2nd Amendment was never intended to restrict state level gun control.

[DCal430]

People are talking about the intent of the 2nd amendment, but really when it comes to most gun control that isn’t important because one thing is very clear of the intent of the original authors, the 2nd amendment was designed to only apply to the federal government. The writers of the second amendment made no restrictions on the states when it came to gun control, and the courts have always held this to be true.
In McDonald v Chicago the Supreme Court struck down Chicago gun ban not on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment. So really what is relevant is what did the authors of the 14th amendment intend.
Do we know what rights the authors of the 14th amendment intended to protect; here is the part of the 14th amendment used to strike down Chicago’s gun ban:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Muse]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's just specifying the necessity for due process. It doesn't pronounce on the merit of a governmental action, it just hopes to help insure that the action is done lawfully. In fact it can be interpreted to mean that denying life, liberty or property can be justified if it's done in accordance with due process. Indeed, life is deprived by capital punishment, liberty by imprisonment (and formerly the draft) and property by any number of legally sanctioned governmental activities, the most ubiquitous being taxation.

 

[DCal430]

That's just specifying the necessity for due process. It doesn't pronounce on the merit of a governmental action, it just hopes to guarantee that the action is done lawfully.

That is the clause the supreme court uses to invalid school prayer, strike down bans on guns, strike down bans on abortion, require jury trials, so it does a lot more than you think.

 

[DCal430]

Truly funny how few know that it wasn't the 2nd amendment the court found the law violated but the 14th amendment.

 

[xj0hnx]

People are talking about the intent of the 2nd amendment, but really when it comes to most gun control that isn’t important because one thing is very clear of the intent of the original authors, the 2nd amendment was designed to only apply to the federal government. The writers of the second amendment made no restrictions on the states when it came to gun control, and the courts have always held this to be true.

It's scary how clueless and wrong you are. Please snip your sack so you can't reproduce. The bolded above is quite possibly the most stupid, and ignorant bullshit I have heard to date.

You do understand that the government, nor the Constitution gives us our rights, but instead the Constitution protects the rights we have, and tells the government what it can, and can not do that effects those rights ...right? Right.

 

[DCal430]

It's scary how clueless and wrong you are. Please snip your sack so you can't reproduce. The bolded above is quite possibly the most stupid, and ignorant bullshit I have heard to date.

You do understand that the government, nor the Constitution gives us our rights, but instead the Constitution protects the rights we have, and tells the government what it can, and can not do that effects those rights ...right? Right.

You are the one who is clueless and an idiot. Actually read about how and why the bill of rights were drafted. Please read why the 14th amendment was written. Even the courts say you are wrong and clueless. You just showed how dumb and clueless you are with this post.

 

[DCal430]

Your statement shows you are absolutely clueless over most of the biggest supreme court decisions in the last 100 years. Beyond clueless really. You say the courts have struck down gun control, but you are so dumb as to the reason they used. Just beyond dumb.

 

[xj0hnx]

You are the one who is clueless and an idiot. Actually read about how and why the bill of rights were drafted. Please read why the 14th amendment was written. Even the courts say you are wrong and clueless. You just showed how dumb and clueless you are with this post.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

You've got it backwards you ignorant buffoon. the Court said that because of the 14th that the states can not infringe on the 2nd.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 1 formally defines citizenship of the United States and protects individual civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state


It really is amazing you have survived this long. Per my request, please cut off your balls so you can't infect the gene pool any further.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That left a mark.

 

[DCal430]

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

You've got it backwards you ignorant buffoon. the Court said that because of the 14th that the states can not infringe on the 2nd.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 1 formally defines citizenship of the United States and protects individual civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state


It really is amazing you have survived this long. Per my request, please cut off your balls so you can't infect the gene pool any further.

OMG you are dumb as hell. The court said it was because of the 14th amendment that the states could not infringe on the 2nd. The intent of the 2nd of amendment authors though was clear it was only for the federal government. Please fucking think before you type. Amazing you can breath when you are so fucking dumb.

 

[DCal430]

The f-ing14th wouldn't be needed if the 2nd was intended to apply to the states it self. It wasn't intended to apply to the states at all originally. The authors of the 14th amendment were anti federalist. Please read a fucking history book you f-ing idiot.

People like you shouldn't even be allowed to breed, you are so dumb you might spread your dumbness.

 

[xj0hnx]

OMG you are fucking dumb as hell. The court said it was because of the 14th amendment that the states could not infringe on the 2nd. The intent of the 2nd of amendment authors though was clear it was only for the federal government. Please fucking think before you type. Amazing you can breath when you are so fucking dumb.

Do you have to have your mother type for you? Because you clearly can not read.

First off, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights NOT give the government, or the people their rights. They protect the rights that the PEOPLE'S naturally have, and tell the government what it can and can not do. In the case of the 2nd it says ...

..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not the right of the federal government.

Shall not be infringed by the fucking government you thick headed, mouth breathing oaf.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I love how everyone is a constitutional lawyer all of a sudden...

 

[Venix]

In McDonald v Chicago the Supreme Court struck down Chicago gun ban not on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment.

This is nonsense. The Supreme Court found that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment against the states. It then applied DC v. Heller--a 2nd Amendment decision--to strike down Chicago's gun ban.

Both amendments are intrinsic elements of the decision. Claiming that this isn't a 2nd Amendment case is as stupid as claiming that Brandenburg v. Ohio isn't a 1st Amendment case.

 

[xj0hnx]

The f-ing14th wouldn't be needed if the 2nd was intended to apply to the states it self. It wasn't intended to apply to the states at all originally. The authors of the 14th amendment were anti federalist. Please read a fucking history book you f-ing idiot.

People like you shouldn't even be allowed to breed, you are so dumb you might spread your dumbness.

You're the one that needs to pick up a history book, and learn why the 13th, 14th, and 15th were even added. I'll give you a hint, it has to do with black people, not the 2nd.

I have a hard time believing you were the fastest sperm.

 

[DCal430]

Do you have to have your mother type for you? Because you clearly can not read.

First off, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights NOT give the government, or the people their rights. They protect the rights that the PEOPLE'S naturally have, and tell the government what it can and can not do. In the case of the 2nd it says ...

..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not the right of the federal government.

Shall not be infringed by the fucking government you thick headed, mouth breathing oaf.

WRONG AGAIN. The bill of writes was written for the federal government. Why do you think the 1st amendment says "CONGRESS SHALL NOT" It refers to the federal government. They all followed from the 1st and all were in reference to the federal government.

My god you are just too dumb. You need to learn to fucking read. Dumb as hell. Please kill your self dumb ass.

 

[DCal430]

You're the one that needs to pick up a history book, and learn why the 13th, 14th, and 15th were even added. I'll give you a hint, it has to do with black people, not the 2nd.

I have a hard time believing you were the fastest sperm.

So dumb. the 14th was written because states were trampling on the rights of people idiot. It had everything to do with the bill of rights. Please read a fucking history book.

 

[DCal430]

This is nonsense. The Supreme Court found that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment against the states. It then applied DC v. Heller--a 2nd Amendment decision--to strike down Chicago's gun ban.

Both amendments are intrinsic elements of the decision. Claiming that this isn't a 2nd Amendment case is as stupid as claiming that Brandenburg v. Ohio isn't a 1st Amendment case.

The 2nd amendment is only a secondary indirect violation. The purpose of the 14th amendment is what is key. What rights did the authors of the 14th amendment intend to protect.

 

[DCal430]

No respected constitutional scholar even disputes the fact that the bill of rights was written to restrict the FEDERAL government and ONLY the FEDERAL government. The courts have always agreed with this fact.

 

[DCal430]

You know what you are on my ignore list, you are just too fucking dumb.

 

[xj0hnx]

WRONG AGAIN. The bill of writes was written for the federal government. Why do you think the 1st amendment says "CONGRESS SHALL NOT" It refers to the federal government. They all followed from the 1st and all were in reference to the federal government.

It's hard to believe you are this retarded. They were written to keep the federal government from infringing on the people's rights ...period.

So dumb. the 14th was written because states were trampling on the rights of people idiot. It had everything to do with the bill of rights. Please read a fucking history book.

No, it wasn't. I don't know why, but I am going to pretend that this might make it through your skull ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that had held that black people could not be citizens of the United States.[1]
Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Amendments

The Reconstruction amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution,[1] adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War.
The Amendments were important elements in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war. Their proponents saw them as transforming the United States from a country that was (in Abraham Lincoln's words) "half slave and half free" to one in which the constitutionally guaranteed "blessings of liberty" would be extended to the entire male populace, including the former slaves and their descendants.
The Thirteenth Amendment (both proposed and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery.[2] The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) included the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.[3] The Fifteenth Amendment, (proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870 under the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant) grants voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."[4] This amendment did not include women. It took another amendment—the Nineteenth, ratified in 1920— to grant women the right to vote.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States

You know what you are on my ignore list, you are just too fucking dumb.

You really need to put yourself on ignore.

 

[Venix]

It's hard to believe you are this retarded. They were written to keep the federal government from infringing on the people's rights ...period.

I don't think he disagrees with you. He just can't communicate effectively.

The Bill of Rights initially only protected rights from the federal government; states could and did censor the press, restrict free speech, establish state religions, etc. In the late 19th century, the Supreme Court began using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to force the states to follow parts of the Bill of Rights.

The OP's silly argument is that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant because it initially only restricted the federal government. It's contrary to modern Consitutional jurisprudence and really not worth serious discussion.

 

[DCal430]

I don't think he disagrees with you. He just can't communicate effectively.

The Bill of Rights initially only protected rights from the federal government; states could and did censor the press, restrict free speech, establish state religions, etc. In the late 19th century, the Supreme Court began using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to force the states to follow parts of the Bill of Rights.

The OP's silly argument is that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant because it initially only restricted the federal government. It's contrary to modern Consitutional jurisprudence and really not worth serious discussion.

Venix you need to actually read and think. I never said intent of the 2nd wasn't relevant. I am communicating just fine, John has repeated stated that authors of the 2nd amendment intended it to apply to the states too. If you could actually read you would see this. Really you need to learn to read.

If you actually bother to read what people write you would see john has repeatedly stated that this bold part is wrong.

 

[DCal430]

John and Venix all you have done is crap on my thread on what was the original intent of the 14th amendment, and what rights did the authors intend to protect.

 

[xj0hnx]

Venix you must be dumb too. I never said intent of the 2nd wasn't relevant. I am communicating just fine, John has repeated stated that authors of the 2nd amendment intended it to apply to the states too. If you could actually read you would see this. Really you need to learn to read and be less dumb.

If you actually bother to read what people write you would see john has repeatedly stated that this bold part is wrong.

Venix tries to help you out by translating your idiocy, and you call him dumb? You really are a pathetic example of human. And, I bet you can't quote me to back up your bolded statement.