Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

Encroach is fine by me. The right shall not be encroached upon. Same meaning.

The concept of the Natural Right to bear arms goes back centuries and has been entrenched in common law for all that time.

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/18/david-kopel/right-bear-arms-sensible-gun-laws

But for the neutral reader, the fight over original meaning has to come to an end when the opinions analyze “the” right to keep and bear arms. The D.C. Circuit opinion pointed out that the phrasing indisputably shows that the right was a pre-existing one. That is, the right to keep and bear arms already existed before the Second Amendment was written. The Second Amendment merely imposed a legal requirement that the right not be infringed by the federal government. The 1875 Supreme Court decision in Cruikshank said the same thing, as both the majority and dissent agree.

So what was “the” right that pre-existed the Constitution? The majority opinion provides an obvious answer. It was the right of having arms for personal defense, as guaranteed by the 1689 English Declaration of Right, and as expounded by Blackstone: “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” which was effectuated by “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”

 

We allow insults of me. That should be enough for any forum.

But honestly, how many people do you really know enough here to insult them? You're insulting them over something they've posted, an opinion or opinions on a very select subject. This is a community, a community that sometimes meets in person. Trying to keep things from getting personal helps to keep this community healthy and functioning.

 

Militia is irrelevant. What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?

I don't own a gun, never did, probably never will. It's an issue of you violating someone else's rights. I choose not to.

 

You can have a tank.

Now what?

 

Not necessarily the same meaning as you implied by equating "infringe" with "restrict". "Encroach" means to intrude upon unlawfully, not that intrusion is completely disallowed. For example, see football--the defensive line has permission to invade the offensive backfield, but only after the ball is snapped; to do so prior to the snap is an impermissible intrusion, hence "encroachment".

By that interpretation/definition, it would reasonably be possible to restrict the type or volume of arms-bearing without encroaching upon (infringing) the right itself.

 

Infringing would be unlawful. Thus intrude upon would be unlawful. I'm failing to see any distinction you are trying to make.

The term "shall not infringe" really means, "government may pass no limits on the right."

A person may be deprived of rights via DUE PROCESS. Government passing a law is not due process. This is the 5th amendment.

Amendment V
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.


"Liberty" includes the right to bear arms, to not sit in jail, to vote, and whatever else Persons otherwise enjoy.

 

A natural right is one that does not have to be provided to you. Your right to life does not guarantee the government's provision of all resources necessary to ensure continuance of that life. That logic would also necessitate the government providing all your basic needs. The government's only responsibility in regard to your right to life is to not deprive you of it (without due process).

 

It is irrelevant what the first part says. It could say, "clowns must have guns" and wouldn't negate the second part.

"the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." For no reason, including whatever the 1st part says.

Shall not be infringed.

No twisty logic can change that.

An amendment can.

 

And again, we are at a semantic impasse. Your definition/interpretation of the word "infringe" differs from mine.

 

The government has never granted the right to bear arms.

Natural Rights are one you are born with. Granted by "God." Not granted by government. Not provided by government.

I'm not seeing your quibble with "that logic."

 

I agree with your statement regarding natural rights being inherent and not granted. I'm quibbling with @SportsAndWhine's implication that the natural right to life means that the government is responsible to provide healthcare. I apologize if I did not word it well.

 

My definition is in Law. The constitution was all about Law, not written by novices. They used specific words and terms for specific reasons.

"Shall not be infringed" is exactly one of those legal terms. They were being quite specific that government was not to deny the right, pass laws against that right, and so on.

You might consider that the 2nd is part of the Bill of Rights and why the Bill of Rights was even added to the Constitution. They wanted to be extra sure there was no confusion about the limits of the rights of the people and power of the government.

 

No problem. I think we agree on this much

The Natural Right to life simply means the government can't kill people they don't like. People are free to live their lives.