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:Originally posted by Jim Rau
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![:)]
Well, at least you admit, your values sway with the wind.
NOT everyone has the fortitude to have a moral compass.
Your a patriot all right. SUNSHINE patriot.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
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.
JP, I have said this MANY times myself. I don't get it either. WHAT EXACTLY are the anti-gunner giving up? NOTHING I can see.
By the by, how are things lately? Hope all is relatively well.0 -
My values don't wavier, but my methods do adapt![;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
My values don't wavier, but my methods do adapt![;)]
Lips still sewed in the middle?
All I hear is YOU talking out of BOTH sides of your mouth again.0 -
Can you adapt to answering the questions I put to you? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Can you adapt to answering the questions I put to you?
Off topic,......but nice to see you back JP![:D][;)]
Get some extra strength Ibuprofin before you enter into this.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
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![:)]
Advocacy of fundamental rights and freedoms is far different than 'life and death' on the battlefield, or on the streets Jim.
I too have learned and lived to tell about it.
My stance on an issue could change, IF logic and appropriateness dictated such change, or adaptability.
Where it comes to the principals of individualism and the Constitution, I have no need to adapt. The truth and what is right NEVER changes.
Adapting to hazardous circumstances simply can not be logically equated to the issue of ones beliefs about fundamental questions of freedom and the proper role and authority of government.
I'll be looking for you if and when that dreaded day ever arrives and I expect that at that point, you'll have come to realize the truth of the 'bottom-line' and will be where you should be, shoulder to shoulder with those of us who have been there all along.0 -
I fully expect this argument to rage after we regain freedom in this country...and there may well be people shot over it, as tempers flare in meeting halls.
The question always before us; How much controls should a government ..City, State, Federal..have on weapons.
I believe that the answer is, of course, NONE...but rather involves the upgrading of the Justice System.
Vicious animals MUST be thinned out ..and that by execution. Those misusing weapons MUST be forced to pay at a level in direct proportion to their crime ..from death to rock piles for however many years.
This presupposes that Judges, Lawyers, and Police are honest...and the penalty for corruption should be death.
Given an effective, honest Justice System, one can give the Police the authority to handle problems as they should be...and sometimes that is with a Billie club behind the local barn. Sometimes people must be convinced to stop bothering other folks ..and prison is not always the answer needed.
There will be areas to fill in...but the broad brush strokes above are MY answer to the loses of freedom we are experiencing...for a government that fears an armed citizenry is an HONEST government.
Were I to live through the hard times...those are the actions I would be demanding, down at the town hall....and I would be armed with a .45 and a FAL as I did so.0 -
I am sorry Wolf, your question must have gotten lost in the rant, what was it?[?]
Jeff,
My values and goals haven't changed, but my methods of acheiving them have!0 -
HB,
Amen brother![:)]0 -
quote:HB,
Amen brother
I am asking politely, here... Is that sarcasm ?0 -
No, if it comes down to the need to start shooten, I am there. But I will remain firm in my values and goals, but flexable in my methods of acheiving them.[;)]
This is where we differ.
But you can't seem to grasp this!!![V]0 -
quote:But you can't seem to grasp this
What I cannot 'grasp' is your embracing of this or that gun control..while supposedly fighting against gun control.
Once again..it is possible to live in the enemies camp and work from within; But adopting the enemies position for your personal beliefs is a trainwreck.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:But you can't seem to grasp this
What I cannot 'grasp' is your embracing of this or that gun control..while supposedly fighting against gun control.
Once again..it is possible to live in the enemies camp and work from within; But adopting the enemies position for your personal beliefs is a trainwreck.
But in reality Highball, folks like him want to be accepted by the masses. For his type IMO, it isn't really about rights, it is about self gratifaction. "Look at me! I am DOING something for gun rights! WHAT are you doing!?"
We hear the SAME thing from TR, only packaged a bit different. [xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice. [;)]
Many times I have used the state of Alaska (and Vermont) as an example.
Alaska FINALLY recognized the RIGHT of the people to BEAR ARMS.
Yes, the first law passed gave the citizens "government regulated" PERMISSION, to bear arms.
That in itself would have been the end of it, IF left up to the "we have to have (some) restrictions" crowd.
As proven in other parts of the country.
What happened NEXT, is where the hard core "CONSTITUTIONAL" group, came into play.
They said NO, your "government regulated" PERMISSION, is NOT good enough.
We citizens, want you (the government) to recognize our RIGHT to bear arms.
WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION!
Does ANYONE REALLY think that without the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group, Alaska would have passed a law, recognizing this right, guaranteed by the constitution?
The FACT that Alaska DID pass such a law, in this day and age, BECAUSE the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group kept fighting for it, tells me that it CAN happen elsewhere. IF the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group is willing to band together, stand strong in their beliefs, and fight for it.0 -
quote:Jim Rau Posted - 09/01/2008 : 7:13:05 PM
I am sorry Wolf, your question must have gotten lost in the rant, what was it?
Once more.................................
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, as if that is what the Constitution says. 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.
quote:Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1334 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 3:23:55 PM
ws,
I apoligize. We have so many threads going I am loosing track of them.
I ask you if you would like to see all the states follow the lead of Alaska and reconize the right to CCW.....
You see JR, CCW is already guaranteed in the BOR #2,(in red above) and there should not even be a battle to have a state "recognize" it, it is a given because of the BOR. But allowing it to be specialized (controlled) turns it into a privilege, so what's to be proud of? Again give ground by allowing it to be controlled when the Constitution already backed you up saying you could do it as a right. What did we get in return. NOTHING, because they have nothing to give...they are on the wrong side with no political capital because none exists for them. It is is a total illusion. A little at a time is all they want because since they have nothing to offer but the illusion that they have something to trade, they can't make a big move or it would become more obvious that they have nothing to trade in this so-called compromise. To them (and the NRA), compromise is "we will infringe on you less, and ignore the constitution less, if you agree to give up some of your freedom and turn it into a privilege." Sound like a good trade to you Jim? Do you see that they start from the flawed position of nothing "real" to trade? The Constitution backs us fully, and them none. You see?0 -
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.0 -
originally posted by trfox:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocklobster
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.
Um, trfox;
Originally posted by tr fox on 04/06/2008
It will be a cold day in hell before you see me reading or posting on the gun rights forum part of GB.com.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Little-Acorn
Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers,
Actually, James Madison wrote it, and he WAS NOT a lawyer.0 -
Does it surprise anyone occasionally that an american citizen would regard those supporting the Constitution as 'rebels' ?
Precisely what the British called them, lo these many years ago.
We may as well understand that we damn well better adopt the mindset of the Founders.
They recognized the British as enemies of freedom.
The line grows clearer every day..that bright line separating freedom and slavery.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocklobster
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.
Um, trfox;
Originally posted by tr fox on 04/06/2008
It will be a cold day in hell before you see me reading or posting on the gun rights forum part of GB.com.
Well, yeah, but you guys need a babysitter.......no one else would take the job.........GB.com upped their salary offer for taking it.....so.......0 -
Hi all,
1st- Alaska does have restrictions on CCW. Read the law. All the previouse restrictions still apply, except for the need to have a permit.
2nd- Wolf, I am trying to find the 'question' here! If I am understanding you want to know how the other side has compermised, corret? Well if you would look at what has occured in recent years we, gun folks, have been able to 'push' back at the anit's in both legistaltive and legal areas. They have been forced to 'compermise' their positions drasticly. MAKE NO MISTAKE, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE! If you look at all the federal, state and local 'gun' laws on the books which are DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS you will see what I mean. I guess you could say everytime we get one of those laws repealed or ammended in our favor, they are are forced to 'compermise' their position. But setting here behind the puter on your a$$ bitching about the WAY IT SHOULD BE does not make it so!![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.
It would be more like a proper probable-cause search and seizure, wouldn't it?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.
It would be more like a proper probable-cause search and seizure, wouldn't it?
Focus on the words "...right to firearms ownership should be suspended.." Meaning not just the gun(s) perhaps used during the crime, but all his guns. Such action would require a "law" spelling this sensible action out. To many here that would be a "gun control" law and they claim that because of the 2A, absoutely no laws are allowed that control gun ownership. If you doubt me, post an open question and ask them just what kind of MIMIUMAL gun control laws would they support.
You will probably get a resounding "Absoutely no gun laws whatsoever!." If that works for you, fine. It doesn't work for me.0 -
quote:They have been forced to 'compermise' their positions drasticly
They have NO POSITION to start with.
Nevermind.
Hey, could you just compromise a little faster? Maybe folks would take notice.0 -
Wolf,
They are wrong in their 'position' and their 'position' has no legal standing, but they obvously have a 'position', which is opposite of ours. Sad thing is, if you look at all the anti-gun laws on the books today, their 'position' is ahead of ours!!![:(]
As I said earlier, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE![V]
And all this 'infighting' we are engaged in here and else where just helps their 'position'!!!![:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Wolf,
They are wrong in their 'position' and their 'position' has not legal standing, but they obvously have a 'position', which is opposite of ours. Sad thing is, if you look at all the anti-gun laws on the books today, their 'position' is ahead of ours!!![:(]
As I said earlier, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE![V]
And all this 'infighting' we are engaged in here and else where just helps their 'position'!!!![:(!]
Jim I don't think you absorbed a WORD that JP said.
The anti's don't have ANY ammunition to bring a fight. Limp wristed pansies (girly men) GAVE away rights (comprimise) because the anti's said so.
They have NO standing, other than the total lack of spine on the gun owners part, to tell them to F.O.
The only reason there is a battle, is because people won't STAND up and stop them.0 -
Ok, freemind get's it so I will no longer doubt my ability to convey my thoughts. thanks fm. 0 -
People locked in the mindset of;
"Government must control weapons, or the streets will run red with blood" are unable to reason logically. They operate on emotions ..and only emotional appeals will resonate with them. Just because one owns a gun///or 1000 guns ..means little when a man thinks this way.
The brutal truth ..the Second Amendment is all about controlling rapacious government, wielded by decent citizens, is quite beyond them..so the fact they are perfectly comfortable with government control is no surprise.
Not even in their wildest dream is there a chance for aroused citizens to actually win a war for independence ..they feel helpless in front of the juggernaut. You read it on these forums quite often..."No chance-no chance-no chance-...
When you think that way.there is absolutely no choice save humbly accept what few crumbs fall off the masters table. Oh, it is perfectly acceptable to beg a little.but ONLY as proscribed by that Master.
One never raises his voice, one is ALWAYS polite, with suitable embellishments .."Normally Sir, I agree with your policies, but Sir," ..ect.
NEVER."You piece of dog snit ..where the hell did you get the notion that we would allow you to turn your back on the Constitution" ???
Furthermore, these folks often feel that they would be unable to handle an incident, were ordinary people not vetted by government carrying.
Fear plays an important role, when the bad guy whips out a piece and demands that you go to the back room and lie down.
Most folks just....go.
What probably shocks me the most ..we have a couple guys on here that profess to be `in the arena ',,fighting the good fight down to City Hall .."Fighting for our gun Rights"...These guys are our most vocal critics. Instead of understanding that the hard core of gun owners is an important asset ..they attack us like rabid dogs. Without that core ..there would have been no guns left long ago .."Constitution be Damned", as one of them submitted awhile ago.
Then again...thinking it over ..the contrast between what they are doing, and what the Founders intended is stark ..so no surprise that they would turn on what casts them into such a bad light.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
90 comments