Why is the 2A written without exceptions?
Some of the discussion on this board might have touched on a vital characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." As you indicate here, it does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.
To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor around him.
Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.
Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.
So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?
Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.
The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.
So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?
I don't know.
It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.
But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHtest EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.
And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.
Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?
Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.
My own guess is, the Framers intended for the "Forgive and forget" principle to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.
And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.
I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.
Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.
To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor around him.
Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.
Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.
So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?
Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.
The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.
So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?
I don't know.
It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.
But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHtest EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.
And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.
Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?
Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.
My own guess is, the Framers intended for the "Forgive and forget" principle to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.
And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.
I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.
Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.
0
-
quote:Those here are already supporters of the RTKABA.
No, Jim...YOU ARE NOT.
You support governmental control of weapons..and the two are mutually EXCLUSIVE !!
MOST of the people on GB support gun control...and if we cannot educate THEM..what chance do we have with non-gun owners ?
You cry and whine about my abusive behavior...yet we have VERY erudite individuals on here that are perfectly capable of carrying on conversations in drawing rooms with their little pinkie stuck out.
THAT method struggles to gain a foothold against the raising tide of stupidity and ignorance in the gun world.
I prefer My method, thank you very much. Strong men cutting to the heart of the matter...and piss on the cowards that flee at the first tone of a raised voice.
What do you suppose will happen when first shot is fired to those pezants, Jim...just what you think will happen among those of us with strong arguments.
And, Jim...I love it when the enemy underestimates the strength and resilience of an adversary....I really do.0 -
HB,
Obama and you are alot alike.
You both have the gift of gab, very little else. But you both sure have a way with words. But actions speak louder than words. But I guess that don't matter as long as the ones who beleive as do give you alot of applause![:D]0 -
And you, Jim are a lot like mccain;
Both leave loops in the sand behind you as you move thru life...and the smell of snake is strong.
Unlike you and mccain, I don't pretend to be what I am not.Tell me again, J.M., how you enjoy crawling on your belly begging Daddy to buy a gun.
I always enjoy listening to strong, tough men explain how they filled out the paperwork and 'by god bought that gun and took 'er home with them'....dusting off their belly as they did so.
[xx(][xx(]0 -
No, you HB, and many others are the pretenders. You hide behind funny names on the internet, will not say where you are, then spout off and then run and hide again. You may fool some of the folks just like you, but I can spot an 'internet hero/wnatabe', and you are one of them. This is why I ask Jeff (whom is one of the few here I have respect for) to verify (For his own use) that I was not one of those people 'hiding' in the computer like you and your other friends with there cute little names and lotaced 'where', they won't say because they are afraid like you.
You must enjoy hiding from reality.
Fight, you don't have a clue about the fight. [|)][|)]0 -
Tell me again, J.R., how you enjoy crawling on your belly begging daddy for permission to buy the means to defend you and your loved ones;
Tell me again how "Shall Not Be Infringed" has no bearing on that.
What you think about me means zero.
What you think about the Second Amendment is the important thing, here....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I almost believe that TrFox is back...and feeding you.
These are precisely the same arguments he uses ...and they are just as wrong now as they were several years ago when we had exactly the same discussions.
I firmly believe that gun control is a mental illness. The symptoms are exactly the same, from one gun controller to another.
I had expected, by the intelligence of some of your posts, that reason would eventually carry the day for you.
It is readily apparent that it not to be so.
It just proves something I have known for many years...intelligence alone is not enough. There must be something additional inside a man..or else we would not see so many anti-gun otherwise smart men.
The problem,of course....some vital ingredient that made up the Founders is missing in these people.
No, tr fox is not "back" as I don't wish to hang out with a band of keyboard kommandos who are always preaching revolution from the safety of their keyboard. I at least, even if I am backing the wrong horse, am out there sacrificing at least a little of my time, money and effort to at least try and DO SOMETHING to help save our gun rights.
But to respond to this thread, since my name was mentioned. If anyone can name me even one of the rights described in the bill of rights that is ABSOLUTE, then you win this argument.
As long as there are two or more people on the planet, neither one can have ABSOLUTE rights without violating the rights of the other people.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I almost believe that TrFox is back...and feeding you.
These are precisely the same arguments he uses ...and they are just as wrong now as they were several years ago when we had exactly the same discussions.
I firmly believe that gun control is a mental illness. The symptoms are exactly the same, from one gun controller to another.
I had expected, by the intelligence of some of your posts, that reason would eventually carry the day for you.
It is readily apparent that it not to be so.
It just proves something I have known for many years...intelligence alone is not enough. There must be something additional inside a man..or else we would not see so many anti-gun otherwise smart men.
The problem,of course....some vital ingredient that made up the Founders is missing in these people.
No, tr fox is not "back" as I don't wish to hang out with a band of keyboard kommandos who are always preaching revolution from the safety of their keyboard. I at least, even if I am backing the wrong horse, am out there sacrificing at least a little of my time, money and effort to at least try and DO SOMETHING to help save our gun rights.
But to respond to this thread, since my name was mentioned. If anyone can name me even one of the rights described in the bill of rights that is ABSOLUTE, then you win this argument.
As long as there are two or more people on the planet, neither one can have ABSOLUTE rights without violating the rights of the other people.
Good Lord!
One small point, if I may.
Reference keeping and bearing arms, unless their is a MISUSE, or BAD ACT committed with said arm, there is no issue.
The keeping and bearing needs no restriction.
"Shall not be infringed". That seem about as absolute as anything could possibly be.
Go read the remainder of the BOR's. You will see that Amendment II is deliberately written in the 'absolute'. Other amendments have a process outlined, by which government can intrude for cause.
There is a reason for that. Think about it.
Tr, your argument, as usual, is flawed and hollow.
One final point. You keep tossing out that people are "preaching revolution", when all I see is a debate over philosophy and ideas.
Misdirection and diversion at work ladies and gentlemen. Of course, it DOES give a certain poster the 'cover' he needs to keep his head down in this argument.
Go figure....0 -
originally posted by trfox:
If anyone can name me even one of the rights described in the bill of rights that is ABSOLUTE, then you win this argument.
Amendment II
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.
Tr,
Ask and ye shall receive. Please tell me what I have won. Thanks.[:D]0 -
Dammit Captain, you beat me to it!!![:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Dammit Captain, you beat me to it!!![:D]
[:D][:D][:D]You know what they say ws. Only the quick survive.[:o)][:D]
Such a target rich environment when ol' tr darts in for a hit and run "commentary".0 -
DO I hear a 'thank you' for baiting the trap ???
Golly, that was fun...and I never had to rebut at all..[:D]
The swift brown fox ain't swift enough any more to keep his tail intact...
This observing of incoming fire right on a tattered brown coat is plumb addi[:0]ctive !!!0 -
Thank you, HB, for placing the bait. Brilliant move.[:D]
Captain,
You must have a full-auto keyboard. Did you go through the proper channels to get it? Paperwork? Tax? You know we have restrictions in this civilized society to save us from ourselves.[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Thank you, HB, for placing the bait. Brilliant move.[:D]
Captain,
You must have a full-auto keyboard. Did you go through the proper channels to get it? Paperwork? Tax? You know we have restrictions in this civilized society to save us from ourselves.[:D]
A hearty thanks to you also Highball. A trap baited, waited on, sprung and an ol' fox hung, dried and stretched. One fox hide, nailed to the barn door.[:D][:D]
Shane, Sometimes I just open a thread and there it is, perfect opportunity. The thoughts flow into written words as smooth as a young lass' bottom and, well, what can I say; damn it, I just enjoy a good, effective riposte.[:D][:o)]
A good evening to you both, my good forum friends.[;)]0 -
A good evening to you both, my good forum friends.[;)]
and a good one to you sir, and to you HB, "the mad trapper"[;)][:D]0 -
Perfect, and/or absolute are only found in the minds of man. They do not occur anywhere, any time in the real world! [V]
Just another fact those of you who are in denial refuse to admit!
I guess one of the reasons I am still at it here is becasue I HATE bullies![;)]0 -
quote: guess one of the reasons I am still at it here is becasue I HATE bullies!
So tell me, J.R.;
What do you call the Founders, then ?
Honestly, J.R.. This is yet another example of your persistence in kicking up dust and screaming, attempting to throw your opponents into a bad light.
You see, even a LITTLE thought would reveal that those of us advocating "Shall Not Be Infringed" are inclined to be gentlemen...unlikely to bully ANYBODY. One just would never KNOW when being an ass could get you shot.
Now...you mean that we are insisting on the letter of the Constitution...the LAW of the Land, by the way...well..one should think that EVERY American should also insist upon that.
Now.if you TRULY `hated bullys'..you would be directing your wrath towards the Congress and President...for THEY are the people contravening the Constitution....and sending out their `bully boys' to KILL anybody resisting anti-Constitutional laws.
See, Jim...you just have trouble with words...and facts.0 -
HB,
If you think the 'founders' were perfect you really have lost touch with reality. They were human just like the rest of us. The only perfect person to walk on earth was crusified!!![V]
I wish you would contribute to the discussion rather than rant and make insulting and/or demeaning remarks about those who don't see eye to eye with you.[8D]
But I guess you get more attention doing it your way and we know you have to have that attention, don't we?????0 -
Jim,
It's not about drawing attention to himself. I answered this for you over in GD, but you must have missed it. Here's the analogy again; maybe you will understand:
HB has simply stated the truth regarding the RTKBA and the stances some folks take against it, i.e. being "for" some control. Let me see if I can give you an analogy to help you understand where he's coming from:
Imagine, if you will, a house. There are lots of folks living in this house, about 34 of them. It's a good house, plenty of room, and everyone really enjoys living there. Over time, the house starts showing it's age, because the routine maintenance required to keep it in good order has been ignored by everyone living there, save one, or about 3%. While this one invidual (or 3% of the persons living there) has done what he can to repair the house, more needs to be done to keep it standing. This one individual tells the others living there, "Hey, we've gotta fix this place, or it's going to collapse!" He tells the others this day after day, week after week, but they do not listen. They are content with a little disrepair, believing the house is sound enough to stand. More time goes by, and the house starts to crumble. The one person in the house who has tried to fix it once again tries to rally the others to help repair it, but his pleas go unanswered. This becomes very frustrating......
Jim, I could go on and on, but do you see what I'm getting at? Eventually, the house will collapse, and those who accepted the dilapidation here and there will be standing around, scratching their heads and saying, "Wonder how that happened?" Then, it will be too late to repair the house. It will be demolished, and only through the hard efforts of a few will it be rebuilt.0 -
WS,
Let us assume your assment of HB is correct. Why then does he continue to rant and insult and not contribue to the discussion? I'll tell you why, he thrives on ours and others praise and attention. Nothing more, nothing less.
He is doing nothing to further your viewes. I heard him the first time.
You and Jeff continue to discuss what you feel is 'right' and I contiune to agree with you in that I would like to see the constitutions much more strickly held to. Where we differ is in the means need to accomplish this.
That said, please answer the question I ask earlier, PLEASE, with suger on it.[;)]0 -
Jim,
Which question. You have asked many. Specify, and I will give you an answer.
You and Jeff continue to discuss what you feel is 'right'
Jim,
It's not about what we 'feel'; it's about what 'is'. What 'is', is the unrestricted/unregulated absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's it. That's all there is.0 -
ws,
I apoligize. We have so many threads going I am loosing track of them.[:X]
I ask you if you would like to see all the states follow the lead of Alaska and reconize the right to CCW, on one of the other threads.
This is the question I would like a simple answer to.[:)]0 -
Sure. And I would also like to see them recognize the rest of the unrestricted/unregulated RTKBA. 0 -
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice. [;)]
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.[xx(]0 -
Jim;
Let us get back to the basics;
Which form of gun control do you support ?0 -
WS,
Do you now see where I am comming from? Did HB reply add anything to your argument? Insults and personal attacks, for some unk reason, seem to casue people the move to the other side.
Jim,
You earned it.
You see Jim, while only 35 and not as seasoned as some, I can clearly see the tactic you are employing; divide and conquer.
However, it has failed, and failed miserably.
The man you speak of is a patriot in every sense of the word. I have read time and time again where he has attempted to warn the sheepish masses. Some listen, and some do not. Some are too apathetic to care.
I have no doubt why you harbor the feelings you do. You see, Jim, there are those who have the stomach to handle the truth, and exactly what that truth means. Others become weak and nauseated at the mere mention of the truth.
Those men who have the same yearning for liberty and freedom as the Founders know exactly where HB is coming from.
I stand with him.0 -
WS,
Boy do you have it 'bass akward' as my mom would say. This is exactly what you and those with the 'everything or nothing' stance are doing.[:(]
Any one, reguardless of how much they beleive in and support the 2nd Ammentment, who do not agree compleatly with you and yours come under attack from your little click here. Me included. Well as you can see I don't intimade as easaly as those who have chossen to just ignore your stance after you have attacked them. By attacking them and makeing those negative statements about them and the organizations or people they support, you lose creditability, and it has a dividing effect on 'gun people', who all, to one degree or another do not support the anti-gun agenda.[:(]
If you refuse to see this you are truly blinded by your emotion for your cause.[xx(]0 -
quote:If you refuse to see this you are truly blinded by your emotion for your cause.
Jim, sadly, you can apply your own statement to your own arguments. Blinded..........I'd say so.
Let's argue for the audience, but please quit trying to change the mind of the one we argue with. You position and mine are cemented and not movable.
Frame the argument for the audience, it is less aggravating that way and you won't feel that it is a personal attack when a point of disagreement is raised.
Just a thought.0 -
originally posted by Jim Rau:
WS,
Boy do you have it 'bass akward' as my mom would say. This is exactly what you and those with the 'everything or nothing' stance are doing.
Any one, reguardless of how much they beleive in and support the 2nd Ammentment, who do not agree compleatly with you and yours come under attack from your little click here. Me included.
You support the RTKBA or you don't. Period. There is no middle ground, and no room for those lacking spines who would like to straddle the issue.
Well as you can see I don't intimade as easaly as those who have chossen to just ignore your stance after you have attacked them.
Do you think it may be the message that intimidates (or indicts), and not the messenger?
By attacking them and makeing those negative statements about them and the organizations or people they support has a dividing effect on 'gun people',
No Jim, you have it "bass ackward." It is the truth that divides. On one side, there are those who believe in no restriction of a right. On the other side, there are those who believe in restriction/regulation, be it minimal or an all out prohibition. There is a distinct line in between. I have chosen my side, as have you, and we are facing each other.
who all, to one degree or another do not support the anti-gun agenda.
Once again, Jim, you either support the RTKBA or you do not.
If you refuse to see this you are truly blinded by your emotion for your cause.
It's not emotion; it's passion and a love for individual liberty.0 -
Wrong Jeff, there in lies the differance. I have learned to adapt ( not cemented) and continue the fight, your stance does not allow you to adapt (cemented).[;)]
Adaptation is the key to survival![xx(]
I have been VERY close to death several times, but I adapted and was here to fight another day. I learned a valuable lesson from life. I hope you and others see this before it's to late for you.
If your position is the one needed to win the fight, GOD forbid, I will stand right beside you locked and loaded![:)]0 -
quote:Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1315 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 4:40:00 PM
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice.
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.
"......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well...I am so glad you were there at the Constitutional Convention to get that changed.
It is the low-road'ers who are giving it away piecemeal. We will not lose it for you, we are the ones standing to oppose you losing ("compromising" it away) for the rest of us. How can you not see it? Compromise means "to meet in the middle". Now, when we give ground (call it compromise) please show where the opposing side gives ground. They call it a compromise when they don't confiscate?? That is the position they start from.(Everytime) Funny how we are the ones with the Constitution backing us, and we give ground. They have nothing backing them except "feeling", and we cow to them??? I don't get it.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
90 comments