[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
…The 2nd amendment doesn’t “allow” anything…
[/quote]
It displays a fundamental misunderstanding on his part. Even TB made the same mistake when he said the 2nd “entitles.” I called him out on that and he never responded.
There’s no way anyone’s ever gonna get it right when they don’t even comprehend the fundamentals. If you don’t understand it takes 4 downs to get a first down how are you going to understand what a punt is?[/quote]
No, you didn’t call anyone out in anything. The Second Amendment does entitle people to ownership of arms, generic meaning of the word “entitle”. Meaning, if it was repealed, you’d have no constitutional right to such arms should the government outlaw them.
[/quote]
Sorry, my friend, but like I said, a punt is incomprehensible if you don’t understand what four downs means.
You are dead wrong. Entitle means, “To give a right to.” The Constitution doesn’t give the right to keep and bear; it protects it. It protects a right given by God, a right that had been recognized to the colonies for a couple of centuries or so through English natural law.[/quote]
The Second Amendment can be repealed (just like every other amendment). If it is, and the government passes a law that says you can’t have a machine gun, and you get a machine gun and get caught violating the law, and your defense is “what about muh God-given right to muh machine gun??”, you’ll be laughed at, and you’ll need to start packing your bags to do hard time.
No, you don’t have an enforceable constitutional right to keep and bear arms if we repeal the Second Amendment. Thus, in such a scenario you wouldn’t be entitled to have one. As an example.
[/quote]
Nope, you’re still getting it wrong but it helps me understand your perspective on this matter. A wrong perspective – wrong fundamentals – will surely cause faulty reasoning down the line.
If the Second Amendment were repealed the fundamental right to self defense, and to overthrow tyranny, would not be lost. It would still remain an inalienable right and that is crystal, fucking clear by reading what any of the founders and framers had to say about the matter not to mention others who preceded them. If it were repealed the right would then fall under the Ninth Amendment; it wouldn’t just evaporate.
But no matter how you slice and dice your rotten melon, TB, “entitlement” is not part of the picture.
The Federalists, including Madison, did not even initially plan to include the Bill or Rights in the Constitution; they though it unnecessary because it was taken for granted that rights like “keeping and bearing” were inalienable and not to be granted or entitled by government. As you well know, the anti-Federalists clamored for a list of rights that were to explicitly and expressly be protected and thus the BoR was born and baptized.
[quote]
(Re: “fundamentals”: hilarious. I’ll be sure and start upping my Wilkipedia page and historical fiction written at the third grade level consumption to get my “fundamentals” up to to your “expert” level.)[/quote]
If you will hone your skimpy recollective capacity just a tad you may correctly recall that I questioned that YOU used Wiki to form your post. You. Not me.[/quote]
In no way did Madison take it for granted that the inalienable nature of these rights made it impossible for the gov’t to grant them. Madison initially opposed the Bill of Rights because he felt them to be superfluous. The Constitution was written with the clear intent to define and limit the scope of the federal gov’t. Since the power to violate the Rights listed in the Amendments was not expressly granted to the gov’t, and the sole extent of the federal govt’s powers are defined within the Constitution, there is no ability on the part of the federal gov’t to violate any of them. There is no need to codify all of the restrictions of the gov’t when the absence from its powers of an ability to violate them is sufficient.
Madison was initially more concerned that people would eventually take the first 8 Amendments to be the SOLE extent of the rights that the gov’t cannot violate, or perhaps the SOLE extent of the rights of the people. Hence, the 9th and 10th Amendments.