Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 13 2022 12:28pm)

Define: "shall not be infringed", be specific.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 13 2022 01:28pm)

Define: "shall not be infringed", be specific.

Quote (sirthom @ Jun 13 2022 01:36pm)

I will define the same way our founding fathers did.
With a period.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 13 2022 12:12pm)

that's not how it works. the constitution is vague in almost every single section. only in certain areas such as how ties are broken and such is it sufficiently specific.

from there we have a way to find out what is and isn't meant, the supreme court. the founding fathers knew they didnt know what they didnt know. so they created the supreme court to be the everlasting hivemind for constitutional meaning. a perpetual body of case law that would define what the constitution is and isn't.

gun laws have been struck down as unconstitutional and have been upheld as constitutional. but that mostly pertains to bans, such as the machine gun ban, 21 year old requirement for a hand gun, magazine size, etc.

when it comes to things like background checks, concealed carry permits, and other items in gun laws the supreme court has ruled time and time again that this is not a covered protection in the constitution.

you can disagree, and your opinion doesn't matter. what i stated above isn't an opinion, its how the law works. it may also be wrong, it may be right, but it is a fact.

Quote (Santara @ Jun 13 2022 03:43pm)

The caselaw is really inseparable from the document itself though. The ability to buy and sell firearms and ammunition is deeply entwined with the right to bear, because the right to bear is essentially rendered moot if people cannot procure the means to do so.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/does-the-second-amendment-protect-firearms-commerce/

Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 14 2022 07:31am)

right you buy & sell =/= unimpeded right to buy & sell

i'm not sure why so many people think impediments to a right are a violation of the underlying right. that's silly.

it's the issue anyone who is a fundamentalist and hard liner has. you just end up sounding like an unreasonable fool when you say literally any and all gun laws that make it one iota more difficult to buy or sell a firearm are a 2a violation. eventually when you're against commonsense things like background checks or machine gun bans you're too far off of the mainstream to be considered.

Quote (sirthom @ Jun 14 2022 07:41am)

That is because shall not be infringed is intentionally finite.
Leaving no room for manipulation or interpenetration.
Everything you suggest is an infringement.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 14 2022 08:30am)

that's not how the English language works.

"the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" could mean:

1. people should have unfettered access to guns with no government interference
2. people should always have the ability to own a gun legally even if it becomes an inconvenience to do so
3. anything inbetween

when you do analysis of the founding father's actual opinions, where they expounded vastly on the subject, you see their intent was clear. a populace with guns is a populace no tyrannical government can abuse.

in the context of the early 1700s we had certainly less than 1 musket per person in the US, at a guess i'd say maybe .25 guns per person. this is PLENTY to prevent a tyrannical govt, we beat the british with those guns. and here we are in 2022 with 100x more people, and more than 1 gun per person. still plenty of guns to prevent tyrannical govt, right? the govt isn't tyrannical at all are they Thom? :rofl:

feel free to reply blah blah blah and i'll wait for a user like santa with an iq over 60 to reply.