# The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment



## woodwork201 (Jul 9, 2022)

The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half. 

As Ratified:
*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*

As voted out of Congress:
*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*

The Courts continue to try to parse the extra comma as though it changes the meaning.  If they were right, if it did change the meaning, then the 2nd Amendment would not be valid at all.  It is not possible for the States to ratify something other than what Congress proposed.  No provision of Article V permits the Constitution to be amended that way.

So, comma or no comma, the meaning is exactly the same.   And this is a very important point.  Different writers and transcribers may have different styles (and the Internet Grammar Police didn't yet exist to tell them if their style wasn't perfect).  Comma or no comma, the Amendment ratified has the exact same meaning and interpretation as the Amendment from Congress.  Were it not so, the issue of the comma would have been raised in 1791.

So, now we accept that writers and transcribers might write something differently but it is accepted by the Founders to be exactly the same and requiring not even a discussion of the difference.

So let's look at what is referred to as the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment: *A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state*.  The left claims that it sets up a prerequisite that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the State and only necessary for those who serve in the militia.  But consider what was originally written and proposed for the right to keep and bear arms.

It will be interesting to discuss first, though, that many claim that James Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights. This could not be further from the truth.  James Madison was the editor of the Bill of Rights but variations on each and every theme were discussed and written multiple times by multiple people in multiple ways.  Even then, many of the concepts were taken directly from the Magna Carte.

The document, _Journal, Acts and Proceedings, The Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14, and Dissolved Monday, September 17, 1787, which Formed the Constitution of the United States_, includes the exact writings of the various State conventions upon ratifying the Constitution.  In several of those ratifying document, the States included the very amendments they insisted should be passed immediately.  After ratification, other states and scholars proposed additional sets of amendments. 

No, Madison did not author the Bill of Rights; he simply compiled it.

In the ratifying documents to the Constitution, as I said, several States included what they wanted in the first amendments to the Constitution - phrased and paraphrased as a bill of rights but not yet titled the Bill of Rights.  In red below is the first page mentioning ratify for those States and then which page to find that State's demand for the right to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire 412 - see 415 for RKBA: _*XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.*_

Virginia 417 - see bottom of 420 to 421 for RKBA: _*XVII. That the people have aright to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.*_

New York 431 - see page 427 for New Yorks RKBA clause: *That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. *

North Carolina 452 - see 443 for RKBA: *XVII*_*. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the cir- cumstances and protection of the community will admit ; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.*_

Rhode Island 452 (same page as NC) see 456 for RKBA: *xvii. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.*


In each of these, other than New Hampshire - which is really the best, there are multiple concepts combined into what we'd call a long-running sentence today.  Things like a standing army, housing soldiers, the militia and martial law, and military subordination to civil power are only connected in the loosest of ways and yet were all in the same sentence.  Just because multiple ideas are in the same sentence, in the style of the day, does not mean that one idea is dependent on the other ideas.

Considering the multiple ideas, note that in each case where the militia is mentioned in the same sentence as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to keep and bear arms came first.  Quoting Rhode Island as example: *That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ;  *

There's no confusion about how that is written.  The same sentences explicitly recognizes that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms and the, separately, states that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bear arms, JUST AS I HAVE BEEN POSTING in many threads, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.  Two different ideas in the same sentence.

So how did it get reversed?   Notice that in the Rhode Island version, there is the right to keep and bear arms, quartering soldiers, standing army, and the militia as the proper defense of the nation.  Others were similar but not exactly the same.  This is where James Madison comes in as editor.  From all of the input that came from all of the States and others, he had to standardize the specific protections to send to the Congress for approval to send to the States.  That meant clarifying, simplifying, separating, ordering, and even choosing some ideas over others.  Even then, he didn't do that in a vacuum sitting alone in his house; it was a collaboration.

So, in that clean up of the diverse writing styles of the various States, *That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; *became, _*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*_

That this change was not hotly debated and was broadly accepted, is proof that, to the Founders, to the Congress, to the Legislatures of the period, the two versions had EXACTLY the same meaning, just as did two commas versus three commas.  They all, to the people of the time, meant EXACTLY the same thing.

This completely destroys the militia argument against the individual right to keep and bear arms and proves, absolutely and without doubt, that what I have been saying, that what is called the prefatory phrase, is simply a requirement that the militia, consisting of all those who can bear arms, be the first line of defense against invasion and insurrection.

I have proven beyond question that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to militia service.


----------



## excalibur (Jul 9, 2022)

A right clearly listed which the left denies while claiming that a right not in the Constitution, abortion, is a right.

There can be no compromise with such people.


----------



## jackflash (Jul 9, 2022)

The status left has a delusional viewpoint about humanity in general as they push their power & control marxist religion against all common sense. The statist left is not just against firearms & assorted weapons used in self defense they are literally AGAINST SELF DEFENSE FROM ATTACK. The statist left believes that ONLY  g'ment employees(police etc.) are allowed to protect individuals from attack & if one fights back when being criminally assaulted by another individual(s) it is a crime to fight back against said assailant(s). This is what gun control means to the statist left. I've taken on the statist left in debate numerous times on this issue(gun control) & had them for breakfast I mean their argument contradicts all rational reality & borders on delusional paranoia. 

If you have ever tried to reason with a cultist you realize after a while that the cultist argument/viewpoint is not only taking a circuitous path but also is taking a somewhat circular path as they ALWAYS end their argument/reasoning AT THE SAME STARTING POINT & ready to repeat the same argument/reasoning with you again & again & again, over & over again & again. "THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS TO REPEAT THE SAME BOGUS ARGUMENT/OPINION OVER & OVER AGAIN & EXPECTING THE BOGUS ARGUMENT TO EVENTUALLY BECOME CORRECT IN ITS BOGUS LOGIC." Plain & simple the statist left marxist cult mentality is nothing more than a mental disorder.


----------



## Penelope (Jul 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.
> 
> As Ratified:
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> ...


Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 9, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.


I thought you wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be tied to the militia.. So I should have military weapons, not military "style" weapons.

And I may never need the military weapon or a large magazine.  I certainly hope I never need them.  But I don't control the bad guys so I can't predict what I will need or not need.  I just have to prepare for what might happen.


----------



## Penelope (Jul 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I thought you wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be tied to the militia.. So I should have military weapons, not military "style" weapons.
> 
> And I may never need the military weapon or a large magazine.  I certainly hope I never need them.  But I don't control the bad guys so I can't predict what I will need or not need.  I just have to prepare for what might happen.


So bad guys you might need them, how do you know they are bad, are they democrats.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 9, 2022)

Yeah, the lefties make these mostly circular arguments on about everything. They are used to having their brains twisted up with what passes for their nonsensical "logic" so they hope they can confuse the rest of us into giving up.
If you engage them for any length of time, you actually lose brain matter & get dumber.

The real problem is they have either surrendered or never developed their ability to reason things out


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.
> 
> As Ratified:
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> ...



Here's the problem with your very long babbling. 

The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.  

The original proposed text of the Second also allowed for contentious objections on religious grounds for being conscripted into a militia. This was a big deal at the time, because you had groups like the Quakers who objected to military service.   It was rejected because that would limit the power of the militia.    The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses, it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.  

The problem, of course, is that these original intents have been lost, because militias have been replaced by professional Armies and Police Forces, with the police become far more militarized than in the worst nightmares of the founders.  

Of course, it was never about gun ownership.  Gun ownership was actually relatively rare in colonial America.  There wasn't even a domestic gun industry, firing mechanisms had to be imported from Europe.  

The founding fathers believed in Well-Regulated Militias, and at the time, each state had reams of laws defining the militia, with everything from uniforms to what the standard weaponry should be.  (Again, you can't do logistics for a militia if everyone shows up with a different caliber gun).  What they didn't believe in was angry mobs with guns, which is why "popular rebellions" like Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion were put down.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 9, 2022)

Penelope said:


> So bad guys you might need them, how do you know they are bad, are they democrats.


One common clue is they come into my house uninvited.  Or they come arms in hand and uninvited onto my property.  Or they come with the intention of taking me (for any purpose or to any place) against my will.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with your very long babbling.
> 
> The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.
> 
> ...



Did you read what several States submitted in the very document with which they ratified the Constitution, itself?  That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, defence of a free state.

The second and third amendments are written as they are because they were simply edited for style along with many others out of all of the submissions by the States.  

To the Founders, including the Congress, and the State Legislators, the three statements below meant EXACTLY the same thing:

Rhode Island submission:
*That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state *

As Ratified:
*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*

As voted out of Congress:
*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with your very long babbling.
> 
> The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.



By the way, mine was not my babbling; I quoted the Founders.  My remarks on what they said were perfectly accurate and documented by their own words.  

If you want to argue that the original intent of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments were what you suggest then provide any evidence from the Founders to support your argument.

Of course you cannot because I've proven absolutely what I said.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses, it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.


Please provide any contemporaneous writing that supports your argument that the  third was about having  militia in communities.

You can't, of course, I gave you exactly what was written by the Founders and your claim is not there.  

Besides the fact that the community WAS the militia.  To keep the militia out of the community would require keeping the community out of the community.

You keep claiming what you wish was so but I have proven by the Founders own words that what I said was exactly, perfectly, correct and accurate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Did you read what several States submitted in the very document with which they ratified the Constitution, itself?  That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, defence of a free state.
> 
> The second and third amendments are written as they are because they were simply edited for style along with many others out of all of the submissions by the States.
> 
> ...



You are kind of making my point for me... that the concern when this was being written was defining militias, particularly at the state level, and NOT allowing every yahoo who wanted a gun to have one so he can form an angry mob and overthrow the local government.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You are kind of making my point for me... that the concern when this was being written was defining militias, particularly at the state level, and NOT allowing every yahoo who wanted a gun to have one so he can form an angry mob and overthrow the local government.


*
The people have a right to keep and bear arms.*  That's making your point that the people don't have a right to keep and bear arms? OK.  Whatever you say.  NOT


----------



## beautress (Jul 9, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.


If you really want to know, ask Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Cheney, Nadler, and Schiff why their bodyguards need military style weapons and large max. Same answer as yours. Right now, the Supreme Court Justices have to have bodyguards with military style weapons and large max. Steve Scalise, who was nearly killed a few years ago by a Democrat/ Sociocommunist who worked for Bernie Sanders may employ them, and all outspoken Republicans need them too whenever Maxine Waters goes on a blabbermouth approved stalking binge for her apparatchiks in which a very closely protected-by-the-best President Biden does absolutely nothing but hide behind his wife's skirt in the basement of whichever of six luxury homes he is hiding in, including the White House offlimits areas.

All the Senators and congresswomen need protection alike because people believe the videos of Joe bragging about his 30% fees on sundry Foreign Aid Package countries that is his shield for extortion of billions of dollars, if you consider he didn't just start this slimy crap before he was appointed Vice President so as to go on being the chief DNC point man who could smoothly and quietly take tax money going to Foreign Aid, 30% of which winds up in his deep pockets for distribution to MSM harpies and cooperating congresscritters that would make him popular enough to run for President and have enough left over to pay off incrowd precinct chairman to hand him more votes than voters in the precinct in certain cases where math wasn't their strong suite while they scream "notme!!!". Some people don't like criminals in high places, so the sneakiest criminals in the DNC have to run for President to cover their barenekkid dirty pollitick riddled asses.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> *The people have a right to keep and bear arms.* That's making your point that the people don't have a right to keep and bear arms? OK. Whatever you say. NOT



Let me know when you can track your own argument, M'kay?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 10, 2022)

beautress said:


> If you really want to know, ask Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Cheney, Nadler, and Schiff why their bodyguards need military style weapons and large max. Same answer as yours. Right now, the Supreme Court Justices have to have bodyguards with military style weapons and large max. Steve Scalise, who was nearly killed a few years ago by a Democrat/ Sociocommunist who worked for Bernie Sanders may employ them, and all outspoken Republicans need them too whenever Maxine Waters goes on a blabbermouth approved stalking binge for her apparatchiks in which a very closely protected-by-the-best President Biden does absolutely nothing but hide behind his wife's skirt in the basement of whichever of six luxury homes he is hiding in, including the White House offlimits areas.
> 
> All the Senators and congresswomen need protection alike because people believe the videos of Joe bragging about his 30% fees on sundry Foreign Aid Package countries that is his shield for extortion of billions of dollars, if you consider he didn't just start this slimy crap before he was appointed Vice President so as to go on being the chief DNC point man who could smoothly and quietly take tax money going to Foreign Aid, 30% of which winds up in his deep pockets for distribution to MSM harpies and cooperating congresscritters that would make him popular enough to run for President and have enough left over to pay off incrowd precinct chairman to hand him more votes than voters in the precinct in certain cases where math wasn't their strong suite while they scream "notme!!!". Some people don't like criminals in high places, so the sneakiest criminals in the DNC have to run for President to cover their barenekkid dirty pollitick riddled asses.



They need bodyguards because they are too cowardly to pass real gun reform to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.  

Now, if we took the bodyguards away from them, imagine how fast they'd fix the problem. 

Darn it, the Second Amendment really IS about militias, they'd all exclaim!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying,


This is a lie. 

The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence – unlike many on the right.

What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to _Heller_, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who lie about the Second Amendment – their most idiotic lie is that the Amendment codifies insurrectionist dogma when in fact there’s nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that authorizes private armed citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 10, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.


One doesn’t – it’s a* want*, not a ‘need.’

And it's fine if someone wants an AR 15 with a 30-round detachable magazine.

But conservatives shouldn’t contrive ridiculous lies about why they ‘need’ and AR 15; conservatives need to stop lying in a pathetic effort to ‘justify’ possessing such weapons.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to do so – the want alone is more than sufficient.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 10, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to _Heller_, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.



That's the lie.  The genesis of the "collective right" in the federal system occurred in the LOWER federal courts in 1942 with the specific purpose of dismissing and ignoring the Supreme Court's individual right holdings, especially in _US v Miller_.

You are the liar.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 10, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.


So?

How does that change ANYTHING???

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional.  PERIOD.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 10, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> One doesn’t – it’s a* want*, not a ‘need.’


Good thing it's a bill of *RIGHTS*, not a bill of wants or needs.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 10, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But conservatives shouldn’t contrive ridiculous lies about why they ‘need’ and AR 15; conservatives need to stop lying in a pathetic effort to ‘justify’ possessing such weapons.


And yet, we constantly get comments to justify banning certain weapons.

So you agree that the NFA and subsequent revisions, including the Hughes Amendment, should be deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL?


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Why does one need military style weapons and large mag?


To keep the criminals you vermin let loose in check.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.




1) What military style weapons?

Do you mean bolt action rifles or pump action shotguns?   Bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns are actual military weapons....they are not military "style" weapons.......and  the AR-15 has never been a military rifle........

2) Large mags?

What do you mean by this....15 bullets in most magazines is not large, they are the normal magazines for those pistols, and 20-30 bullets is the normal magazine size for rifles of some types.....

You should really be more lc


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> They need bodyguards because they are too cowardly to pass real gun reform to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.
> 
> Now, if we took the bodyguards away from them, imagine how fast they'd fix the problem.
> 
> Darn it, the Second Amendment really IS about militias, they'd all exclaim!


Their bodyguards don't prove that more gun control is needed, their bodyguards prove that more guns are needed.  You should have a gun, and even pay others to carry guns on your behalf, if you prefer, so you can be safe while pretending that you don't like guns.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with your very long babbling.
> 
> The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.
> 
> ...


English not your first language? The sentence as written IN ENGLISH gives to the people the right to own firearms. the preparatory part is simple one of what could be any number of reasons it is not limited nor restrictive on the second part.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> By the way, mine was not my babbling; I quoted the Founders.  My remarks on what they said were perfectly accurate and documented by their own words.
> 
> If you want to argue that the original intent of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments were what you suggest then provide any evidence from the Founders to support your argument.
> 
> Of course you cannot because I've proven absolutely what I said.


Joey does not care. Joey does not debate. He flames, trolls, lies, and filibabbles.


woodwork201 said:


> Please provide any contemporaneous writing that supports your argument that the  third was about having  militia in communities.
> 
> You can't, of course, I gave you exactly what was written by the Founders and your claim is not there.
> 
> ...


Joey favors The Big Lie. He will repeat it endlessly.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence – unlike many on the right.
> 
> ...


Jonesy, you're so full of shit your breath stinks.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 10, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence – unlike many on the right.
> 
> ...


Who suggested that the 2nd Amendment says it's legal to take up arms against the government? I must have missed that post.

But I did quote the absolute proof that the intent was an individual right of the people.  In the original submitted text, the amendment said the people have the right to keep and bear arms - and *that *was the first of multiple independent clauses.  That in merging all the different proposals and expectations into a single, more succinct, amendment, the order of the two clauses were reversed, even changing the relationship into prefatory and operative clauses, the intent and meaning did not change and was not intended to change.

Had the intent and meaning changed then those states which had demanded that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not have voted for the 4th proposed (which became the 2nd ratified) amendment.

The States did not vote for the Bill of Rights; they ratified 10 out of 12 proposed Amendments sent to them by the Congress.  In their ratifications they were explicit about which they approved.  Five States insisted in their ratifying documents of the Constitution that the people's right to keep and bear arms must be included in the upcoming bill of rights.  Not a single one of those five voted against the passing of the 4th amendment in the list, which came to be the 2nd amendment passed:

New Hampshire
*In the House of Representatives, Jan. 25, 1790.*​_*Upon reading and maturely considering the proposed amendments to the federal constitution, Voted, To accept the whole of said amendments except the second article, which was rejected.*_​
Virginia
*Resolved, That the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth articles of the amendments proposed by Congress to the constitution of the United States, be ratified by this commonwealth.*​
New York
*And whereas the legislature of this state have considered the said articles, and do agree to the same, except the second article.*​
North Carolina
*Be it therefore enacted by the general assembly of the state of North Carolina, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That the said amendments agreeable to the fifth article of the original constitution, be held and ratified on the part of this state, as articles in addition to, and amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.*​
Rhode Island
*Be it enacted by the general assembly, and by the authority thereof it is hereby enacted, That the following articles, proposed by the Congress of the United States of America, at their session in March, A. D. 1789, to the legislatures of the several states for ratification, as amendments to the constitution of the United States, pursuant to the fifth article of the said constitution, be, and the same are hereby fully assented to, and ratified on the part of this state*​​Had any of those five states, all of which were explicit in their insistence the people's right to keep and bear arms, believed that the amendment had been changed to explicitly strip from the people the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, they would have voted against the 4th, which became the 2nd, amendment.

None of the five voted against the 4th, which became the 2nd, amendment which is absolute proof that they all understood that the right to keep and bear arms as proposed by the States to the Congress and the right to keep and bear arms as proposed by the Congress for ratification had the same meaning.

At  no other place in the Constitution do you or the left attempt to claim that "people" is the collective.

In the preamble, does "We the people" refer to the States?

In Article 1, Section 2, does it say that the States will elect the members of the House of Representatives?

In the 1st Amendment, does it give the States the right to assemble to and petition the goverment or is assembling to petition the government an individual right?

In the 4th Amendment, does it secure the right of the States to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure or is it an individual right to be secure from search and seizure?

In the 9th Amendment, you know - the one you like to claim secures the right to abortion, does it secure unenumerated rights to the State or to the individual?  Did it secure the right of the State to abort babies or did it secure the right of birthing people to become aborting people?

In the 10th Amendment, were the  powers not delegated to the United States reserved to the States and to the States?  Or were they reserved to the States and to the People?

Did the 17th Amendment require that the State elect its senators? How does the State do that?  Or did it require that the People, each with their individual vote, elect the senators?

Why, in every other case where the word People is used in the Constitution, as amended, the word refers to the individuals but in this one case, you pretend it referred to the collective?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 10, 2022)

Abatis said:


> That's the lie.  The genesis of the "collective right" in the federal system occurred in the LOWER federal courts in 1942 with the specific purpose of dismissing and ignoring the Supreme Court's individual right holdings, especially in _US v Miller_.
> 
> You are the liar.


Which 1942 cases are you referring to?

Generally, it is assumed that the collective right theory comes from Miller due to the relationship that the Court found in Miller to arming the militia.  It was actually raised in Cruikshank and Presser as well.  Where it mostcertainly did not come from was the Founders and writers of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So?
> 
> How does that change ANYTHING???
> 
> All federal gun laws are unconstitutional.  PERIOD.


So are all the state ones.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 10, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> English not your first language? The sentence as written IN ENGLISH gives to the people the right to own firearms. the preparatory part is simple one of what could be any number of reasons it is not limited nor restrictive on the second part.


Actually, the Founders were explicit in their intent to have the militia as a constitutionally required part of our national defense system. The prefatory clause is as much a requirement on the government as is the individual right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Their bodyguards don't prove that more gun control is needed, their bodyguards prove that more guns are needed. You should have a gun, and even pay others to carry guns on your behalf, if you prefer, so you can be safe while pretending that you don't like guns.



Except we are the only country in the world where this happens on a regular basis.   The reason why the Japanese are in shock is because this sort of thing never happens in their country.

In America, we call it "Tuesday". 



RetiredGySgt said:


> English not your first language? The sentence as written IN ENGLISH gives to the people the right to own firearms. the preparatory part is simple one of what could be any number of reasons it is not limited nor restrictive on the second part.



Well, it's pretty clearly written to me...  that it's about well-regulated militias, not gun ownership.  The Founders didn't like angry mobs with guns, and frequently put them down with- wait for it - well-regulated militias.


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> that it's about well-regulated militias, not gun ownership.


How many times you gonna tell that lie this week, traitor?


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except we are the only country in the world where this happens on a regular basis.


Lol, this liar always ignores the fact that his kind regularly release violent criminals back into society. This traitor can't stop lying or deflecting.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Which 1942 cases are you referring to?
> 
> Generally, it is assumed that the collective right theory comes from Miller due to the relationship that the Court found in Miller to arming the militia.  It was actually raised in Cruikshank and Presser as well.  Where it mostcertainly did not come from was the Founders and writers of the 2nd Amendment.


The "collective right" interpretations of the 2ndA were inserted in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower federal court decisions, _Cases v. U.S_, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" and _U.S. v. Tot_, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right".

_Miller_ speaks of the collective _object _of the 2nd Amendment, to perpetuate the general militia principle but that does not speak to the nature of the pre-existing, fully retained right to arms, only recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

_Cruikshank_ says nothing about militia, that case centered on the actions of *militant Whites* disarming, kidnapping and lynching two former slaves, then citizens in 1873 Louisiana, a state that had no militia, it being disbanded by the governor on orders from Congress.

_Presser_ focused on the actions of a group of individuals who marched as a private paramilitary organization and drilled armed, in the city of Chicago, without any allowance in state or federal law. 

_Presser_ held the 2nd Amendment does not secure any right for private citizens to form themselves as a paramilitary organization (militia) and the state law forbidding that action, did not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment and thus was constitutional. 

_Heller_ reaffirmed the _Presser_ holding:

"Justice Stevens’ statement that _Presser _“suggested that… nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia,” _post_, at 40, is simply wrong.   _Presser _said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations."​


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except we are the only country in the world where this happens on a regular basis.   The reason why the Japanese are in shock is because this sort of thing never happens in their country.
> 
> In America, we call it "Tuesday".
> 
> ...



When was the last political assassination in this country?  So no, it doesn’t happen every day here even with our guns and you left wing, violent fascists.


----------



## beautress (Jul 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> They need bodyguards because they are too cowardly to pass real gun reform to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.
> 
> Now, if we took the bodyguards away from them, imagine how fast they'd fix the problem.
> 
> Darn it, the Second Amendment really IS about militias, they'd all exclaim!


We already have laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Those who sell guns to a nutcase should be nailed for selling them a gun, but they want the money more than they care about what happens sequentially, so it will take some doing to learn who sold the gun to such persons as a Salvador Ramos seeking to kill more schoolchildren than such laconic places as Uvalde, Texas. Somebody profited off the murders of the 19 children and teachers with newly-purchased firearms. Had the law been observed by the profit maker of the AR-15, ammunition, and another gun, Mr. Ramos might have raided someone's home while the inhabitants were on vacation. Mentally sick people can be very surreptitious about the perdition they intentionally incur.


----------



## beautress (Jul 10, 2022)

Oh yes, I forgot to mention the law, so I looked it up:

Federal Law Under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
Link:  Possession of Firearms by People With Mental Illness
Not only must one refrain from selling the mentally sick person a gun, one must not give him the gun nor give access to a gun to the mentally ill person, either.

Additionally the link above has a list of state laws against selling guns to those with psychiatric disorders, etc.

Exempla gratia:


Texas*Gov't Code § 411.172*
A person is eligible for a license to carry a handgun if the person:
Is not a chemically dependent person; and
Is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun.
A person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
Has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
Suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition that:
Is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
Requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment.
Has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person’s own affairs; or
Has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.
> 
> As Ratified:
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> ...


Brilliant and skillful interpretation.  Thank you.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 11, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The "collective right" interpretations of the 2ndA were inserted in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower federal court decisions, _Cases v. U.S_, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" and _U.S. v. Tot_, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right".
> 
> _Miller_ speaks of the collective _object _of the 2nd Amendment, to perpetuate the general militia principle but that does not speak to the nature of the pre-existing, fully retained right to arms, only recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that.  I had forgotten about Cases but I don't remember reading Tots before.

Still both cases did refer back to Miller to get the militia based defense of the NFA and FFA. 

Presser was convicted under an Illinois law that made it illegal for armed men to parade except for government approved militias groups.  The Court didn't consider the constitutionality of the parade (bearing arms) portion of the the Illinois law.  So they didn't uphold or overturn, because they didn't consider, the provision.  Thus my statement that it was mentioned but that it wasn't until Miller that the idea began to take root.

In any case, like the idea of substantive due process, the collective right was a made up constitutional theory that didn't appear at all until well over 100 years from the ratification of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Thanks for that.  I had forgotten about Cases but I don't remember reading Tots before.
> 
> Still both cases did refer back to Miller to get the militia based defense of the NFA and FFA.



_Cases_ is very interesting and puzzling at the same time.  Yes, it refers to _Miller_ but not to rely on it but to mock it and give a hyperbolic (but true) interpretation of what they call "the rule of the _Miller_ case", only to dismiss and ignore _Miller_ and SCOTUS.

_Cases_ mocks _Miller_ as outdated and holds _Miller_'s statement that "_it is not within judicial notice_" that a sawed-off shotgun has military usefulness, as a reason to dismiss SCOTUS:

"the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon."​

The _Cases_ court goes on and explains what legal determinations -- _*regarding the possession and use of guns by private citizens*_ -- they would be compelled to sustain, (and the gun control they would be forced to invalidate), if they enforced "the rule of the _Miller_ case":
​​"if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.​​Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns . . . "​
It's clear that _Cases_ cannot be read to say _Miler_ demands an interpretation of the 2ndA that compels a militia conditioning of the right; it says the opposite!  _Cases_ says _Miller_ says the 2ndA protects the possession and use of military arms by "private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit'.

That outcome of course was deemed unacceptable (even though it was legally correct). The _Cases_ court then opined (without any legal justification) that the framers couldn't possibly have intended to bind Congress so strictly.

Now the _Cases_ court had a clean slate. The _Cases_ court turns to the facts of the case and since the "_Miller_ rule" is now cast aside, the focus of SCOTUS on the _type of arm_ and its _military usefulness_, can also be cast aside.

The _Cases_ court (after acknowledging that the possession and use of the revolver would actually be protected under _Miller_) shifts the focus *from the weapon's usefulness*, to the mindset of the person and creates _a mandate for his physical attachment to a military organization or intent to join one,_ before claiming any 2nd Amendment immunity.

The _Cases_ court changes the protection criteria for the 2nd Amendment in US courts:


"We therefore turn to the record in the case at bar. From it it appears that on or about August 27, 1941, the appellant received into his possession and carried away ten rounds of ammunition, and that on the evening of August 30 of the same year he went to Annadale's Beach Club on Isla Verde in the municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico, equipped with a .38 caliber Colt type revolver of Spanish make which, when some one turned out the lights, he used, apparently not wholly without effect, upon another patron of the place who in some way seems to have incurred his displeasure. While the weapon may be capable of military use, or while at least familiarity with it might be regarded as of value in training a person to use a comparable weapon of military type and caliber, still there is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military career.*"*​
And _Abracadabra_! The "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was created and inserted into the federal courts of the USA where it would remain for 66 years to extinguish the claims of US citizens of a right to arms in US courts.

_US v Tot_ is on shakier ground.  The _Tot_ court, without any examination to justify the statement, just declares:


"It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power."​

And _Abracadabra_! The "state's right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was created and inserted into the federal courts of the USA where it would remain for 66 years to extinguish the claims of US citizens of a right to arms in US courts . . .

_Heller_, with the simple holding that the 2ndA secures an individual right without militia conditioning, invalidated _Cases_ and Tot and their illegitimate reasoning and rendered infirm the dozens of subsequent lower federal and state court opinions that are grounded in _Cases _and_ Tot_.

.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Presser was convicted under an Illinois law that made it illegal for armed men to parade except for government approved militias groups.  The Court didn't consider the constitutionality of the parade (bearing arms) portion of the the Illinois law.  So they didn't uphold or overturn, because they didn't consider, the provision.



Of course the Court upheld the one section of state law by dismissing Presser's claim of constitutional protection of the action of marching armed without permission.  The Court used severability to justify not examining the entire militia code of Illinois, the specific challenged statutes were examined under Presser's 2ndA claim and deemed legitimate.


"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. . . .​​The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms without and independent of an act of Congress or law of the state authorizing the same is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system, they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.​​It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."​


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

2aguy said:


> When was the last political assassination in this country? So no, it doesn’t happen every day here even with our guns and you left wing, violent fascists.



It doesn't happen here because we have highly trained bodyguards for most of our leaders.  If only the rest of us had such protections.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

beautress said:


> We already have laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Those who sell guns to a nutcase should be nailed for selling them a gun, but they want the money more than they care about what happens sequentially, so it will take some doing to learn who sold the gun to such persons as a Salvador Ramos seeking to kill more schoolchildren than such laconic places as Uvalde, Texas. Somebody profited off the murders of the 19 children and teachers with newly-purchased firearms. Had the law been observed by the profit maker of the AR-15, ammunition, and another gun, Mr. Ramos might have raided someone's home while the inhabitants were on vacation. Mentally sick people can be very surreptitious about the perdition they intentionally incur.



But that's the point... we've given gun sellers blanket protections from liability..  

You see, after the DC Snipers were caught, they realized that one of them was a convicted felon and the other was a minor, but they were able to get guns anyway. A jury found the gun store liable.  Well, the gun industry marched right off to DC and demanded a law that protects gun sellers and manufacturers from liability when a Second Amendment Enthusiast gets too enthusiastic.


----------



## beautress (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But that's the point... we've given gun sellers blanket protections from liability..
> 
> You see, after the DC Snipers were caught, they realized that one of them was a convicted felon and the other was a minor, but they were able to get guns anyway. A jury found the gun store liable.  Well, the gun industry marched right off to DC and demanded a law that protects gun sellers and manufacturers from liability when a Second Amendment Enthusiast gets too enthusiastic.


DC Snipers? The only "sniper" on Jan 6. was one of Nancy's Capitol Police who shot an unarmed war hero who was trying to encourage the protesters to turn back. She lived and died serving her country, even though while being a Republican. She was not armed, and she was trying to get her curious fellow Republicans to turn back. She was the only one who was shot dead for her actions, which were in favor of stopping people from entering the Capitol building. None of the Republicans were armed at all. Strange thing, that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

beautress said:


> DC Snipers? The only "sniper" on Jan 6. was one of Nancy's Capitol Police who shot an unarmed war hero who was trying to encourage the protesters to turn back. She lived and died serving her country, even though while being a Republican. She was not armed, and she was trying to get her curious fellow Republicans to turn back. She was the only one who was shot dead for her actions, which were in favor of stopping people from entering the Capitol building. None of the Republicans were armed at all. Strange thing, that.



Wow, nice change of the subject.  

You mean an unarmed woman was killed for acting in a threatening manner?   Were her last words, "Can't you see I'm white?"


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with your very long babbling.
> 
> The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.
> 
> ...


The entire Bill of Rights was about the rights of the people not the government.

The state has no rights, the government has no rights.

THE PEOPLE have rights


----------



## beautress (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But that's the point... we've given gun sellers blanket protections from liability..
> 
> You see, after the DC Snipers were caught, they realized that one of them was a convicted felon and the other was a minor, but they were able to get guns anyway. A jury found the gun store liable.  Well, the gun industry marched right off to DC and demanded a law that protects gun sellers and manufacturers from liability when a Second Amendment Enthusiast gets too enthusiastic.


Soros footing the bill for hatemongers of the leftist press use their fellow Democrat liars of the social media and the DNC Talking Points page for insiders as their only sources of information that they will mimic and pretend their hatred is justified. It isn't, and in fact, it is the national disgrace to those who know the truth: Pelosi and her fellow whining  hatemongers in the press, many of whom are card-carrying communists. I actually experienced one of those card-carrying communists soliloquy on why "the people" should arm themselves to shoot and kill all non-communists because they stand in the way of (murderous) progressives. I never had my piano tuned again because of that spiel given to me while he should have been doing his job of tuning my piano. Don't worry. He was treated with dignity and respect under my roof, but I declined his invitation to come to the next communist meeting in Oregon. I had no idea the Communists would someday overtake the Democrat Party someday, because that lecture was delivered to me in the late 70s just after my late husband and I moved our family and the piano which was out of tune after its 1200 mile trip to the Beaver State. I needed the piano for community chorale practice.  Singing offkey was not my preference.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The entire Bill of Rights was about the rights of the people not the government.
> 
> The state has no rights, the government has no rights.
> 
> THE PEOPLE have rights



Yes, if you want to tell yourself that... but no.  The Second and Third are clearly about militias.  

The Fourth through Eighth are about limits on the courts. 

And the Ninth and tenth are kind of catch alls for anything they hadn't thought of.


----------



## beautress (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, nice change of the subject.
> 
> You mean an unarmed woman was killed for acting in a threatening manner?   Were her last words, "Can't you see I'm white?"


No, her last words were to her fellow Republicans to the tune of "You have to turn back." Nancy Pelosi didn't want anyone to escape the holocaust she had planned for them. And you know it too, don't you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

beautress said:


> Soros footing the bill for hatemongers of the leftist press use their fellow Democrat liars of the social media and the DNC Talking Points page for insiders as their only sources of information that they will mimic and pretend their hatred is justified. It isn't, and in fact, it is the national disgrace to those who know the truth: Pelosi and her fellow whining hatemongers in the press, many of whom are card-carrying communists. I actually experienced one of those card-carrying communists soliloquy on why "the people" should arm themselves to shoot and kill all non-communists because they stand in the way of (murderous) progressives. I never had my piano tuned again because of that spiel given to me while he should have been doing his job of tuning my piano. Don't worry. He was treated with dignity and respect under my roof, but I declined his invitation to come to the next communist meeting in Oregon. I had no idea the Communists would someday overtake the Democrat Party someday, because that lecture was delivered to me in the late 70s just after my late husband and I moved our family and the piano which was out of tune after its 1200 mile trip to the Beaver State. I needed the piano for community chorale practice. Singing offkey was not my preference.



Ah, the fun reaction of two crazy people getting together... 

Did this poor fellow have to shoo away one of your 25 cats when tuning your piano?


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, if you want to tell yourself that... but no.  The Second and Third are clearly about militias.
> 
> The Fourth through Eighth are about limits on the courts.
> 
> And the Ninth and tenth are kind of catch alls for anything they hadn't thought of.


No they are not.

The 4th -8th are protections FOR THE PEOPLE from the government.

And the ninth states that THE PEOPLE have rights beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

beautress said:


> No, her last words were to her fellow Republicans to the tune of "You have to turn back." Nancy Pelosi didn't want anyone to escape the holocaust she had planned for them. And you know it too, don't you.



Uh, no, Crazy Cat Lady, you guys can try to paint Jan 6 in nicer terms, but it was a riot incited by Trump where you lunatics thought you could overturn an election you lost. 

And then like children who had been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, you tried to shift blame.  "Well, you shouldn't have put the cookie jar where we could get at it so easily!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No they are not.
> 
> The 4th -8th are protections FOR THE PEOPLE from the government.
> 
> And the ninth states that THE PEOPLE have rights beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.



Yes, the Constitution is badly written, we got that.  

But this absurd notion that the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership is silly, and if one of the Dead Slave Rapists heard your crazy argument about armed mobs being considered a militia, they'd have looked at you sideways. 

You see, when the Founding Slave Rapists said, "The people" what they really meant was "The White Landed Gentry".


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, the Constitution is badly written, we got that.
> 
> But this absurd notion that the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership is silly, and if one of the Dead Slave Rapists heard your crazy argument about armed mobs being considered a militia, they'd have looked at you sideways.
> 
> You see, when the Founding Slave Rapists said, "The people" what they really meant was "The White Landed Gentry".


The Second clearly states "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE"

Not the right of the militia


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No they are not.
> 
> The 4th -8th are *protections FOR THE PEOPLE from the government.*
> 
> And the ninth states that THE PEOPLE have rights beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.



  So are the First through Third Amendments.  Really, the entire Bill of Rights, as ratified.

  All except the Tenth are clearly about rights that belong to the people, and a constraint on  government violating these rights.  The Tenth is really more about limiting the power of the federal government to those powers explicitly delegated thereto.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, the Constitution is badly written, we got that.



  It only seems that way to those of a tyrannical mindset, who desire government to seize and abuse powers which the Constitution specifically denies to government.

  Most of the Constitution is very clear, to those who do not have malicious intent to go against the principles established therein.



JoeB131 said:


> But this absurd notion that the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership is silly…



  Except that that is what it explicitly says.  It explicitly, unambiguously states that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to THE PEOPLE (not to the state, the federal government, nor any militia) and that government is forbidden from infringing this right.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But that's the point... we've given gun sellers blanket protections from liability..



No "blanket" immunity exists.



JoeB131 said:


> You see, after the DC Snipers were caught, they realized that one of them was a convicted felon and the other was a minor, but they were able to get guns anyway.



They stole the gun from the gun store, their status as a prohibited person was of no consequence.



JoeB131 said:


> A jury found the gun store liable.



The lawsuit was settled, no jury verdict was handed down.



JoeB131 said:


> Well, the gun industry marched right off to DC and demanded a law that protects gun sellers and manufacturers from liability when a Second Amendment Enthusiast gets too enthusiastic.



Well, since you have lied about every aspect you have stated so far, the chances you can support that statement, that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was lobbied for and a result of the settlement from the DC Snipier case, are less than zero . . .  Especially since the negligent and criminal actions of the gun store would not have been covered by the PLCA.

Why do you anti-gunners always lie?


----------



## sparky (Jul 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The entire Bill of Rights was about the rights of the people *not the government*.
> 
> The state has no rights, the government has no rights.
> 
> THE PEOPLE have rights


Much to the_ point_ Blues

the 2nd was written before a standing army 

Militia literally meant '_we the people_' were to be armed , in order to defend ourselves.

'_Militia_'  was in lieu of '_Government army_'

Militia was meant to defend a _free state_, be it foreign OR domestic 

Once the government , even _our own_, has more access to and/or owns more '_arms_'  , we forfeit that _right_ to defend ourselves

~S~


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 11, 2022)

The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment​
The Second Amendment  protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,

..the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  Under _Heller_, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”  _McDonald_, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion).  The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.  The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But that's the point... we've given gun sellers blanket protections from liability..
> 
> You see, after the DC Snipers were caught, they realized that one of them was a convicted felon and the other was a minor, but they were able to get guns anyway. A jury found the gun store liable.  Well, the gun industry marched right off to DC and demanded a law that protects gun sellers and manufacturers from liability when a Second Amendment Enthusiast gets too enthusiastic.




Why do you lie?  Do you get a giggle out of posting these lies?

The gun makers are not immune from liability...if they make a defective gun, they can be sued for any damage it causes........they can't be sued because a 3rd party used their gun illegally.....just like the beer maker can't be sued when someone drives drunk...or the car maker can't be sued because someone drives drunk...

You simply want to use the democrat party legal warfare division to sue gun makers out of existence....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It only seems that way to those of a tyrannical mindset, who desire government to seize and abuse powers which the Constitution specifically denies to government.
> 
> Most of the Constitution is very clear, to those who do not have malicious intent to go against the principles established therein.



Actually, malicious is letting some crazy person shoot up a parade because you didn't want to fill out extra paperwork.  That's malicious. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Except that that is what it explicitly says. It explicitly, unambiguously states that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to THE PEOPLE (not to the state, the federal government, nor any militia) and that government is forbidden from infringing this right.



The word gun is mentioned nowhere in the amendment... but a well regulated militia is. 



2aguy said:


> Why do you lie? Do you get a giggle out of posting these lies?
> 
> The gun makers are not immune from liability...if they make a defective gun, they can be sued for any damage it causes........they can't be sued because a 3rd party used their gun illegally.....just like the beer maker can't be sued when someone drives drunk...or the car maker can't be sued because someone drives drunk...
> 
> You simply want to use the democrat party legal warfare division to sue gun makers out of existence....



naw, I just want them to clean up their act, and act responsibly, like every other industry does. 

Take the banking industry.  They did a LOT of irresponsible shit leading up to the housing crisis.   Then they cracked down on them, they lost billions, and they changed a lot of how they do business. 

The gun industry looks at a mass shooter, and runs off to Congress to make sure their families can't possibly collect because they sold a gun to a nutbag.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

Wow, Rightwingers living in their own reality..



Abatis said:


> They stole the gun from the gun store, their status as a prohibited person was of no consequence.



because the gun store left the gun out where any fool could walk off with it. That was the negligent part.   



Abatis said:


> The lawsuit was settled, no jury verdict was handed down.



Because they knew the minute they got crying families and crime photos in front of a jury, there wasn't much they could do about it 



Abatis said:


> Well, since you have lied about every aspect you have stated so far, the chances you can support that statement, that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was lobbied for and a result of the settlement from the DC Snipier case, are less than zero . . . Especially since the negligent and criminal actions of the gun store would not have been covered by the PLCA.



Yawn, not going to play "find the links" with you.. 

You know damned well that's exactly why the gun industry rushed off and got that law... because they saw lawfare as the end of their corrupt industry.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, malicious is letting some crazy person shoot up a parade because you didn't want to fill out extra paperwork.  That's malicious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the firearms manufacturer doesnt sell firearms to any one except Gun shops.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> the firearms manufacturer doesnt sell firearms to any one except Gun shops.



Gun Shops they know are marketing to people they shouldn't be. 

Let's remember the Tobacco Lawsuit, when they finally got all the internal memos of the tobacco companies, and found out they were doing things like spiking the cigs with nicotine to make them more addictive and intentionally using cartoon characters to appeal to children. 

Let's see what shakes out when we sue the gun industry?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 11, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Why do you [Incel Joe] lie?



  Lying is what Incel Joe does.  Lying is what Incel Joe is.

  You might as well ask a house fly why it eats shit.  A thing is what it is.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Lying is what @Incel Joe does. Lying is what @Incel Joe is.
> 
> You might as well ask a house fly why it eats shit. A thing is what it is.



Says the guy who belongs to a cult started by a child molesting con man.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 11, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Lying is what Incel Joe does.  Lying is what Incel Joe is.
> 
> You might as well ask a house fly why it eats shit.  A thing is what it is.



_Quod erat demonstrandum._



JoeB131 said:


> Says the guy who belongs to a cult started by a child molesting con man.



  It just cannot help itself.  Every time it opens its mouth, or touches a keyboard, lies come out.  The more hateful, the more malevolent, the more absurd, the better, as far as it is concerned.  A thing is what it is.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> the firearms manufacturer doesnt sell firearms to any one except Gun shops.


And usually them, through wholesalers.
I -have- bought a few guns directly thu the manufacturer, but these were very special events.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Says the guy who belongs to a cult started by a child molesting con man.



Posts the man who votes for the democrat party, a party started by slave rapists…..


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> It doesn't happen here because we have highly trained bodyguards for most of our leaders.  If only the rest of us had such protections.


No way!  Are you suggesting that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns? 

That's a crazy idea that we've never ever heard of before.  Where did you come up with that one?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no, Crazy Cat Lady, you guys can try to paint Jan 6 in nicer terms, but it was a riot incited by Trump where you lunatics thought you could overturn an election you lost.
> 
> And then like children who had been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, you tried to shift blame.  "Well, you shouldn't have put the cookie jar where we could get at it so easily!"


January 6 was a riot incited by the FBI and their agent, Ray Epps - but mostly by the on-the-payroll FBI agents there that day.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, the Constitution is badly written, we got that.


No, the Constitution is written very well and easily understood, then and now.  You are just badly educated and don't know how to read it.



JoeB131 said:


> You see, when the Founding Slave Rapists said, "The people" what they really meant was "The White Landed Gentry".


That could be what they meant when they said "The people" but what is certain is that, when they said, "The people" they did not mean "the militia".


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It just cannot help itself. Every time it opens its mouth, or touches a keyboard, lies come out. The more hateful, the more malevolent, the more absurd, the better, as far as it is concerned. A thing is what it is.



The history of your deranged cult is well documented, and you have yet to refute one thing I've pointed out about it. 



2aguy said:


> Posts the man who votes for the democrat party, a party started by slave rapists…..



America was started by Slave Rapists...  but you are generally fine with that.  



woodwork201 said:


> No way! Are you suggesting that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns?
> 
> That's a crazy idea that we've never ever heard of before. Where did you come up with that one?



Well trained good guys, yes. 
Inbred morons with guns, not so much. 



woodwork201 said:


> January 6 was a riot incited by the FBI and their agent, Ray Epps - but mostly by the on-the-payroll FBI agents there that day.


Really, I could have sworn it was Trump standing on that Podium screaming at his followers...  It was on TV and everything.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > It just cannot help itself. Every time it opens its mouth, or touches a keyboard, lies come out.
> ...



  It just cannot help itself.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It just cannot help itself.



Pointing out how deranged your cult is? Definitely not.


----------



## SavannahMann (Jul 12, 2022)

True or False. Firearms were restricted when the Second was passed by the Founders.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 12, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> True or False. Firearms were restricted when the Second was passed by the Founders.


By the federal government?

Well, seeing as how the federal government had not actually been formed yet (the constitution had not yet been ratified) FALSE.

In fact, the first time the FedGov did *any *firearm legislation was the 1934 NFA, which Congress could only do as a *TAX*, indicating that EVERYBODY knew the FedGov had no authority except via taxation.

It remains unconstitutional to this day because an enumerated right cannot be limited by taxation.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> True or False. Firearms were restricted when the Second was passed by the Founders.




Nope........they had rifles and pistols at home and were allowed to carry them....but thanks for playing.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Pointing out how deranged your cult is? Definitely not.



  It must be awfully crowded in your head, with almost seventeen million of us Mormons living rent-free therein.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It must be awfully crowded in your head, with almost seventeen million of us Mormons living rent-free therein.




I have to say it is funny when he attacks Mormons........he votes for a political party created by actual slave rapists.....a party that started a Civil War to keep slaves and rape them........a political party that started the KKK to murder blacks and republicans....a political party to this day, that has destroyed the black family through their "Great Society," program and a political party today, where the minorities in the cities the party controls are suffering from murder, generational poverty and hopelessness...

He votes for that....every single election.....and then makes fun of Mormons.....

This is how you can tell the left are insane....and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power.....


----------



## SavannahMann (Jul 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope........they had rifles and pistols at home and were allowed to carry them....but thanks for playing.


Not so much. 





__





						Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved
					





					theconversation.com


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



#1 is a lie...registering as a member of the militia is not gun registration...you idiot.

#2 is also a lie.....Scalia goes through this...traveling armed to cause trouble was banned...but not being armed....

#3...... Since the paper they use to justify attacking Stand Your Ground laws mentions the Trevon Martin shooting...it starts out legally inaccurate, since Stand Your Ground was not part of the Zimmerman Defense, and was not used in the trial........he was pinned to the ground by Martin, therefore Standing His Ground was not an option.......

#4....Safe Storage Laws......really?   They had black powder weapons......and actually posed a fire hazard.....which is why the main powder stores of the militia were kept in a separate building, but the Americans in the militia still kept a ration of powder with them at all times.........doofus......

#5... Loyalty Oaths?


Wow....another dumb, anti-gun fanatic post.....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 12, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your ignorance is laughable
No one was required to register their guns as a condition of ownership; no one was required to be enrolled in the militia to own a gun, and the people enrolled in the militia registered themselves, not their weapons.
Firearms, see , did not have serial numbers back then.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I have to say it is funny when he attacks Mormons........he votes for a political party created by actual slave rapists.....a party that started a Civil War to keep slaves and rape them........a political party that started the KKK to murder blacks and republicans....a political party to this day, that has destroyed the black family through their "Great Society," program and a political party today, where the minorities in the cities the party controls are suffering from murder, generational poverty and hopelessness...



Obviously, you have no idea about the history of the Democratic party or the Mormon Cult. 

This information was deviously hidden from you in things called "Books".


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It must be awfully crowded in your head, with almost seventeen million of us Mormons living rent-free therein.



Naw, man, I had my revenge on your cult when Romney lost.  They were crying all the way to planet Kolob.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Obviously, you have no idea about the history of the Democratic party or the Mormon Cult.
> 
> This information was deviously hidden from you in things called "Books".



The democrat party was created by two slave owners……according to your very own standard that makes them slave rapists…since the democrat party started the war to keep slaves….they started the war to keep raping their slaves……just following your beliefs…


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrat party was created by two slave owners……according to your very own standard that makes them slave rapists…since the democrat party started the war to keep slaves….they started the war to keep raping their slaves……just following your beliefs…


.And when the Democrats asked those people to leave, Tricky Dick welcomed them with open arms.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> .And when the Democrats asked those people to leave, Tricky Dick welcomed them with open arms.



Yeah…..you guys try that lame ass lie……the Republicans freed blacks from their democrat party rapists, protected them from the democrat party rapist klan members ….. and then you guys try to call the republicans the racists…..


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> .And when the Democrats asked those people to leave, Tricky Dick welcomed them with open arms.



The democrats never asked them to leave…. They just told them to hide their racism to get to get black votes…..


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah…..you guys try that lame ass lie……the Republicans freed blacks from their democrat party rapists, protected them from the democrat party rapist klan members ….. and then you guys try to call the republicans the racists…..



Yeah, they did that ONLY because the South tried to secede. Not because they wanted to. 

Then Rutherford B. Hayes gave up on civil rights and the GOP never looked back. 



2aguy said:


> The democrats never asked them to leave…. They just told them to hide their racism to get to get black votes…..



Actually, they left after LBJ signed the CRA's of 64 and 68, and Nixon welcomed them with open arms.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, they did that ONLY because the South tried to secede. Not because they wanted to.
> 
> Then Rutherford B. Hayes gave up on civil rights and the GOP never looked back.
> 
> ...



Wrong….you keep voting for the slave rapist party, then pretend to hold the moral high ground….


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, if you want to tell yourself that... but no.  The Second and Third are clearly about militias.
> 
> The Fourth through Eighth are about limits on the courts.
> 
> And the Ninth and tenth are kind of catch alls for anything they hadn't thought of.


Actually, the Third Amendment has nothing at all to do with militias.

*No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.*​
During times of peace, the only people who are Federal soldiers are the standing army.  The militia are only Federal soldiers when called up in a very short, explicit, set of circumstances outlined in the Constitution.

There's no way to get to what you claim.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Who suggested that the 2nd Amendment says it's legal to take up arms against the government? I must have missed that post.
> 
> But I did quote the absolute proof that the intent was an individual right of the people.  In the original submitted text, the amendment said the people have the right to keep and bear arms - and *that *was the first of multiple independent clauses.  That in merging all the different proposals and expectations into a single, more succinct, amendment, the order of the two clauses were reversed, even changing the relationship into prefatory and operative clauses, the intent and meaning did not change and was not intended to change.
> 
> ...


None of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are un-Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment – including UBCs, AWBs, and magazine capacity restrictions, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Such measures are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Conservatives are lying when they claim that such measures ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The entire Bill of Rights was about the rights of the people not the government.
> 
> The state has no rights, the government has no rights.
> 
> THE PEOPLE have rights


The liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights are neither unlimited nor absolute.

Government has the authority reflecting the will of the people to place limits and restriction on our rights consistent with applicable case law – including the Second Amendment right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights are neither unlimited nor absolute.


Just like the right to an abortion.
Oh.   Wait.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really, I could have sworn it was Trump standing on that Podium screaming at his followers... It was on TV and everything.


Please link any videos that show Trump calling for violence instead of calling for a peaceful protest.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> None of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are un-Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment – including UBCs, AWBs, and magazine capacity restrictions, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Such measures are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Conservatives are lying when they claim that such measures ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.



And you are lying when you pretend to know what you are talking about…..they all violate the Constitution


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope........they had rifles and pistols at home and were allowed to carry them....but thanks for playing.


And cannons and warships. And machine guns.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 13, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



2aguy did a great job on this, and perhaps may others since I am responding without having read later posts in the thread, but let me add my 2 million dollars worth.

#1 - Registration
Being required to own a gun that met the requirements of the militia is not registration.  Most, if not all, guns didn't have a serial number.  There was no requirement to notify the government if you transferred a firearm. 

Having to report for muster with an appropriate firearm is not registration.  What if a person owned 50 guns? Was there someone at their door counting them all, marking them all, and tracking every movement or transfer?

#2 - Public Carry
The article linked starts its public carry section by talking about laws in London and in Britain.  It refers to the States adopting the British common law rules on many things including gun control.  For instance, there's this quote in an article linked from SavannahMan's link:

As a North Carolina jurist, James Davis, put it in 1774:​*Justices of the Peace, upon their own View, or upon Complaint, may apprehend any Person who shall go or ride armed with unusual and offensive weapons, in an Affray, or among any great Concourse of the People, or who shall appear, so armed, before the King’s Justices sitting in Court.*​
What this reference proves is that the British law restricted the right to keep and bear arms which was one of the very things that led to the revolution and is one of the key reasons why the 2nd Amendment explicitly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - very explicitly to make sure that these same rules from Britain did not happen in the United States.

Another one, proving the British gun control laws before the Revolution and before the Constitution, and, once again, the very reason why the 2nd Amendment says, "shall not be infringed":

_*Writing at the close of the eighteenth century, the author of The Grammar of English Law , echoed this account by confidently asserting that “no man, great or small, shall go or ride armed, by night or by day, with dangerous or unusual weapons, terrifying the good people of the land.”  J.P. Gent’s A New Guide for Constables (1705) averred that the Statute of Northampton prohibited riding or going “armed offensively” before the “King’s Justices” or in “Fairs or Markets.”  Additionally, Joseph Keble, author of *_*another popular guide to the law, warned that if anyone was so “bold as to go or ride Armed, by night or day, in Fairs, Markets, or any other places,” constables could disarm him and “commit him to the Goal.”*

These references from SavannahMan prove that it was the explicit intent of the Founders to overturn and end these very gun control laws restricting public carry.

#3 - Stand-your-ground laws
Stand your ground laws aren't gun control laws; they're defense of life and property laws.  But that's OK, we can rip you on that one, too. 

First, what 2aguy said is important.  Zimmerman was not a stand-your-ground case. Obama through that into the mix only out of opportunity to try to get more submission by Americans to the force of criminals designed to destroy America through empowering the government as our only authorized "protectors".

Regarding stand-your-ground, Blackstone says:
_*[T]he law requires that the person, who kills another in his own defence, should have retreated as far he conveniently or safely can, to avoid the violence of the assault, before he turns upon his assailant; and that, not fictiously, or in order to watch his opportunity, but from a real tenderness of shedding his brother's blood. And though it may be cowardice, in time of war between two independent nations, to flee from an enemy; yet between two fellow subjects the law countenances no such point of honor: Because the king and his courts are the *vindices injuriarum* [avengers of injuries], and will give to the party wronged all the satisfaction he deserves.*_

Yeah, because we all know how well that whole idea of the wronged party getting all the satisfaction he deserves works out, don't we?

But, in actuality, English law did allow stand-your-ground very similar to its use today in the United States.  If you are the aggressor or equally share the aggression then stand-your-ground would not save you. The article mentions two scenarios, one where stand-your-ground would not be defensible and one where it would.

If you agree to fight someone and then he basically kicks your ass but then he goes beyond kicking your ass and is now going to kill you.  The law would allow a self defense argument only if you did everything possible to retreat and found yourself with no possible retreat.  In other words, winning a fist fight does not give you the right to kill your opponent.  But it also does not give your opponent the right to kill you.  If your opponent appears now to be determined to kill you, run.  If he catches you, defend yourself.

In the other scenario, you did not equally or originally start the aggression but someone attacks you with intent, as you believe, to kill or seriously injure you, then in English law you did not have to retreat.

_*Thus, under the English rule, as articulated by Edward Coke, a person was justified in using deadly force against another, even to the point of killing the other, if threatened with imminent death or grave injury for which the defendant bore no responsibility or blame. In other cases where the defendant and the deceased mutually came to blows and the embroglio reached the point where the defendant found it necessary to kill the other rather than die, the defendant could only claim self-defense if the defendant had first attempted to retreat; in other words, if the defendant's "back [was] to the wall" before using deadly force against the other person. Thus, in his 1628 treatise Institutes of the Laws of England, Lord Coke wrote:*_​_*Some be voluntary, yet being done upon inevitable cause, are no felony. As if A be assaulted by B, and they fight together, and before any mortal blow be given, A giveth back [retreat] until he cometh to a hedge, wall, or other strait, beyond which he can not pass; and then, in his own defense and for safeguard of his own life killeth the other; this is voluntary, and yet no felony . . .Some, without giving back [retreating] to a wall, etc., or other inevitable cause, as if a thief offer to rob or murder either abroad or in his house, and thereupon assault him, and defende himselfe without giving back, and in his defense killeth the thiefe, this is no felony; for a man shall never give way to a thiefe, ect., *_*neither shall he forfeit anything.*​
So it is quite clear that English stand-your-ground was, in actuality, very close to modern stand-your-ground in the United States.  It is those states who do not recognize the rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness, including private property rights, that argue against, and legislate against, stand your ground.

#4 - Safe Storage Laws
Massachusetts is one of the states that didn't insist on a gun rights amendment in the Constitution.  In fact, Massachusetts didn't ratify the Bill of Rights until 1939. 

So Massachusetts had a different outlook on liberty than did the other states.  That didn't matter, though; their law that forbid the storage of a loaded musket or rifle in the  home, referenced in the article you SavannahMan posted, was created in 1783 before the Constitution and before the Bill of Rights. 

When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, even though not by Massachusetts, Massachusetts was still obligated by it.  As far as I can find, that law was never challenged so we don't have contemporary writings on the application of that law.

As for storage of powder, that didn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. At 100 grains per round, that's 70 per pound, so about 2100 rounds in at home storage of a very dangerous compound wasn't considered an infringement.  Modern powder is not explosive and modern ammunition doesn't represent the same fire risk. 

And, in fact, as 2aguy mentioned, men were required to keep ammunition on hand - powder and ball for a minimum of 16 rounds.

#5 - Loyalty Oaths
Obviously that has nothing to do with gun control.  The loyalty oaths, though, were during the revolutionary war.  You don't necessarily keep armed enemies around during a time of war.  It certainly wasn't unconstitutional because the Constitution didn't exist at the time. 

It would be an interesting topic if it came up today.  Of course we  know that the Democrats would be all for it, as they were when they put Japanese Americans in prison camps during WWII.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrat party was created by two slave owners……according to your very own standard that makes them slave rapists…since the democrat party started the war to keep slaves….they started the war to keep raping their slaves……just following your beliefs…


And, in fact, the Democrats are still the party of slavery and the party of rape and the party of slave rapists.  Just look at the southern border and all of the women and children raped and molested and sold into slavery in the United States.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> None of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are un-Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment – including UBCs, AWBs, and magazine capacity restrictions, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Such measures are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Conservatives are lying when they claim that such measures ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.


Jurisprudence is an interesting concept; I use the word (and the theories) a lot myself.  But jurisprudence, just like the decisions of the Supreme Court, just offers interesting input to help understand the Constitution but neither jurisprudence nor the Supreme Court prove the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of anything.

But jurisprudence isn't what empowers or limits our government; the Constitution does that.  And the Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights are neither unlimited nor absolute.
> 
> Government has the authority reflecting the will of the people to place limits and restriction on our rights consistent with applicable case law – including the Second Amendment right.


Where do they get that authority?  If they can get the representatives of 75% of the States they can do the things you suggest.  Otherwise, they have absolutely zero authority to act outside the Constitution.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong….you keep voting for the slave rapist party, then pretend to hold the moral high ground….



I vote for the party that doesn't support killer cops, arming the gangs like soldiers, and screwing the working man to benefit the rich.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 13, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Actually, the Third Amendment has nothing at all to do with militias.
> 
> *No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.*
> During times of peace, the only people who are Federal soldiers are the standing army. The militia are only Federal soldiers when called up in a very short, explicit, set of circumstances outlined in the Constitution.
> ...



During that period, the militia, army and police were pretty much interchageable... 

The fact that we have police armed like soldiers now kind of violates the principle of the third amendment.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights are neither unlimited nor absolute.
> 
> Government has the authority reflecting the will of the people to place limits and restriction on our rights consistent with applicable case law – including the Second Amendment right.


The second amendment is in itself limited.

You'll notice only the right to keep and bear arms is protected.

You have no right to fire that weapon wherever you want at whatever you want


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I vote for the party that doesn't support killer cops, arming the gangs like soldiers, and screwing the working man to benefit the rich.




You vote for the slave rapist party.......since you constantly condemn the Founders as slave rapists, voting for the political party that was actually created by slave rapists is just funny....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You vote for the slave rapist party.......since you constantly condemn the Founders as slave rapists, voting for the political party that was actually created by slave rapists is just funny....


that is different of course, why? cause he says so that's why.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You vote for the slave rapist party.......since you constantly condemn the Founders as slave rapists, voting for the political party that was actually created by slave rapists is just funny....



Let me know when you have an original thought, buddy.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Let me know when you have an original thought, buddy.



Yeah… that post hit you close to home


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah… that post hit you close to home



No, you just type the same crap, and I don't even think you comprehend the points being discussed... I halfway wonder if you are an NRA bot that no one bothers to check on.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> During that period, the militia, army and police were pretty much interchageable...
> 
> The fact that we have police armed like soldiers now kind of violates the principle of the third amendment.


Wrong.  The first police force in the United States wasn't formed until something like 1845.  There was no interchangeable about it.  The King's army was housed in the homes of the population.  The Constitution expressly forbade that.  

You leftists keep using what the British did as evidence of what the United States can do under the Constitution.  You forget that whole revolution thing that happened in between.  What the British did or did not do has no relationship to what went into the Constitution.

If you consider that the most important rights and limits on government  went into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then you must also understand that it was their explicit intent to override the actions of the British King and his army.  

Then, for those things that they did not mention in the Constitution and that they didn't write elsewhere from which we can ascertain original intent, then we may very well use common law, even going all the way back to the Magna Carta to try to understand original intent.  But what you can't use as original intent are those very things that the British did as evidence when the Constitution expressly tells us otherwise.

The 3rd Amendment can not possibly mean what you said it means because the Federal Government had no authority over the militia in peace time.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You leftists keep using what the British did as evidence of what the United States can do under the Constitution. You forget that whole revolution thing that happened in between. What the British did or did not do has no relationship to what went into the Constitution.



  Much of went into the Constitution was in explicit rejection of how the British were doing things.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The 3rd Amendment can not possibly mean what you said it means because the Federal Government had no authority over the militia in peace time.



  There's an odd interpretation that has occurred to me, of the Third Amendment.

  Back in 1791, we did not have any kind of electronic technology.  No microphones, no surveillance cameras, no telephones to tap.

  If the government wanted to spy on any individual, the only way to do so would be by putting a human being in a position to see and hear what that individual has been up to.  Perhaps under the guise of compelling that individual to house a soldier in his home.

  I think the Third Amendment is much closer than is obvious to most, to the Fourth Amendment, in intent and purpose.  It's to protect the people from being spied on by agents of the government.


----------



## beautress (Jul 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> They need bodyguards because they are too cowardly to pass real gun reform to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.
> 
> Now, if we took the bodyguards away from them, imagine how fast they'd fix the problem.
> 
> Darn it, the Second Amendment really IS about militias, they'd all exclaim!


Sufficient laws have been passed and are currently being ignored, and nobody wants to rile an Aaron Burr.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Why does one need military style weapons and large mag?


Why are you spouting nonsense about "need"?  We aren't serfs and you are not our lord.  It doesn't matter whether you think we need a certain weapon or not.




Penelope said:


> To kill.


That is incorrect.  Self defense is about protection, not about killing.

Target shooting is about firing at inanimate objects.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.


That is incorrect.  The original intent of the Second Amendment was to mandate that the government always keep up a well-regulated militia, and to forbid infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The original intent of the Third Amendment was to prevent standing armies from using people's homes as housing.




JoeB131 said:


> The original proposed text of the Second also allowed for contentious objections on religious grounds for being conscripted into a militia.


That is incorrect.  The original proposed text had the conscientious objector language as a stand alone amendment.  It was blended into the text of the Second Amendment later on, before then being removed completely.




JoeB131 said:


> The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses,


That is incorrect.  They were thinking of standing armies.  They never would have dreamed of militiamen taking over people's homes.

However, if any militiamen had tried to do that, I think that the courts would have ruled that militiamen were forbidden from doing it too.




JoeB131 said:


> it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.


That is incorrect.  It was intended that there always be a well-regulated militia 100% of the time.




JoeB131 said:


> The problem, of course, is that these original intents have been lost,


There is good news.  The Supreme Court has started partially enforcing the Second Amendment.




JoeB131 said:


> Of course, it was never about gun ownership.


That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Guns are arms.




JoeB131 said:


> Gun ownership was actually relatively rare in colonial America.


That is incorrect.  Guns were quite common in colonial America.




JoeB131 said:


> There wasn't even a domestic gun industry, firing mechanisms had to be imported from Europe.


That is incorrect.  We had gunmakers in the colonies as early as 1719.  There was quite a thriving gun industry in the colonies by the 1750s.




JoeB131 said:


> The founding fathers believed in Well-Regulated Militias, and at the time, each state had reams of laws defining the militia, with everything from uniforms to what the standard weaponry should be.  (Again, you can't do logistics for a militia if everyone shows up with a different caliber gun).  What they didn't believe in was angry mobs with guns, which is why "popular rebellions" like Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion were put down.


The Founding Fathers also believed in individuals using their guns for private self defense.

So did the Brits back then.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You are kind of making my point for me... that the concern when this was being written was defining militias, particularly at the state level, and NOT allowing every yahoo who wanted a gun to have one so he can form an angry mob and overthrow the local government.


Militias were already defined.  They knew what a militia was.  They were concerned about protecting militias, not defining them.  And they also protected the right of all citizens to have guns.




JoeB131 said:


> They need bodyguards because they are too cowardly to pass real gun reform to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.


It's not cowardice.  Leftists politicians would love to be able to violate our rights.

The reason why they do not do so is because the NRA will not allow them to do so.




JoeB131 said:


> Now, if we took the bodyguards away from them, imagine how fast they'd fix the problem.


There is no problem.  Nothing needs to be fixed.




JoeB131 said:


> Darn it, the Second Amendment really IS about militias, they'd all exclaim!


Leftist politicians already claim that.  No one listens to them because everyone knows that they are lying.

The Second Amendment is only partially about militias.  It is also about protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.




JoeB131 said:


> Well, it's pretty clearly written to me...  that it's about well-regulated militias, not gun ownership.


You are mistaken.  It is only partially about well-regulated militias.

It is also about the right of the people to keep and bear arms.




JoeB131 said:


> The Founders didn't like angry mobs with guns, and frequently put them down with- wait for it - well-regulated militias.


They did however like individuals using their guns for private self defense.




JoeB131 said:


> Yes, if you want to tell yourself that... but no.  The Second and Third are clearly about militias.


That is incorrect.  The Second is only partially about militias.  It is also about the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Third was about standing armies.  No one even conceived that a militia would act in a way that would offend the Third Amendment.

Although if a militia did ever act in such a way, I suppose they would readily say that the Third covered militias as well.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.


No it isn't.  woodwork201 is telling the truth.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence


That is incorrect.  The left continually tries to violate the Second Amendment because they hate our freedom.  The 9/11 hijackers hated our freedom too.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> unlike many on the right.


That is incorrect.  Most people on the right support and uphold the Constitution.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to _Heller_, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.


That is incorrect.  The Supreme Court has always ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  Take the 1939 Miller ruling as one example of this.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, it’s conservatives who lie about the Second Amendment – their most idiotic lie is that the Amendment codifies insurrectionist dogma when in fact there’s nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that authorizes private armed citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.


Conservatives are telling the truth when they say that there is an individual right to have guns and use them for private self defense.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> One doesn’t – it’s a* want*, not a ‘need.’


Indeed.  Only serfs babble about need.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But conservatives shouldn’t contrive ridiculous lies about why they ‘need’ and AR 15; conservatives need to stop lying in a pathetic effort to ‘justify’ possessing such weapons.


Conservatives do no such thing.

We have such guns because we choose to have them, and that we choose to have them is nobody else's business.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to do so – the want alone is more than sufficient.


*Exactly!*


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Which 1942 cases are you referring to?
> Generally, it is assumed that the collective right theory comes from Miller due to the relationship that the Court found in Miller to arming the militia.  It was actually raised in Cruikshank and Presser as well.  Where it mostcertainly did not come from was the Founders and writers of the 2nd Amendment.


I've read ahead and seen that your question has already been answered.  But I want to reiterate that the Miller ruling itself says that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

The government had tried to get them to rule that it was a collective right.  But the Supreme Court rejected that argument and said that it is an individual right.

It was only lower courts that claimed that the Second Amendment is a collective right.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court never actually forced the lower courts to adhere to the Miller ruling after they issued it.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, the Constitution is badly written, we got that.


Not at all.  It was written just fine.




JoeB131 said:


> But this absurd notion that the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership is silly,


That is doubly incorrect.  It's not only about the militia.  It is also about the right of the people.

And yes, it is about gun ownership.  Guns are arms.




JoeB131 said:


> You see, when the Founding Slave Rapists







JoeB131 said:


> said, "The people" what they really meant was "The White Landed Gentry".


Noted.  And also only English Protestants.

But all of this was expanded and changed.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

sparky said:


> Much to the_ point_ Blues
> the 2nd was written before a standing army
> Militia literally meant '_we the people_' were to be armed , in order to defend ourselves.
> '_Militia_'  was in lieu of '_Government army_'
> Militia was meant to defend a _free state_, be it foreign OR domestic


OK up to this point, but....




sparky said:


> Once the government , even _our own_, has more access to and/or owns more '_arms_'  , we forfeit that _right_ to defend ourselves


That is incorrect.  Nothing has been forfeited.  The Constitution still demands that we have a well-regulated militia.  And people still have the right to use their guns for private self defense.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The word gun is mentioned nowhere in the amendment... but a well regulated militia is.


"Arms" are mentioned in the Second Amendment.

Guns are arms.

"People" "keep" and "bear" are also mentioned.




JoeB131 said:


> naw, I just want them to clean up their act, and act responsibly, like every other industry does.


The firearms industry already acts responsibly.




JoeB131 said:


> Take the banking industry.  They did a LOT of irresponsible shit leading up to the housing crisis.


Not really.  Maybe a few banks.  But not most of them.




JoeB131 said:


> Then they cracked down on them, they lost billions, and they changed a lot of how they do business.


Not really.

Except maybe for that one bank that was liquidated.




JoeB131 said:


> The gun industry looks at a mass shooter, and runs off to Congress to make sure their families can't possibly collect because they sold a gun to a nutbag.


Rightly so.




JoeB131 said:


> You know damned well that's exactly why the gun industry rushed off and got that law... because they saw lawfare as the end of their corrupt industry.


No such corruption.

But yes.  The left had the idea of bringing down gun manufacturers with an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits.




JoeB131 said:


> Gun Shops they know are marketing to people they shouldn't be.


Nonsense.  If someone passes the government background check, a store has no way of knowing if they are a bad person.




JoeB131 said:


> Let's remember the Tobacco Lawsuit, when they finally got all the internal memos of the tobacco companies, and found out they were doing things like spiking the cigs with nicotine to make them more addictive and intentionally using cartoon characters to appeal to children.
> Let's see what shakes out when we sue the gun industry?


No.




JoeB131 said:


> During that period, the militia, army and police were pretty much interchageable...


Not really.  A militia is quite different from a standing army.  And there was no such thing as police at the time.




JoeB131 said:


> The fact that we have police armed like soldiers now kind of violates the principle of the third amendment.


Not really.  The police are not living in other people's homes.

And the police are not armed like soldiers now.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Others have already done a good job of debunking the claims about these having been laws, but I wanted to point out that none of these five alleged laws actually prevent people from owning guns.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> None of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are un-Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment – including UBCs, AWBs, and magazine capacity restrictions, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.


Wrong.  Banning assault weapons is blatantly unconstitutional given the fact that existing regulations are already sufficient to prevent them from being used in crimes.

Restricting magazine capacity would be unconstitutional as well given the lack of justification for it.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Such measures are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


That is incorrect.  Violating the Second Amendment is contrary to current Second Amendment jurisprudence.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives are lying when they claim that such measures ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.


Wrong.  Conservatives are telling the truth.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Government has the authority reflecting the will of the people to place limits and restriction on our rights consistent with applicable case law – including the Second Amendment right.


That doesn't mean that it is OK to violate the Second Amendment.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 15, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.


Need has nothing to do with a right. I'm sure I've explained this before so here we go again. I come from a military family and the rifles we all fired going back to the Vietnam War can not be purchased at a gun store. Those military rifles that are legal to buy(manufactured before 1986) are rarely for sale and hideously expensive. An M-16 A2 can cost around $40,000. There is also the very invasive Federal back ground check. If you pass the back ground check and have the money to burn you can't just have it sent directly to you. It has to go though someone with a Federal Firearms License

In conclusion you don't know what the fuck your talking about.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Wrong. The first police force in the United States wasn't formed until something like 1845. There was no interchangeable about it. The King's army was housed in the homes of the population. The Constitution expressly forbade that.



So who do you think handled law enforcement before they started organizing police forces? 
Why do you think police departments have Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains, just like the Army does?  
Why do you think the National Guard is trained to supplement the police.  

The fact is, yes, at a certain point, the Army and Police were interchangeable, and around the 19th century, the concept of a "militia" was largely found to be obsolete...  

So we have the Second and Third Amendments as these anomalies in the constitution that are ripe for misinterpretation. 



woodwork201 said:


> You leftists keep using what the British did as evidence of what the United States can do under the Constitution. You forget that whole revolution thing that happened in between. What the British did or did not do has no relationship to what went into the Constitution.



Actually, what happened between "the British leaving" and "the Constitution" was a six year period where they tried to be a loosely organized Confederation under the Articles of Confederation, which clearly didn't work.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong. Banning assault weapons is blatantly unconstitutional given the fact that existing regulations are already sufficient to prevent them from being used in crimes.



No, you see, a SUFFICIENT regulation would be these crimes not happening at all.  

That would be SUFFICIENT. You know, like the rest of the industrialized world where this sort of shit doesn't happen like Buffalo, Uvalde and Highland Park.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The firearms industry already acts responsibly.



Selling guns to Joker Holmes and Awake the Rapper isn't responsible.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with your very long babbling.
> 
> The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.
> 
> ...


The intent of the 2A is to verify the right of a free people to own & carry arms. 
It is always about the individual gun rights despite what bed wetters afraid of a tool might twist it to say. Period.
The militia part is there to encourage the states to be able to protect themselves.

I get that you're terrified of the right to defend yourself. Not all of us are


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Selling guns to Joker Holmes and Awake the Rapper isn't responsible.


According to the law there was no reason not to.

Adherence to the law is responsible.


----------



## miketx (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with your very long babbling.
> 
> The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.
> 
> ...


Stop lying traitor. Come get mine.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, you see, a SUFFICIENT regulation would be these crimes not happening at all.
> 
> That would be SUFFICIENT. You know, like the rest of the industrialized world where this sort of shit doesn't happen like Buffalo, Uvalde and Highland Park.




It doesn't happen because while their criminals have guns...they don't use them to commit murder as often.......the fully automatic military rifle is the preferred weapon of criminals on the continent....they simply don't use them to murder each other as often as American criminals do......but that is changing......


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, you see, a SUFFICIENT regulation would be these crimes not happening at all.
> That would be SUFFICIENT. You know, like the rest of the industrialized world where this sort of shit doesn't happen like Buffalo, Uvalde and Highland Park.


It is hardly reasonable to expect a gun regulation to prevent crimes that are unrelated to the gun that is being regulated.




JoeB131 said:


> Selling guns to Joker Holmes and Awake the Rapper isn't responsible.


Did they pass the background check?

Did the store owner have any reason to suspect malfeasance?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2022)

Ammosexuals proving the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut. 



johngaltshrugged said:


> The intent of the 2A is to verify the right of a free people to own & carry arms.
> It is always about the individual gun rights despite what bed wetters afraid of a tool might twist it to say. Period.
> The militia part is there to encourage the states to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> I get that you're terrified of the right to defend yourself. Not all of us are



No, man, I'm terrified of you gun nuts shooting stuff up. 

The Founding Slave Rapists didn't want to have the great unwashed have guns...  Not the slaves, not the Indians, not the urban poor.   



Blues Man said:


> According to the law there was no reason not to.
> 
> Adherence to the law is responsible.



no, responsible is keeping a dangerous product away from dangerous people.  



miketx said:


> Stop lying traitor. Come get mine.



Say hi to David Koresh for me.  



2aguy said:


> It doesn't happen because while their criminals have guns...they don't use them to commit murder as often.......the fully automatic military rifle is the preferred weapon of criminals on the continent....they simply don't use them to murder each other as often as American criminals do......but that is changing......



Yes, you keep saying that... but still not true. 

The problem isn't "criminals" having these weapons... it's mentally unwell people like Holmes, Crimo, Lanza, because no one bothered to do even minor background checks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Did they pass the background check?
> 
> Did the store owner have any reason to suspect malfeasance?



Yeah, what should the Store owner think when they see THIS...





or THIS...




Now, I see a couple of deranged freaks... but apparently, the gun industry sees them as prime customers.


----------



## miketx (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Ammosexuals proving the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blabble blubble blibble blather. That about it traitor?


----------



## miketx (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, what should the Store owner think when they see THIS...
> 
> View attachment 670536
> or THIS...
> ...


They would think how the law ran by scum like you failed again.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2022)

miketx said:


> They would think how the law ran by scum like you failed again.



Except they were able to buy guns under YOUR laws. 

My law, they wouldn't be able to buy guns.  If that means you can't buy a gun, either, so much the better.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Ammosexuals proving the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You vote for the political party founded by slave rapists, the democrat party….a party that went to war to be able to keep raping their slaves

You vote for them


----------



## Ralph Norton (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So who do you think handled law enforcement before they started organizing police forces?
> Why do you think police departments have Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains, just like the Army does?
> Why do you think the National Guard is trained to supplement the police.
> 
> ...


This entire post as it relates to policing is complete horse shit.
Prior to police departments, most towns utilized night watchman/ constables - NOT the Army.
Police departments are paramilitary organizations with a command structure - thus ranks.
The Army and police were NEVER interchangeable. Ever.
The National Guard may assist local LE only in times of emergency under the command of state governors and have only very limited police powers..

Do you just make shit up as you go or are you blatantly lying?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except they were able to buy guns under YOUR laws.
> 
> My law, they wouldn't be able to buy guns.  If that means you can't buy a gun, either, so much the better.



No, your god, government, failed.  The gun maker and gun stores did their jobs, obeyed your laws….the minions of your god, government, failed to arrest or commit these guys, that is the problem.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You vote for the political party





2aguy said:


> No, your god, government, failed. T


Wow, do you ever have an original thought.... you are like one of those religious nutters who spouts bible verses whenever they have to actually think about something


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2022)

Ralph Norton said:


> This entire post as it relates to policing is complete horse shit.
> Prior to police departments, most towns utilized night watchman/ constables - NOT the Army.
> Police departments are paramilitary organizations with a command structure - thus ranks.
> The Army and police were NEVER interchangeable. Ever.
> ...



Most towns.. we weren't talking about towns, we were talking about cities.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Most towns.. we weren't talking about towns, we were talking about cities.


Cities also used town watch not militia. While in a pinch a town watch COULD function as militia that wasn't its purpose.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, what should the Store owner think when they see THIS...
> 
> View attachment 670536
> or THIS...
> ...


If they had not sold them the firearms according to the law they could be sued and lose their license.


----------



## Ralph Norton (Jul 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Most towns.. we weren't talking about towns, we were talking about cities.


Boston: 1st police department 1838. Prior to that the people of the town of Boston established a Watch in 1631. Shortly after that, the Town Meeting assumed control of the Watch in 1636. Watchmen patrolled the streets of Boston at night to protect the public from criminals, wild animals, and fire. The Watchmen’s responsibilities grew along with the town, which became the City of Boston in 1822. Less than 20 years later, the City founded a police force of six men under the supervision of a City Marshall. The Boston Watch of 120 men continued to operate separately.

This is just one example.
Please provide an example of a city using the Army for routine policing. EVER.
We'll wait.


----------



## sparky (Jul 15, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The Constitution still demands that we have a *well-regulated militia*. And people still have the right to use their guns for private self defense.


I agree Mr Bolt, but to do so _effectively_ would mean at least equally trained as well as equally armed

I see our own gub'mit _tipping the scales _THIER way on each, and to _their_ favor

~S~


----------



## sparky (Jul 15, 2022)

Ralph Norton said:


> Please provide an example of a city using *the Army for *routine* policing.*


this is a start>>>>






~S~


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 15, 2022)

sparky said:


> I agree Mr Bolt, but to do so _effectively_ would mean at least equally trained as well as equally armed


The term "well-regulated" covers training.

A well-regulated militia is one that is a highly effective fighting force because they have trained sufficiently enough to fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

It is like a well-regulated watch is one that keeps accurate time because all of the gears in the watch are in perfect sync with each other.

So when the Second Amendment mandates that the government keep up a well-regulated militia, it is mandating that the government keep the militia highly trained.




sparky said:


> I see our own gub'mit _tipping the scales _THIER way on each, and to _their_ favor


That is why we need to keep pressing the courts to enforce the Constitution, and keep supporting groups like the NRA that prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I've read ahead and seen that your question has already been answered.  But I want to reiterate that the Miller ruling itself says that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
> 
> The government had tried to get them to rule that it was a collective right.  But the Supreme Court rejected that argument and said that it is an individual right.
> 
> ...



I never said otherwise.  Miller raised the question of being tied to militia service, though, by saying the 2nd Amendment only protected military weapons.  Read more in  Heller.  From Miller, the left is now making the argument to connect the 2nd Amendment protections to militia service.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 16, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence – unlike many on the right.
> 
> ...



Have you ever read Scalia's opinion in Heller?  He presents an amazingly good treatise on the question of individual versus collective right.  One thing he makes absolutely clear, fully supported and documented, is that your claim of a historical collective interpretation is a lie.  It was universally understood to be an individual right from proposal, through ratification, up to the 20th century.

From Heller:
*As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42*

What do you think they meant by "intervention of society"?  That meant the militia - their neighbors.  There was no police.  Then, as today, help could not come in time to save you so you saved yourself - not until the Army came or the Police came but until society came - your neighbors, the militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to _Heller_, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.


This is a lie.  Not once did the USSC interpret the 2nd an a collective right,
Disagree?
Cite the ruling and copy/past the text tot hat effect.
You won't, of course, because you know it does not exist.
Thus, your lie.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 20, 2022)

*BOOM!!!*


----------



## badbob85037 (Jul 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.
> 
> As Ratified:
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> ...


You are an idiot. You need to read the Federalist Papers but be warned it is something you know nothing about.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 21, 2022)

badbob85037 said:


> You are an idiot. You need to read the Federalist Papers but be warned it is something you know nothing about.


Do you have something to offer?  I've read the Federalist Papers; many times.  If there's something in them that you're suggesting challenges the 2nd Amendment or says it is not an individual right separate from the militia, please feel free to share it.

I think you'll be embarrassed before this discussion is over, though.  I think your reading comprehension skills are weak and you've jumped into something by mistake.


----------

