Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment Myth (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Bearing Arms" meant to wage war. (4+ / 0-)

    Only problem with your idea is that you confuse "arms" with ordnance.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/...

    ordnance [ˈɔːdnəns]
    n
    1. (Military) cannon or artillery
    2. (Military) military supplies; munitions
    3. (Military) the. a department of an army or government dealing with military supplies

    And the red herring you present of "people convicted of violent crimes...." ignores the fact that anyone convicted means they have been stripped of their rights through due process so they could not "bear arms".

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:30:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Erm... I see no exceptions for due process in (0+ / 0-)

      2nd amendment, so you are, in fact, making an exception for due process.

      •  OKay, I'm not sure you understand what the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe wobblie, 43north

        constitution does, really.

        So, I'll explain:

        It does not limit the individual but DOES limit the actions & authority of our created government.

        So, the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment is used when someone, as you claimed was "convicted of a violent crime", they can be stripped of their rights, even their life.

        I'm really not sure what you mean by "making an exception for"? Unless in the convoluted posturing that due process can be anything the government decides it is. If this is the case, which you haven't made clear here then I'd say you're just trying to split proverbial hairs to justify your belief the the government can through administrative venues, strip us of anything they want.

        Nope, they were not granted that authority, they were granted authority to do so through a court of law when criminal charges have been brought by indictment of a grand jury where a person then has the right to a trial by their peers, meaning you and I, not some pissant paid public servant deciding what, where, when or how any of our unalienable rights can utilized.

        Perfect example would be "free speech zones" or asking the government for permission to protest against it, ie paying for a permit to have a protest or as has been suggested recently, charging the OWS protesters for the police presence the government decided, on their own, must be there.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:11:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am well aware it limits the power (0+ / 0-)

          of the government, but the 2nd amendment says the right to take up and bear arms shall not be infringed.  There's no exception for due process explicitly stated in the 2nd amendment, and nothing in the constitution explicitly contradicts that, to the extent of my knowledge (Which, I admit, isn't great).

          Therefore, any restrictions to the second amendment must be implicit in the constitution, and a mere limited reading of the second amendment itself clearly is insufficient to make any argument about what the second amendment does and does not allow the government to do.

          •  Wow, then maybe you should read the entire (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe wobblie

            thing? The 5th amendment does grant authority through "due process" in a court of law.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:49:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Erm... (0+ / 0-)

              "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

              Says nothing about abridging the second amendment.  If you're arguing that due process of law can deny someone the right to bear arms (Either through denying personal liberty, denying personal property, or denying the liberty of the right to bear arms), I'd just point out that any law that allows due process to do this pretty clearly violates the second amendment, as written.

              •  To be a little clearer, (0+ / 0-)

                if I say "I don't have the right to smack someone upside the head, ever."  And then I say "I might smack someone upside the head if his name is Joe Smith and he lives at 11 LLama Lane," the only way for both to actually be true is if I never smack someone upside the head.

                •  See BOLD (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, KVoimakas, theatre goon

                  "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

                  Your rights as a free citizen may be taken from you, in a manner conforming to the Constitution: due process of law.

                  Certain laws debar the use and possession of arms by persons under sentence, and at times for the remainder of their lives; unless restored by the courts, or by executive order.  We may disagree as to the cause for such laws (racism vs. perceived public safety), but the path to implementation must be on a case-by-case adjudication.
                  ie: Due Process.

                  A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

                  by 43north on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 08:36:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But if one's liberty is being deprived due to one (0+ / 0-)

                    bearing arms, or trying to do so, that still violates the 2nd amendment.  The second amendment has no due process exemption, so it seems to me any law depriving one of liberty for bearing arms, while in compliance with the 5th, clearly violates the second.

                    A law restricting the right to possess arms violates the words of the second amendment.  The 5th does not explicitly limit the scope of the 2nd.

                    More simply:  A law that allowed a court to silence someone to eternally be silent would (obviously) violate the first amendment, but laws that restrict the right of speech under certain circumstances have been deemed constitutional.  These situations are not made explicit in the constitution.  Therefore, any argument about what constitutionally the government can do relying solely on the words of the first amendment (And thus the second as well), that relies solely on the explicit words of that amendment, is clearly insufficient in scope of what it considers.

                    If an amendment says "X", but there are, through the current interpretations, exceptions to "X", then the argument "It says 'X', so 'X' is true," is not sufficient evidence that "X" is the law of the land.

              •  After reviewing your arguments, you've (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, joe wobblie

                explained to me a little better, I see a mistake you've made here.  

                Each sentence of the Constitution is not separate unto itself. The 4th Amendment would be violated every time taxes are withheld.  Did we not grant Congress such authority under Article 1 Section 8? They don't go to a court every week and sign an oath or affirmation to do so. Heck it could be claimed taxes are cruel and unusual punishment without due process.  Violating the 5th & 8th Amendments...

                Does this make any sense to you yet???

                As for laws or statutes outside of that document is a separate issue.  But the totality of the Constitution itself is pretty clear when viewed as a whole.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 10:28:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Also, if you're arguing that artillery (0+ / 0-)

      isn't included because it's nor a "firearm" or handheld, you could pretty easily imagine a handheld weapon using shells, rather than missiles, that have a chemical payload.  Not practical, perhaps, but feasible.

      I don't see anything in the second amendment that requires the only active payload in such an arm be lead and gunpowder (Which is, you know, ordinance, too).  If you're arguing ordinance isn't included, then the government could just make bullets illegal...which is rather silly.

      •  So, in your original posting that arms could be (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe wobblie, 43north

        anything, including a nuke or chemical or biological weapon...it's theoretically possible "arms" could mean that but then you'd be saying that anyone could destroy the entire planet under the 2nd Amendment.  I believe the biggest "weapon of mass destruction", at the time of the writing & adoption of the Bill of Rights was a cannon.

        But then so too were knives, sticks & stones, as well as, nunchucks, swords, bows & arrows, poison darts, slingshots, etc.  Here in NY, my State Gov't believes it was granted the authority to make the ownership & use of these "arms", illegal, okay not stones yet:

        http://ypdcrime.com/...

        Note the above link, they've defined what each of these things are, for example:

        "Chuka stick" means any device designed primarily as a weapon, consisting of two or more lengths of a rigid material joined together by a thong, rope or chain in such a manner as to allow free movement of a portion of the device while held in the hand and capable of being rotated in such a manner as to inflict serious injury upon a person by striking or choking. These devices are also known as nunchakus and centrifugal force sticks.

        And note here the current and soon to be crimes as of January 30th, 2012:

        S 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
          A  person  is  guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when:
          (1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart  gun,  electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal  knuckles,  chuka  stick,  sand  bag,  sandclub,  wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or
          (2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk,  razor,  stiletto, imitation  pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon with intent to use the same unlawfully against another; or
          (3) He or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle,  shotgun
        or  firearm  in  or  upon  a  building  or grounds, used for educational purposes, of any school, college  or  university,  except  the  forestry lands, wherever located, owned and maintained by the State University of New York college of environmental science and forestry, or upon a school bus  as  defined  in  section  one  hundred forty-two of the vehicle and traffic law, without  the  written  authorization  of  such  educational institution; or
          * (4)  He  possesses  a  rifle  or shotgun and has been convicted of a felony or serious offense; or
          * NB Effective until January 30, 2012
          * (4) He possesses a rifle, shotgun,  antique  firearm,  black  powder rifle, black powder shotgun, or any muzzle-loading firearm, and has been convicted of a felony or serious offense; or
          * NB Effective January 30, 2012
          (5)  He  possesses any dangerous or deadly weapon and is not a citizen of the United States; or
          (6) He is a person who has been certified not suitable  to  possess  a rifle  or  shotgun, as defined in subdivision sixteen of section 265.00,

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:47:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed...Such an interpretation is pretty (0+ / 0-)

          ludicrous, and is what I'd consider to be a literal interpretation of the law.  My only argument I ever made that was merely looking at the exact wording of the second amendment is not actually sufficient to argue that the exact wording of the amendment is actually the law of the land.  (And I went on to claim that even the wording of the entire constitution isn't, since some implicit assumptions have been made by court opinions).

          (Random side note:  I'm really on the fence about the right to bear arms.  I don't hold the Constitution sacred, so couldn't really care less what it says on this particular matter, though I find the ways laws are interpreted rather bizarre, at times...  Regardless, I'm more concerned about what would make for a safer/better society.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site