, then all the rest isn't really much of a stretch.

Interesting.