So you want to ban some guns but not others? Same difference. Sorry, but when you think a gun is evil because it's black you really don't have facts on your side.
You know, when you say that you want to ban guns (frequently with no stated limits on that ban) and others openly state that they want to ban every single gun, it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that there are people who want to ban all guns.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. — 2nd Amendment
Gee, that's funny, I seem to recall showing you what that word "infringed" means. Oh wait, I did!
(Yet more evidence that Mark's accusations of "Undeterred by facts, Unmoved by new information" are actually projection.)
An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb "infringe" was intended to be in the Founders' view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.
…
The Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
…
The Committee also added Madison's original Second Amendment restrictive language ("shall not be infringed") to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech - freedom of the press - the right of peaceable assembly - the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison's “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged”, were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”.
…
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. (Emphasis added)
The Law (Supreme Law of the Land) is clear. _A_N_Y_ gun ban is illegal. Period.
3 comments:
So you want to ban some guns but not others? Same difference. Sorry, but when you think a gun is evil because it's black you really don't have facts on your side.
You know, when you say that you want to ban guns (frequently with no stated limits on that ban) and others openly state that they want to ban every single gun, it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that there are people who want to ban all guns.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
— 2nd Amendment
Gee, that's funny, I seem to recall showing you what that word "infringed" means. Oh wait, I did!
(Yet more evidence that Mark's accusations of "Undeterred by facts, Unmoved by new information" are actually projection.)
Let's review, shall we?
The Meaning of 'Shall Not Be Infringed'
An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb "infringe" was intended to be in the Founders' view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.
…
The Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
…
The Committee also added Madison's original Second Amendment restrictive language ("shall not be infringed") to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech - freedom of the press - the right of peaceable assembly - the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison's “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged”, were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”.
…
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
(Emphasis added)
The Law (Supreme Law of the Land) is clear. _A_N_Y_ gun ban is illegal. Period.
Everyone knows that only some guns need to be banned.
For now.
Post a Comment