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

[noway2]

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?

They don’t. It was a mistake by our forefathers to not deal with them when the initial infringement was made. It is a mistake, along with many others, that we will have to decide if we are willing to fix, knowing that doing so will carry a terrible price.

 

[molonlabe]

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.

You say I sidestepped your question and to a point you are correct...because I admit I have not studied it enough on my own to have a hard and fast opinion. That is my only point of contention to your statements about an open and honest discussion..you presumed I was being antagonistic or a "troll" rather than thinking that maybe I wanted to learn something about a subject I have not researched on my own.

I do agree with you that the 2nd is left out of the restoration of rights as you put it earlier....interesting idea I have also not researched much. I admit you have done your homework on this and you are consistent in your belief about restoration of rights as we discussed in the Michael Vick thread a few months back.

So as the wording of the 2nd amendment goes I see your point that any type of regulation is unconstitutional which essentially sets up weapons ownership as an untouchable right no matter how society is different now than it was when the document was drawn up. So then the only way to legally alter it would be to have it stricken down.

 

[molonlabe]

Pres. and VP met with the NRA tonight. Would love to know what was said in that meeting.

Most likely Trump said a lot of empty words of assurance about how he really was in their corner etc etc....kinda like he does with most every group.

He reminds me of the stories I have read about Eisenhower during WW2...the joke was the most important factor in convincing Ike of something was to be the last person he talked to.

 

[molonlabe]

They don’t. It was a mistake by our forefathers to not deal with them when the initial infringement was made. It is a mistake, along with many others, that we will have to decide if we are willing to fix, knowing that doing so will carry a terrible price.

How does it get fixed then?

 

[Chdamn]

I didn’t assume you were a troll I asked the question because that was the impression you were giving. The response you just gave would have opened the line of communication instead of closing it by answering a question with a question.

It’s perfectly fine to not understand something and to seek knowledge on the subject. But when you side step direct questions in return it puts people on the defensive.

As to the legality. I’m not opposed the them attempting to change the 2nd legally. That would require them ratifying the constitution which they know wouldn’t ever happen so instead they infringe illegally.

No one should be above the law, I would say not even but I should say especially the government.

Without the rule of law we have nothing.

 

[molonlabe]

Understood...you are one that I truly believe understands the ramifications of what you believe yet choose to take the bad with the good. I would hope all who call themselves 2a supporters would share the same all encompassing view but sadly I think many see it as an infringement on their rights rather and everyone's rights.

And to clarify my own pov....I do believe 2a should be protected but I accept that government will infringe upon it. My practical side is always planning for how to make the best of a bad situation when I know one is coming.

 

[SPST]

Maybe Trump should take impeachment now and he can be reinstated after due process?

 

[SPM]

So as the wording of the 2nd amendment goes I see your point that any type of regulation is unconstitutional which essentially sets up weapons ownership as an untouchable right no matter how society is different now than it was when the document was drawn up. So then the only way to legally alter it would be to have it stricken down.

As to the legality. I’m not opposed the them attempting to change the 2nd legally. That would require them ratifying the constitution which they know wouldn’t ever happen so instead they infringe illegally.

No one should be above the law, I would say not even but I should say especially the government.

Without the rule of law we have nothing.

There's an important thing we need to remember when it comes to the Second Amendment...even in the event it's amended or repealed: the Second Amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms for our defense.

The Second Amendment exists solely as a check on the power of the government to disarm We, the People.

Our Rights exist independent of.....and outside of......the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and statute law. They are ours naturally, unalienable from our person and beyond the just or moral authority of government or our even our fellow citizens to take from us.

That's why we don't have Second Amendment Rights. We have Second Amendment-protected Rights. I know this may seem like semantics....but it really isn't. It is a significant philosophical difference in the origin and the nature of human Rights, and is an important distinction we must keep in mind when discussing this and other issues.

An no free man is under any obligation to abide by immoral or unjust law.

 

[CZfool68]

So children, ex cons, the mentally I'll etc cannot be constitutionally restricted?

Define mentally ill please.

 

[CZfool68]

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.

We already have the Amendment.

 

[CZfool68]

There's an important thing we need to remember when it comes to the Second Amendment...even in the event it's amended or repealed: the Second Amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms for our defense.

The Second Amendment exists solely as a check on the power of the government to disarm We, the People.

Our Rights exist independent of.....and outside of......the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and statute law. They are ours naturally, unalienable from our person and beyond the just or moral authority of government or our even our fellow citizens to take from us.

That's why we don't have Second Amendment Rights. We have Second Amendment-protected Rights. I know this may seem like semantics....but it really isn't. It is a significant philosophical difference in the origin and the nature of human Rights, and is an important distinction we must keep in mind when discussing this and other issues.

An no free man is under any obligation to abide by immoral or unjust law.

Yes! And none of that is taught anymore other than in a few of our homes. That's why the little rugrats will march in step with whatever marxist paradigm the media puts out.

 

[molonlabe]

We already have the Amendment.

Yes and as I said it is clearly not in alignment with current laws so either the laws or the amendment need to go.

The question them becomes would it be unconstitutional as part of a criminal's sentence to be denied a right in perpetuity in the name of due process?

 

[gc70]

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.

That sounds like reading the Second Amendment as "shall not be infringed ... except for due process of law."

You have still not clearly stated your view of "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment. While no exceptions are given in the Second Amendment, you accept some infringement by dismissing my "ridiculous" examples. You have started creating separate categories for unstated but acceptable infringements and strictly prohibited infringements. Finish what you started and clearly define the difference between acceptable and prohibited infringements.

 

[Chdamn]

That sounds like reading the Second Amendment as "shall not be infringed ... except for due process of law."

You have still not clearly stated your view of "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment. While no exceptions are given in the Second Amendment, you accept some infringement by dismissing my "ridiculous" examples. You have started creating separate categories for unstated but acceptable infringements and strictly prohibited infringements. Finish what you started and clearly define the difference between acceptable and prohibited infringements.

No I haven't, that is the slant you are trying to place upon what I have stated to fit a narrative you are trying to create.

I have very clearly stated what I mean. I have gone out of my way to describe the constitution as a legal document that is a contract. I cannot help that you are taking the means to provide punishment under the rule of law out of context to try and create a perceived loop hole.

Again, due process does not allow for you to be deprived once your term has been served.

And you still haven't explained why the 2nd should be different than the rest of the amendments upon serving your term of punishment. All of your rights are restored, why not the second?

 

[gc70]

The question them becomes would it be unconstitutional as part of a criminal's sentence to be denied a right in perpetuity in the name of due process?

Rights are already denied in perpetuity. Execution is more than a temporary taking of a person's life. Sentences of hundreds of years, assuring that a person will die in prison, permanently remove a person's liberty and freedom.

 

[Scott Free]

I'm just sittin' here watching a bunch of people spaz over nuthin'. Everyone here that calls him a sellout should start working on a backpedal plan soon, I've heard crow isn't real tasty.

 

[Chdamn]

I'm just sittin' here watching a bunch of people spaz over nuthin'. Everyone here that calls him a sellout should start working on a backpedal plan soon, I've heard crow isn't real tasty.

I’m not sure I understand. Care to elaborate?

 

[molonlabe]

Rights are already denied in perpetuity. Execution is more than a temporary taking of a person's life. Sentences of hundreds of years, assuring that a person will die in prison, permanently remove a person's liberty and freedom.

I was hoping I would not have to spell out my comments further but that is fine.

To touch on what chdamn has stated an ex con has all rights guaranteed within the bill of rights reinstated upon completion of a sentence with the exception of 2a.

So in the setting where a citizen has committed a crime with a firearm..according to current laws that citizen loses the guaranteed rights of 2a even after they have completed their sentence.

Let's flip the script...remove all current restrictions on 2a and include a loss of gun ownership in perpetuity as part of the sentence. Is this acceptable as part of due process?

 

[ChickenHawk]

Summary of this thread so far:

1 "I think infringements of the Second Amendment are ok."

2 "It says 'shall not be infringed' and here is why it shouldn't."

1 "I still think infringements are ok because people go to jail and they can't have a gun in jail."

2 "That is irrelevant and you still don't understand what 'shall not be infringed' means."

1 "I still think infringements are ok because they were legally passed."

2 "Apparently you don't understand that is infringing on the Second Amendment and don't know what the phrase 'shall not be infringed' means."

1 "But muh laws passed by muh government."

 

[gc70]

And you still haven't explained why the 2nd should be different than the rest of the amendments upon serving your term of punishment. All of your rights are restored, why not the second?

The 2A's biggest difference is that it is one of a minority of rights (along with 1A freedom of assembly and 4A search and seizure) that are suspended during incarceration. Most rights in the Bill of Rights remain intact (1A freedom of religion, speech, and petition and 7A civil cases) or are specifically triggered (5A, 6A, and 8A) when a person is accused or imprisoned.

The 2A is also different because society has determined that the punishment for some crimes should include a prohibition against subsequently having firearms.

Finally, 2A rights can be restored; different states have different processes, from automatic to not at all.

Again, due process does not allow for you to be deprived once your term has been served.

Some jurisdictions prohibit voting, which is a right that has warranted three amendments to the Constitution.

The Constitution's impeachment clause not only provides a way to kick a politician out of office, but prohibits the person from holding any other office under the United States.

 

[Scott Free]

I’m not sure I understand. Care to elaborate?

That was my ambiguous statement of prediction.

Will he actually agree to some kind of actual weapon ban? No.
Will DumbStocks be banned? Probably.
Will there be a minimum age of 21 requirement? Quite possibly, with military exemptions.
Will magazine capacity be limited? Nope.
Will background checks become more stringent? Likely.
Will there be any actual removal of due process prior to confiscation? Nope.

So many of the comments I've seen remind me of the people who comment on news articles when someone is "charged" with a crime. They start going off about stringing people up with a rope, executions, setting them on fire, castrations, etc- Even though there hasn't been a conviction.

 

[Chdamn]

That was my ambiguous statement of prediction.

Will he actually agree to some kind of actual weapon ban? No.
Will DumbStocks be banned? Probably.
Will there be a minimum age of 21 requirement? Quite possibly, with military exemptions.
Will magazine capacity be limited? Nope.
Will background checks become more stringent? Likely.
Will there be any actual removal of due process prior to confiscation? Nope.

So many of the comments I've seen remind me of the people who comment on news articles when someone is "charged" with a crime. They start going off about stringing people up with a rope, executions, setting them on fire, castrations, etc- Even though there hasn't been a conviction.

Odd, I haven’t read any vitriol in this thread.

 

[gc70]

Let's flip the script...remove all current restrictions on 2a and include a loss of gun ownership in perpetuity as part of the sentence. Is this acceptable as part of due process?

There is no substantive difference between a sentence that triggers a prohibition law and a sentence that is required to include a prohibition provision.

 

[Chdamn]

The 2A's biggest difference is that it is one of a minority of rights (along with 1A freedom of assembly and 4A search and seizure) that are suspended during incarceration. Most rights in the Bill of Rights remain intact (1A freedom of religion, speech, and petition and 7A civil cases) or are specifically triggered (5A, 6A, and 8A) when a person is accused or imprisoned.

The 2A is also different because society has determined that the punishment for some crimes should include a prohibition against subsequently having firearms.

Finally, 2A rights can be restored; different states have different processes, from automatic to not at all.



Some jurisdictions prohibit voting, which is a right that has warranted three amendments to the Constitution.

The Constitution's impeachment clause not only provides a way to kick a politician out of office, but prohibits the person from holding any other office under the United States.

I’ll just have to agree to disagree with you at this point. We’re stuck in a loop.

 

[Scott Free]

Odd, I haven’t read any vitriol in this thread.

On page 1 alone.

I don't like the man at all. He's a total sleezebag. Having said that, I'd vote for him again if my only other choice was Hildebeast.

He is equally thoughtless on all issues, his almost random utterances just happen to align with what we each want from time to time.

Some will say that he’ll abandon his principles based on public sentiment; they are wrong, he has no principles.

Now that is the Donald Trump I remember. He’s an idiot. Ted Cruz is laughing at us all.

Does he even know what he is saying? Has he been reading Mein Kampf?

edit:

Found more on page 2

SELLOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dumbshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And to think I was told I did not know what I was saying when I said Trump was not a true progun candidate. I think he is a scumbag and have never been a fan, but this is what you get when you put Billery on the ballot.

 

[Chdamn]

On page 1 alone.

I still don’t see how that rises to the level of hanging someone or setting them on fire.

 

[Scott Free]

I still don’t see how that rises to the level of hanging someone or setting them on fire.

Knee-jerk overreactions. I think you were focused on a leaf, not the entire tree I was trying to point at. My fault for lack of clarification I reckon.

 

[Chdamn]

Knee-jerk overreactions. I think you were focused on a leaf, not the entire tree I was trying to point at. My fault for lack of clarification I reckon.

Got it. Although I’m not sure how much back pedaling will be needed. Whether he uses an executive order to remove a right without due process or not he still uttered the words and they are those of a tyrant.

I actually like trump but he really needs to learn to think before he speaks sometimes.

 

[noway2]

Got it. Although I’m not sure how much back pedaling will be needed. Whether he uses an executive order to remove a right without due process or not he still uttered the words and they are those of a tyrant.

I actually like trump but he really needs to learn to think before he speaks sometimes.

I noticed on NPR this morning they were all but pearl clutching about Trump's apparent about face after meeting with Chris Cox of the NRA.

In other news, NPR sounded downright right wing compared to some stupid Democrat that was in 0zero's administration on the topic of the steel and aluminum tariffs.

 

[Scott Free]

Got it. Although I’m not sure how much back pedaling will be needed. Whether he uses an executive order to remove a right without due process or not he still uttered the words and they are those of a tyrant.

I actually like trump but he really needs to learn to think before he speaks sometimes.

Didn't he do almost the exact same thing with the DACA stunt? Sing a song about "Yeah, I agree with you Dems..." Then shot it down when it actually mattered? I do agree he lives with a #NoFilter issue, and it would do our country a lot of good to have an interpreter, processor, and filter in the office to translate everything he says before it reaches the outside world.

I think it was just a crappy attempt to appease the bleeding hearts with words, and I'd be willing to bet his meeting with the NRA holds a LOT more information than the general public knows about.

 

[gc70]

I’ll just have to agree to disagree with you at this point. We’re stuck in a loop.

Fair enough.

I sometimes wonder why we bother with ardent discussions of the Second Amendment. The observable fact is that nearly all gun-related laws that are enacted are validated by the courts with only lip service to the Second Amendment.

 

[Chdamn]

Didn't he do almost the exact same thing with the DACA stunt? Sing a song about "Yeah, I agree with you Dems..." Then shot it down when it actually mattered? I do agree he lives with a #NoFilter issue, and it would do our country a lot of good to have an interpreter, processor, and filter in the office to translate everything he says before it reaches the outside world.

I think it was just a crappy attempt to appease the bleeding hearts with words, and I'd be willing to bet his meeting with the NRA holds a LOT more information than the general public knows about.

Lmao. Fair point. And you might be right.

 

[Otis]

Fair enough.

I sometimes wonder why we bother with ardent discussions of the Second Amendment. The observable fact is that nearly all gun-related laws that are enacted are validated by the courts with only lip service to the Second Amendment.

If you are saying the court is the biggest part of the problem, I agree.

 

[Chdamn]

Fair enough.

I sometimes wonder why we bother with ardent discussions of the Second Amendment. The observable fact is that nearly all gun-related laws that are enacted are validated by the courts with only lip service to the Second Amendment.

Some have. And some have been overturned, Heller.l being the most recent.

There was a long time when the court refused to hear any cases about the second. So they didn’t uphold them as much as refuse to do their sworn duty.

They are currently doing the same.

And besides, these discussions keep my mind sharp and remind me all of the things I need to teach my son.

 

[Matt.Cross]

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?

Where does the Constitution say it is itself subject to due process of law? Why are you inclined to suggest that the Constitution says "shall not be infringed" but didn't really mean it?

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

Laws that govern the export of arms aren't contradictory to the Constitution, as they don't fall within the purview of the right to keep and bear them, so I find this suggestion far-fetched.

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?

Due process of law includes recognizing that the Constitution is the supreme law, and not enacting legislation that contradicts the intent and purpose of the Constitution.

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

Again, where does the Constitution subject itself to due process?

 

[noway2]

There was a long time when the court refused to hear any cases about the second. So they didn’t uphold them as much as refuse to do their sworn duty.

They are currently doing the same. .

Interesting and astute observation. It's obvious at this point, e.g. given Thomas' statements that it is deliberate. One would think that they are trying to avoid going there because they know what the real answer is and don't want to give that answer.

 

[molonlabe]

Some have. And some have been overturned, Heller.l being the most recent.

There was a long time when the court refused to hear any cases about the second. So they didn’t uphold them as much as refuse to do their sworn duty.

They are currently doing the same.

And besides, these discussions keep my mind sharp and remind me all of the things I need to teach my son.

This is a big part of why I engaged in this thread..I have said to my wife that by 2a we are guaranteed rights that I may or may not agree with on all levels...but that does not change what the document says.

 

[molonlabe]

Interesting and astute observation. It's obvious at this point, e.g. given Thomas' statements that it is deliberate. One would think that they are trying to avoid going there because they know what the real answer is and don't want to give that answer.

This is beyond a clear point...the ramifications of truly laying down a SCOTUS judgement on 2a infringement should scare the pants off the judges and I wonder if one or two would retire rather than participate.

 

[noway2]

This is beyond a clear point...the ramifications of truly laying down a SCOTUS judgement on 2a infringement should scare the pants off the judges and I wonder if one or two would retire rather than participate.

Indeed. Such a ruling could be a crack in the dam that easily lead to a tsunami; and this applies regardless of how they would rule. However, I think their hands are pretty well tied in that it has already been declared an individual right and that one has the right to possess in their homes. What SCOTUS has not addressed is the right to carry in public, but the lower courts have and even in the strictest regions (DC, and Chicago) have pretty well universally declared that it applies there too. Those determinations were made using intermediate scrutiny and if the case were brought up right, it would fall to strict scrutiny where they would have to show not only that its not a violation, but that there is a compelling interest in upholding the regulation. A tall order.

I'm sure they would rather this be taken up in the legislature(s).

 

[gc70]

Why are you inclined to suggest that the Constitution says "shall not be infringed" but didn't really mean it?

Quite to the contrary, when the Constitution was written I believe the Founders meant "shall not be infringed" to be an absolute and total prohibition against the federal government interfering in any way with the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, when the courts applied the 2A to the states the result was that no level of government could theoretically do anything about guns (including the "ridiculous" examples I listed). Instead of adhering to "shall not be infringed" the courts have basically taken the position of "we'll make up what the 2A means as we go along."