Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'

SPM said:
Per the Bill of Rights?

No, there is not.

Further, there's no moral authority to deny a Man the Right to protect his Life and Liberty, those of his family or his community.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The funny thing is that the exceptions prove the rule.

Was it legal for them to deny women and minorites those rights? Was it legal to have slavery? No. Not by the wording of the constitution and the bill of rights.

Government is corrupt and went along with those things to keep from rocking the boat at the time.

Not to mention most of the money that was being used to start this country came from people who either owned or profited from the slave trade.

Again, the fact that that hypocrisy existed through the government does not change nor negate the rule of law. If anything it shines a bright beacon onto why it must be defended at every turn.
 
molonlabe said:
Um the Holocaust was murder of citizens with zero legal backing. That's a poor analogy.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The taking of their guns first then their property was legally backed. The taking of their freedom was also legal.

The final solution had the full support of the German command and was a direct result of no one fighting when they took the first 3.
 
molonlabe said:
Um the Holocaust was murder of citizens with zero legal backing. That's a poor analogy.
Click to expand...

So... your argument is tens of millions of Germans acted outside of the law of the duly elected government of Nazi Germany?

All that lawlessness of government workers building camps, loading boxcars, pulling teeth, gassing people?

All that illegal activity under the supervision of a totalitarian regime?

Interesting perspective....
 
I think the real difference for most here is not 2aitself but the notion of infringement.
Clearly we are guaranteed the right to bear arms...but does the government have any real authority to license,restrict, or otherwise be involved in any legal aspect of owning or carrying..that is the question that creates differences.
 
Chdamn said:
Incorrect.

The taking of their guns first then their property was legally backed. The taking of their freedom was also legal.

The final solution had the full support of the German command and was a direct result of no one fighting when they took the first 3.[/QUOTE
You said it was legal. I agree the first 3 were but was there a law stating the government could kill at will?
Click to expand...
 

Once Germany went to war, martial law was declared. At that point the German high command, with hitler at the helm, became the only governing body for all intents and purposes.

So they legally disarmed them, legally took their property and then legally detained them in the camps.

When the final solution was given the nod by the German high command it was de facto legal.
 
molonlabe said:
I think the real difference for most here is not 2aitself but the notion of infringement.
Clearly we are guaranteed the right to bear arms...but does the government have any real authority to license,restrict, or otherwise be involved in any legal aspect of owning or carrying..that is the question that creates differences.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, and it's clear as day.

The Bill of Rights does not define or grant the Rights of the People.

It limits the power of the federal government with regards to Rights that predate the BoR, the Constitution, these United States.....indeed they predate all governments of men.
 
SPM said:
So... your argument is tens of millions of Germans acted outside of the law of the duly elected government of Nazi Germany?

All that lawlessness of government workers building camps, loading boxcars, pulling teeth, gassing people?

All that illegal activity under the supervision of a totalitarian regime?

Interesting perspective....
Click to expand...
Wow that is brilliantly awful.
That is not in any way what I said..the citizens that did go along with it did so because they were ordered or instructed to. And based on testimony after the war most citizens chose to not be aware of what was going on.
 
SPM said:
No, it doesn't, and it's clear as day.

The Bill of Rights does not define or grant the Rights of the People.

It limits the power of the federal government with regards to Rights that predate the BoR, the Constitution, these United States.....indeed they predate all governments of men.
Click to expand...
That was more or less my question. And by extension we could say the government cannot make laws to restrict sales to anyone including criminals or other high risk threats to the safety of others?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
molonlabe said:
I think the real difference for most here is not 2aitself but the notion of infringement.
Clearly we are guaranteed the right to bear arms...but does the government have any real authority to license,restrict, or otherwise be involved in any legal aspect of owning or carrying..that is the question that creates differences.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can help.

The definition of infringe is.

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach;More

  • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
    "his legal rights were being infringed"
    synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;
    undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise

    Now the second part is what really applies to this. So you say that requiring a license or a check of some kind and then to prevent certain citizen deemed unworthy for whatever reason from exercising that right isn’t limiting, restricting or impairing that right.


    Should that same infringement be allowed for say the 1st. You can only speak your mind if you seek a license first? That way we can ensure which people we wish to speak freely. Or the second part of the first that pertains to religion. You can only worship at churches that have been licensed and approved by the state?

    How about the fourth? You must obtain a license to be secure in your person and your property?
 
Chdamn said:
Let me see if I can help.

The definition of infringe is.

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach;More

  • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
    "his legal rights were being infringed"
    synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;
    undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise

    Now the second part is what really applies to this. So you say that requiring a license or a check of some kind and then to prevent certain citizen deemed unworthy for whatever reason from exercising that right isn’t limiting, restricting or impairing that right.


    Should that same infringement be allowed for say the 1st. You can only speak your mind if you seek a license first? That way we can ensure which people we wish to speak freely. Or the second part of the first that pertains to religion. You can only worship at churches that have been licensed and approved by the state?

    How about the fourth? You must obtain a license to be secure in your person and your property?
Click to expand...
No technically I have not made a single statement about what I believe...I was doing all this to see to what levels people believe this.

As I said earlier my goal is to understand...
 
gc70 said:
Quit trying to conflate two topics that are not dependent on each other.

The Founders obviously did not believe in the Divine Right of Kings. But the Founders just as clearly believed that governments could take away so-called unalienable rights through due process of law because they wrote it into the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the constitutions and laws of the original states.
Click to expand...

Where exactly?
 
molonlabe said:
No technically I have not made a single statement about what I believe...I was doing all this to see to what levels people believe this.

As I said earlier my goal is to understand...
Click to expand...

Ok. Then as you asked me earlier. Please explain your understanding of the 2nd amendment. No googling.
 
Last edited:
molonlabe said:
I have the right to bear arms. I do not need to Google as I have the supreme Court to interpret that for me.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear, you have no interpretation of the 2nd amendment. And whatever the supreme court (a group of partisan judges who have changed their interpretations over the years and who several have been quoted as saying that they have to consider the times and not just the words) says is what you’ll agree with?
 
molonlabe said:
I have the right to bear arms. I do not need to Google as I have the supreme Court to interpret that for me.
Click to expand...

By what Constitutional provision do 9 black clad unelected political appointees get to determine the scope of the Rights of the People and when the federal government may violate the limits imposed on it by the Bill of Rights?

Which clause of Article III grants them that authority?
 
Chdamn said:
Yes. And any and all laws that have already been passed that infringe upon that right are unconstitutional.

They were very specific in the way that it was worded although you have to know the meaning of the words at the time. Again correspondence from the time and the papers really help shed more light on the subject.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment was a marvel of clarity when it was written and adopted in 1791, clearly prohibiting any federal interference with the right to keep and bear arms. Then incorporation against the states under the 14th Amendment made the Second Amendment a rational abomination.

Today, any and all laws, federal or state, that infringe in any way upon the right to keep and bear arms are theoretically unconstitutional.
Prevent a convict from having a gun in prison - unconstitutional.
Stop a maniac from having a gun in an asylum - unconstitutional.
Disarm a person when they are arrested - unconstitutional.​
While I will be accused of giving ridiculous examples, "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment is not qualified any way, nor is it followed by "except ..."
 
Chdamn said:
So just to be clear, you have no interpretation of the 2nd amendment. And whatever the supreme court (a group of partisan judges who have changed their interpretations over the years and who several have been quoted as saying that they have to consider the times and not just the words) says is what you’ll agree with?[/QUOTE

Legally is that not the expectation of a citizen?
Click to expand...
 
molonlabe said:
No technically I have not made a single statement about what I believe...I was doing all this to see to what levels people believe this.

As I said earlier my goal is to understand...
Click to expand...

I see one and only one firearms related law as valid and passing constitutional muster...

Citizens separated from society and institutionalized shall not have the RTKBA while confined.

That's it.
 
gc70 said:
The Second Amendment was a marvel of clarity when it was written and adopted in 1791, clearly prohibiting any federal interference with the right to keep and bear arms. Then incorporation against the states under the 14th Amendment made the Second Amendment a rational abomination.

Today, any and all laws, federal or state, that infringe in any way upon the right to keep and bear arms are theoretically unconstitutional.
Prevent a convict from having a gun in prison - unconstitutional.
Stop a maniac from having a gun in an asylum - unconstitutional.
Disarm a person when they are arrested - unconstitutional.​
While I will be accused of giving ridiculous examples, "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment is not qualified any way, nor is it followed by "except ..."
Click to expand...

I’ll agree with all of your last sentence. Those are all ridiculous examples and they are not accurate.

Once someone is incarcerated they are being punished. Really all rights are removed for the term of the sentence. Just as we all have the right to life, once you have been tried convicted and sentenced to death you will....eventually.....die.

It is part of the due process of law. And, if not sentenced to death, once you debt has been paid then you are released a free man with all rights restored.

You don’t lose the rest of the 10 so why is the second different?
 
Chdamn said:
Where exactly?
Click to expand...
Post #99 - Bill of Rights, Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...
The Declaration of Independence declared that life and liberty were unalienable rights -rights that could not be taken away- but the Fifth Amendment says life and liberty can be taken away through due process of law.
 
Ok cool. To carry that would you be in favor of removing current laws that do restrict who can possess?

Not trying to pick a fight here..again I'm just trying to get your pov.
 
I’m having a hard time quoting you because of how you responses are showing up.

@molonlabe you answered my question with a question. This isn’t high school debate. Would you like to go back and answer my question.

You see you are playing the card if I just want to understand. Well at this point I’m trying to understand you. The only way to do that is for you to answer reasonable questions as we all have.

So just a troll stirring the pot or would you care to put some skin in the game.
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
Post #99 - Bill of Rights, Fifth Amendment

The Declaration of Independence declared that life and liberty were unalienable rights -rights that could not be taken away- but the Fifth Amendment says life and liberty can be taken away through due process of law.
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s kind of the point. Due process of law. And again, once your sentence is served your rights are restored.
 
molonlabe said:
No need to make it personal...those that know me know it isn't personal...I just like seeing what people truly believe versus what they say.
Click to expand...

And I have now asked you twice to do the same.
 
Chdamn said:
I’m having a hard time quoting huh because of how you responses are showing up.

@molonlabe you answered my question with a question. This isn’t high school debate. Would you like to go back and answer my question.

You see you are playing the card if I just want to understand. Well at this point I’m trying to understand you. The only way to do that is for you to answer reasonable questions as we all have.

So just a troll stirring the pot or would you care to put some skin in the game.
Click to expand...
Sorry man I'm using my phone and it us autocorrecting at times.

So I think I missed the question you referring to while I was replying in all honesty.

And regarding beliefs...clearly I do not have hard and fast beliefs about 2a to the depth of some here.

And by saying that I try to understand both sides and their concerns. What is just and what is legal on this matter will never completely align short of an amendment. Until that time I admit I am willing to play the game and consider giving up something to get something more valuable.

Hate on me if u like but in this respect I will state I think some restrictions are necessary. Not everyone is responsible enough to possess and or carry.
 
The constitution and the bill of rights is a legal document. It is a contract between the government and the states and the people.

As with any contract it lays out the rules that everyone agrees to play by. That is what the rule of law means.

As part of that rule of law, as with any contract, there are terms laid out for what happens when someone violates the rule of law.

That is what that section of the fifth amendment does. That’s all that it is. It does not negate the amendments it says if you violate the rule of law, after due process of that same law, trial and conviction, you will be deprived of some or all of those rights until your debt for violating this contract is paid.

And just like with all contracts, once the debt is paid then you’re back to enjoying the terms of the contract again.
 
Last edited:
molonlabe said:
Sorry man I'm using my phone and it us autocorrecting at times.

So I think I missed the question you referring to while I was replying in all honesty.

And regarding beliefs...clearly I do not have hard and fast beliefs about 2a to the depth of some here.

And by saying that I try to understand both sides and their concerns. What is just and what is legal on this matter will never completely align short of an amendment. Until that time I admit I am willing to play the game and consider giving up something to get something more valuable.

Hate on me if u like but in this respect I will state I think some restrictions are necessary. Not everyone is responsible enough to possess and or carry.
Click to expand...

I asked what your understanding of the second was to begin with which you side stepped by stating that the Supreme Court will interpret it for you.

Then I asked you about going along with the judges who are partisan and who long ago were quoted as saying that they have to take in the times and not the legal interpretation as it was written (which is not what they are tasked to do) and you side stepped that by proposing a counter question.

The rest of your statement above I believe is the most honest you’ve been. You see to have an honest discussion both sides have to be honest. You can’t have an honest conversation when one side is hiding what their understanding or beliefs are. It’s intellectually dishonest.

And the only thing I will say to your beliefs about restrictions is that i hope it never gets abused. All of history indicates that it will however.
 
Last edited:
Chdamn said:
I’ll agree with all of your last sentence. Those are all ridiculous examples and they are not accurate.

Once someone is incarcerated they are being punished. Really all rights are removed for the term of the sentence. Just as we all have the right to life, once you have been tried convicted and sentenced to death you will....eventually.....die.

It is part of the due process of law. And, if not sentenced to death, once you debt has been paid then you are released a free man with all rights restored.

You don’t lose the rest of the 10 so why is the second different?
Click to expand...

Time to choose - does the Second Amendment really mean what the exact words says about no infringement and without exceptions or is the application of the Second Amendment subject to due process of law?

If the Second Amendment really means no infringement or exceptions, all gun-related laws are unconstitutional (including those 'ridiculous' examples I gave).

If the application of the Second Amendment is subject to due process of law, what prevents any sort of gun control law from being legally adopted by the legislature and being subject to judicial review by the courts?

If the Second Amendment is not absolute, what falls in the "not infringed" category and what falls in the "due process" category?
 
Pres. and VP met with the NRA tonight. Would love to know what was said in that meeting.
 
gc70 said:
Time to choose - does the Second Amendment really mean what the exact words says about no infringement and without exceptions or is the application of the Second Amendment subject to due process of law?

If the Second Amendment really means no infringement or exceptions, all gun-related laws are unconstitutional (including those 'ridiculous' examples I gave).

If the application of the Second Amendment is subject to due process of law, what prevents any sort of gun control law from being legally adopted by the legislature and being subject to judicial review by the courts?

If the Second Amendment is not absolute, what falls in the "not infringed" category and what falls in the "due process" category?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment. Due process of law does not mean the removal of a right for eternity. It means the removal during the time frame of that process.

All of your rights are absolute as long as you are not in violation of the rule of law. If you are then punishment is administered and rights restored.

If a contract I am working under says that I will be assessed a penalty upon violation (say time table for instance) I can’t be fined in perpetuity, only while I am behind schedule. Once I am no longer behind I am no longer fined and get to draw money again.

Again, if your claim is accurate, that the government is enabled to remove rights for eternity, why are all but the second restored?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom