AFAIK wrote:I'm just trying to make sense of your analogy. "A well regulated militia" clearly refers to a group of people and isn't comparable to breakfast cereal.
Yes it is. It goes to the whole sentense structure and the proper use and focus of a coma in the English language.
I've seen similar examples using books, etc. Basically anything other than "arms" and more to the point talking about how the first group is the one to be the "well regulated" part and the second group mentioned (ie The People) are the ones NOT to be infringed.
Just basic English.
Did your dog eat the 8th amendment?
So your contention that the states have the right to hold someone forever for whatever reason they may construct is not true. In the very short statement (above) the constitution speaks volumes about crime and punishment. Indeed it is, some would say, after the first amendment the most important part of the bill of rights. It does far more to protect you than all of the firearms you may delude yourself into believing make you safer.
There is no excessive bail. There is no excessive fines. There was a trial. There are appeals. I'm leaving the pardon system in place for Governors and the president. There is no cruel and unusual punishment (ie no hanging by your thumbs, etc.) It is the same jail regardless if you are serving 20 years or 90 years.
Saeko wrote:47 Knucklehead, I still think you don't understand what I'm asking.
Your argument only demonstrates that federal and state governments cannot pass legislation that takes away the right to keep and bear arms. I agree with that. However, that's not the point of contention here. Where we disagree is whether or not regulations on the use of a right are indeed a violation of that right. Your argument says nothing about that issue.
Earlier, you said that indefinite imprisonment is:
1) A suspension of a person's rights
2) Morally and legally permissible if said person is deemed a threat to public safety
But this is totally inconsistent with your view that constitutional rights trump all laws, state or federal. According to your fundamentalist and literalist reading of the constitution, it is impossible to justify any kind of imprisonment whatsoever. And even if you can, it seems as though you are compelled to believe, by your own reasoning above, that prisoners must not be prevented from owning a gun!
You still haven't given any satisfactory answers as to why a private citizen should not be allowed to own nukes.
You say government can't take away a persons right to own a gun, and yet they do, in clear violation the the 2nd Amendment. You seem to think that imposing conditions on buying a gun, like a 7 day to 6 month waiting period is acceptable, when CLEARLY the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" that IS an infringement.
Now, you want to talk about my stance on punishment for a crime. Fine. But let me get right to the MAJOR DIFFERENCE and where YOUR LOGIC is totally flawed.
I am talking about a person who has NOT BEEN CHARGED, MUCH LESS CONVICTED OF A CRIME, being inconvienced by rules and regulations that is costing them time and money (or flat out denying their Constitutional Right).
Compare THAT to a person who has been through the due process system of being arrested, charged, seen a judge, applied for bail, had a grand jury summoned, a trial, appeals, etc.
It SHOULD BE painfully obvious to everyone that the two aren't similar. One has comitted no crime and the other has.
As far as your argument, which is the same stupid one that most anti-gun people bring up Reductio ad absurdum, I'll say that same thing I say to all the others who go with that absurd example. I think under the currnt 2nd Amendment, we should be able to buy nukes. I can go out right now and by a fully function TANK, pretty much without a license. That includes the main gun (but not the coaxial machine guns, those fall under the Title II law, which I disagree with, and require the $200 tax stamp). Now, under existing law, the AMMO for that main gun is considered a "destructive device" and can still be gotten, but EACH ROUND has to be bought, have the tax stamp, and background check etc. I think that nukes should be the same thing. If you can buy one, go for it. Don't like that? Get 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states to CHANGE the existing 2nd Amendment. You are welcome for your weapons for your lack of education on current law and arms.
Also, I'm not saying that there should be indefinite improsonment and that we should deny all rights. I said that when you go through the lengthy legal system and are finally put in jail, certain rights OBVIOUSLY have to be lost (ie you can't own a gun in prison and more importantly, you aren't free to come and go as you please), but WHEN you are let out, you get ALL YOUR RIGHTS BACK. IF you are too dangerous to re-enter society (and that will be done by multiple people making that choice), then you stay in prison. To say otherwise, is basically admitting that we intentionally let people out of jail, who aren't reformed and let them out to murder, rape, rob, and basically prey upon the weak. WOW! You have such a wonderful system there. /sarcasm
But, as I said before, there are STILL systems in place to prevent abuse ... see the pardon system by the Governor and President.
And let's get right to the heart of the matter with YOU (a self described Facist ... not to mention all the other self described Communists) and your logic ... IF you are so damn afraid of "government abusing their authority and taking away the rights of convicted criminals), why are you a Facist or Communist and support a form of government that controls its people? I'd think you'd be an Anarchist.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H.L. Menchen