General Discussion

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)

35. That's a non sequitur. Care to address what I actually wrote?

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:05 PM

Dec 2015

There was a not-small cadre of framers who thought the bill of right wasn't even needed-- that the government would never infringe on a right because it wasn't granted the power to do so. They worried (and apparently rightly so) that the explicit protection of some rights would cause future generations to claim that others not explicitly protected could be infringed. The compromise was the ninth and tenth amendments.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the bill of rights (or state constitutions) "grant" or confer rights. It doesn't.

It's right there in the preamble to the bill of rights:

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Abuse of whose powers? Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? The government. This is not a 'the people can' document, it's a 'the government shall not' document.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

165 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Second Amendment (and Heller a bit) [View all] Photographer Dec 2015 OP

As do I. Chan790 Dec 2015 #1

SCOTUS did agree with you up until 2008's ridiculous 5-4 Heller decision. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #57

Also to note, Justice Bader-Ginsberg and Justice Breyer are President Bill Clinton appointees. BlueCaliDem Dec 2015 #87

I so agree. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #95

Not true. former9thward Dec 2015 #121

You are wrong, former9thward. Stevens cites the cases in his Heller dissent. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #122

That is not what it says. former9thward Dec 2015 #124

Miller was good precedent, as were the other cases Stevens cited. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #128

It is really disappointing to see someone former9thward Dec 2015 #140

Preferring the progressive--and correct--interpretation of the 2A is not "attacking" it. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #141

Actually I am mouthing Madison's argument. former9thward Dec 2015 #147

Bullshit. Madison could not have imagined what gun nuts would do to the 2A. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #162

Miller was about sawed-off shotguns, not automatic weapons jmowreader Dec 2015 #143

You are correct. former9thward Dec 2015 #148

Actually, Miller died before his case came before the court GGJohn Dec 2015 #153

Regardless of what she believes, the proper interpretation ot the constitution is... MohRokTah Dec 2015 #2

And that can change if people vote in presidents who want gun control. boston bean Dec 2015 #6

Any presidential candidate who promises to ban guns will lose. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #8

Who has suggested such a thing? boston bean Dec 2015 #9

Read DU, it's what many supporters of all the candidates want. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #12

Little ole me is causing you to question something so important? boston bean Dec 2015 #14

You and other DUers who want to ban guns. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #16

I want to see a ban on semi auto guns, that allow boston bean Dec 2015 #17

Nope, it does not sit well with me. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #21

It won't be unconstitutional once we get a good ruling. boston bean Dec 2015 #23

You'll never get the ruling you want. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #24

So sayeth you. You will be very suprised one day. boston bean Dec 2015 #26

And when, not if, but when you don't get your ruling, GGJohn Dec 2015 #29

No matter how long it takes, I won't ever say I am wrong on this. boston bean Dec 2015 #31

"Gay marriage bans will never be ruled unconstitutional" MillennialDem Dec 2015 #88

You are comparing apples to horse shoes. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #90

I know they're not the same thing, but a more favorable supreme court will likely MillennialDem Dec 2015 #91

Kagan wouldn't MohRokTah Dec 2015 #94

I read DU every day and have never seen anyone advocating for take all guns. lark Dec 2015 #45

You must have not read about half the anti-gun threads over the past two days, then. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #47

Where? lark Dec 2015 #49

Here: MohRokTah Dec 2015 #52

Nope, that's not what you said or what I asked for. lark Dec 2015 #62

Here you go- feel free to move the goal posts again. ;) X_Digger Dec 2015 #76

I recommend you improve your reading comprehension skills. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #79

Okey doakey, here's another MohRokTah Dec 2015 #116

Why are you here? rockfordfile Dec 2015 #133

Who aare you to question why I am here? MohRokTah Dec 2015 #136

This message was self-deleted by its author GGJohn Dec 2015 #154

OK, you got me. lark Dec 2015 #144

It's more than one MohRokTah Dec 2015 #145

I read here too. lark Dec 2015 #146

Not one of those called for banning guns. Try again. Squinch Dec 2015 #73

All of them did. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #75

None of them did. Squinch Dec 2015 #78

Well I guess I will say it. I would like something like what Australia did about weapons LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #55

ok, if we have lancer78 Dec 2015 #159

So for me to be a patriot, I have to give up my firearms? GGJohn Dec 2015 #161

Revolvers are 400 year old technology? A Simple Game Dec 2015 #56

The oldest revolver still existing was manufactured in 1597. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #60

I stand corrected, maybe I should take my own advice. A Simple Game Dec 2015 #81

Please, their have been multiple calls to ban all guns in multiple threads. EX500rider Dec 2015 #54

Boston, I have the answer to this. There is an interesting phenomenon that I have deciphered: Squinch Dec 2015 #67

"gunners" I think do have a mental problem. rockfordfile Dec 2015 #134

Wow!!! GGJohn Dec 2015 #155

But aren't you glad she said it? nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #19

No. It decreases my respect for her. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #22

It increases my respect for her. But at least you're on record: YOU DO NOT RESPECT JUSTICE GINSBURG. ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #25

I love it when grabbers try to put words in my mouth. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #27

I'm not a "grabber". You should pay better attention. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #30

I disagree. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #33

So you think you can decide for me what my stance is on an issue? I have never said a single word.. ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #34

You decided what my stance on an issue was, so turnabout is fair play. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #36

Mo on Ginsburg: "It decreases my respect for her." Tell us how much you respect her. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2015 #40

Of all the SCOTUS justices, I respected her the most... MohRokTah Dec 2015 #41

anyone who isn't a gun humper is considered a "gun grabber" Skittles Dec 2015 #123

Which is why we need to change the majority. We can end this. morningfog Dec 2015 #59

That will win votes for the Democratic nominee. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #61

You don't support a liberal majority in the SC? Noted. morningfog Dec 2015 #63

I do not support a majority that would ignore the second amendment MohRokTah Dec 2015 #72

So you believe Dredd Scott was the proper interpretation of the Constitution? Squinch Dec 2015 #83

By the constitution, the proper interpretation of the constitution is ALWAYS... MohRokTah Dec 2015 #86

So you believe Dredd Scott was the proper interpretation of the Constitution? Squinch Dec 2015 #89

See my prior post. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #92

So you do. OK. Squinch Dec 2015 #93

Straw man, typical. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #96

Not necessarily 'proper,' but certainly 'CURRENT.' elleng Dec 2015 #103

You may not like it, but it is ALWAYS the proper interpretation. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #105

I KNOW the process, elleng Dec 2015 #107

Oh, you mean like Dred Scot or Korematsu or Plessy v Ferguson? The SCOTUS is NOT infallible. Turn CO Blue Dec 2015 #119

If it was a requirement, why would they call it a right pintobean Dec 2015 #3

Indeed. nt appal_jack Dec 2015 #5

Bingo GummyBearz Dec 2015 #39

Historical measures from Europe. lark Dec 2015 #46

Agree. And it wouldn't really matter whether or not it's a "constitutional" question. erronis Dec 2015 #58

BS pintobean Dec 2015 #100

it isn't a right lancer78 Dec 2015 #160

Hopefully we will get a SC again that is not packed with callous, racist right wingers. Hoyt Dec 2015 #4

Guess you also don't understand settled law. GGJohn Dec 2015 #18

Guess your don't understand that the court can and has reversed itself ThoughtCriminal Dec 2015 #37

I'm not clinging to anything, GGJohn Dec 2015 #38

You are clinging to a 5-4 decision ThoughtCriminal Dec 2015 #42

No, I'm clinging to historical fact. GGJohn Dec 2015 #43

No, you are clinging to keeping your 5 gun safes filled with lethal weapons and ammo. Hoyt Dec 2015 #66

Please seek help for your unhealthy fascination of 5 safes. GGJohn Dec 2015 #70

Just pointing out where your loyalty and views lie. Hoyt Dec 2015 #71

As I said................... GGJohn Dec 2015 #77

Come on, they constantly chip away at it. lark Dec 2015 #50

That's the states, not SCOTUS, GGJohn Dec 2015 #113

Precedents are overturned all the time, as Heller and McDonald proved. Hoyt Dec 2015 #65

Wrong again Hoyt, as usual. GGJohn Dec 2015 #74

If the framers of the federal constitution intended a qualified collective right.. X_Digger Dec 2015 #7

If the Second Amendment said what the NRA thinks it said... NNadir Dec 2015 #20

That's a non sequitur. Care to address what I actually wrote? X_Digger Dec 2015 #35

I did address what you wrote, but I think you didn't get it. NNadir Dec 2015 #109

No, you haring off on a different subject is a non sequitur. X_Digger Dec 2015 #111

Um...um...um...yeah...yeah... NNadir Dec 2015 #163

It's the bill of right because these are rights that it protects! It's right there in the preamble. X_Digger Dec 2015 #164

Nice explanation. I guess we will always try to understand what was in the framers' minds, erronis Dec 2015 #64

"in defense of themselves and the State" is a reference to citizen militias. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #85

And? You seem to think that the bill of rights (or state constitutions) limit rights. They don't. X_Digger Dec 2015 #97

The "right" is citizen militias, not private gun ownership for love of gun play. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #99

"right of the people to keep and bear arms." -- does not say "the right to form citizen militias". X_Digger Dec 2015 #102

The 2A's words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." SunSeeker Dec 2015 #114

"I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- do stores sell more than soda? Am I only buying soda? X_Digger Dec 2015 #115

Here, let me finish it for you. GGJohn Dec 2015 #117

Because at the time the Constitution was adopted SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2015 #110

Well, the point being.. these same folks wrote one set of documents protecting an individual right.. X_Digger Dec 2015 #112

And the majority of Constitutional scholars disagree with her, GGJohn Dec 2015 #10

I love Justice Ginsberg, but I wish... NNadir Dec 2015 #11

If she truly believed her interpretation of the 2nd then we would have unregistered machine guns aikoaiko Dec 2015 #13

"Whether a law is outdated is not for judicial review." Orrex Dec 2015 #28

Does the existence of army barracks render the Third Amendment void? appal_jack Dec 2015 #15

The founders and early government regulated firearms gwheezie Dec 2015 #32

me too stupidicus Dec 2015 #44

The US is into selling armaments at home and abroad. jalan48 Dec 2015 #48

This Citizen Suspects That A Ginsburg Smear Campaign Is Now Underway By The NRA cantbeserious Dec 2015 #51

+100 n /t Photographer Dec 2015 #53

Not just the NRA, gun fanciers everywhere. Hoyt Dec 2015 #69

Yes - This Citizen Agrees - Weapon Enthusiasts - Must Have Arch Enemies To Battle cantbeserious Dec 2015 #80

Not me. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #118

Smart woman. Too bad so many in this nation are too fucking dumb to understand CBGLuthier Dec 2015 #68

Right on. ananda Dec 2015 #82

K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2015 #84

Is there a link to this Agnosticsherbet Dec 2015 #98

NO DOUBT! elleng Dec 2015 #101

Bravo - spot on!!! DrDan Dec 2015 #104

The Bill of Rights has an expiration date? Or just the parts you woke up hating? jtuck004 Dec 2015 #106

If the amendment were reinterpreted to mean what Justice Ginsburg thinks, nothing would change much. Captain Stern Dec 2015 #108

Agree. moondust Dec 2015 #120

Open the door? beevul Dec 2015 #130

Link? moondust Dec 2015 #131

its often overlooked. beevul Dec 2015 #132

"They served the national interest..." moondust Dec 2015 #135

You miss the point. beevul Dec 2015 #142

Sorry, but she's wrong davidn3600 Dec 2015 #125

Well, she's smarter than me and I don't know you so I'll go with her on this. Photographer Dec 2015 #126

Well, I'll go with the guy who actually authored the damn amendment davidn3600 Dec 2015 #129

Good post. Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #138

Yep - of course Madison was referring to the state militias overcoming jmg257 Dec 2015 #139

Though consider how many gungeoneers are Scalia/Thomas fanboys (and girls) on this issue... villager Dec 2015 #127

True dat! Photographer Dec 2015 #137

The question I have on this subject is, Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #149

Rail guns, BFG 9000's, fully auto's w/out permits and the dreaded Sawed off shotgun for a few... Photographer Dec 2015 #150

Reading comprehension fail... Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #151

Lighten up. I was just having a bit of fun with your post. The BFG 9000 should have been a hint. Photographer Dec 2015 #152

Oh, I understood your sarcasm. Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #156

We have different views and opinions on this but we should still be able to talk Photographer Dec 2015 #157

If you mean 'on the street' as to mean criminals Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #158

She's kind of wrong, there, actually Spider Jerusalem Dec 2015 #165