# Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out. 










						Biden repeats debunked Second Amendment cannon claim, says 'no amendment is absolute'
					

President Joe Biden said Thursday that “no amendment is absolute” while discussing the Second Amendment and repeated a debunked claim that cannons were prohibited at the time the amendment was passed.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got in backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Garland was going to be the 5th gun grabbing vote on SCOTUS


----------



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Garland was going to be the 5th gun grabbing vote on SCOTUS





If they start banning guns the crime rate is only going to escalate because the bad guys are the only ones are going to have them.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Feb 4, 2022)

NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.

That's clearly against the Second Amendment.

They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> If they start banning guns the crime rate is only going to escalate because the bad guys are the only ones are going to have them.


.

Banning firearms doesn't change the person but will increase the number of outlaws immediately.

.​


----------



## wamose (Feb 4, 2022)

Joe better check with his son before he starts grabbing guns. Hunter may have business interests in the movement of guns. He might be a new age Comanchero.


----------



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.





Well, as much as I agree with you that it is unconstitutional, that issue wouldn't even have come up if crimes were committed more by black people than white people. Now let's see how many people call me a racist after this comment.


----------



## night_son (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's got another thing coming . . .


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

> Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute​



True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.

Just like with the right to religion, just because you have that right doesn't mean you can have human sacrifices for your religion..


Have you guys caught on yet or do you want to continue to show your ignorance?


----------



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

night_son said:


> He's got another thing coming . . .





Impeachment?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> If they start banning guns the crime rate is only going to escalate because the bad guys are the only ones are going to have them.



Saved a ton of bloodshed by keeping his Fascist ass off of SCOTUS


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.



what a stupid word salad


----------



## night_son (Feb 4, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Banning firearms doesn't change the person but will increase the number of outlaws immediately.
> 
> .​



Yes, exactly. Nothing says easy prey quite like a disarmed citizen.


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 4, 2022)

night_son said:


> Yes, exactly. Nothing says easy prey quite like a disarmed citizen.


.

I was talking about all the armed citizens that will become outlaws the moment they ban firearms.

There is a reason that gun control isn't in the major mix.
Those that favor more gun control are attempting to remove or limit the Rights gunowners already have.

They have nothing to offer in exchange, so a compromise is not really possible.

.​


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you take a bazooka into a bank?

No.  How much time do you spend fighting that rule?

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when _District of Columbia v. Heller _struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.









						How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
					

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.




					www.brennancenter.org


----------



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> I was talking about all the armed citizens that will become outlaws the moment they ban firearms.
> 
> ...





Well yeah! I mean do you really think that we're all just going to stay quiet about it and be revoked of our rights? If this were to come to pass then it would pretty much be the beginning of World War III.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> what a stupid word salad


I see you didn't get the chef word salad just a side word salad.


----------



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

Mac1958 said:


> Can you take a bazooka into a bank?
> 
> No.  How much time do you spend fighting that rule?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.





You need to learn how to read bro. I said that certain people shouldn't be allowed to have weapons and background checks should be performed, as it's not the weapon that's the issue it's the person using it. Just like a car wouldn't kill somebody unless there was a person behind the wheel controlling it.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
> 
> Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.
> 
> ...


True the idea they had was a well-regulated militia in which each member of the militia could use their own firearm which is what Minutemen did.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> You need to learn how to read bro. I said that certain people shouldn't be allowed to have weapons and background checks should be performed, as it's not the weapon that's the issue it's the person using it. Just like a car wouldn't kill somebody unless there was a person behind the wheel controlling it.


Thanks to the Constitution they have a right to deny firearms to felons and they can also use a conviction to make you a slave.


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Well yeah! I mean do you really think that we're all just going to stay quiet about it and be revoked of our rights? If this were to come to pass then it would pretty much be the beginning of World War III.


.

My guess is that the folks at the ATF conducting more than 3 million background checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
Might want to give those folks on Capitol Hill a call.

It doesn't really look like the armed citizens are playing around.

.​


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> True the idea they had was a well-regulated militia in which each member of the militia could use their own firearm which is what Minutemen did.


Yeah, in most states every male citizen was required to join the local militia too.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.


Nope.  It doesn't ban -any- firearms.


Otis Mayfield said:


> That's clearly against the Second Amendment.


Well yes - what the NFA -does- do is against the 2nd.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

Mac1958 said:


> The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.


Just like the right to have an abortion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun....


In what case?   I must have missed it.
Can you cite the ruling and copy/paste his text to that effect?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like the right to have an abortion.


It is not a right to have an abortion that is not the case.. The case is the right to the liberty to control your own body.


----------



## marvin martian (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



EVERY TIME DemoKKKrats are in power, our civil rights are at risk.


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> In what case?   I must have missed it.
> Can you cite the ruling and copy/paste his text to that effect?


In case you refuse to read past the second sentence.......

When *he spoke these words to PBS in 1990*, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig.


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute​



Sorry Joe but our rights come down from God not man.  What man doesn't give man cannot take away, and what government doesn't give government cannot take away.

Now about that cannon Joe, Cannon was a TV detective show in the 1970s, a canon is something you shoot.


----------



## marvin martian (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> It is not a right to have an abortion that is not the case.. The case is the right to the liberty to control your own body.



You people lost that fight when you insisted everyone get an experimental medical procedure, or lose your job, place of residence, custody of children, health care, and freedom of movement.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> When *he spoke these words to PBS in 1990*,


Ah. You quoted his personal opinion.
So what?


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah. You quoted his personal opinion.
> So what?


Yeah, what would he know about jurisprudence and Supreme Court decisions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Yeah, what would he know about jurisprudence and Supreme Court decisions.


There are exactly zero supreme court decisions that support his position.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> You people lost that fight when you insisted everyone get an experimental medical procedure, or lose your job, place of residence, custody of children, health care, and freedom of movement.


I have never insisted that people get their shots or lose a job much less inoculations for kids to attend schools. Can you provide proof of me ever doing as such? If not then you have just proven what a liar you are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when _District of Columbia v. Heller _struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. *In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.*


Specifically, what USSC rulings did _Heller _overturn?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Sorry Joe but our rights come down from God not man.  What man doesn't give man cannot take away, and what government doesn't give government cannot take away.
> 
> Now about that cannon Joe, Cannon was a TV detective show in the 1970s, a canon is something you shoot.


Can you get God to confirm those rights in writing by his own hand?


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Specifically, what USSC rulings did _Heller _overturn?



The article never made that claim.  U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.

According to the Second Amendment, “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.”9 Prior to the _Heller_ decision, there was little disagreement among the courts about this language's meaning. *In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.*









						Changing the Constitutional Landscape for Firearms: The US Supreme Court's Recent Second Amendment Decisions
					

In 2 recent cases—with important implications for public health practitioners, courts, and researchers—the US Supreme Court changed the landscape for judging the constitutionality of firearm laws under the Constitution's Second Amendment.In ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> The article never made that claim.


Right.   You did.
You said:
*In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.*
So...  which USSC rulings did _Heller _overturn, and how did _Heller _overturn them?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing in the Constitution is absolute. You have heard of the amendment process, right?


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Right.   You did.
> You said:
> *In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.*
> So...  which USSC rulings did _Heller _overturn, and how did _Heller _overturn them?



Heller was the precedent setting ruling.

"When the Constitution was first ratified, most of its provisions specified the extent and limits of federal government authority. Even the familiar protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights—*such as the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion clauses—initially affected only the powers of the federal government, not the state governments*.10 In 1868, however, the 14th Amendment was ratified, explicitly forbidding states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”11 As a result, the Supreme Court began to decide that most of the Bill of Rights guarantees were included in—or “incorporated” into—the more general language of the 14th Amendment as a limit on state (not just federal) powers. But the court has never accepted the argument that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated en masse, preferring a case-by-case (right-by-right) approach.12

Until the _McDonald_ decision, the Second Amendment remained one of the very few parts of the Bill of Rights not so “incorporated.” In fact, in a pair of 19th-century cases—_United States v Cruikshank_ (1876)13 and _Presser v Illinois_ (1886)14—t*he court found that the Second Amendment limited only the federal government. Numerous state laws affecting gun ownership have been upheld on this basis."*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> . *In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.*


False.

_*United States v. Emerson*_, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)
_*Heller v. District of Columbia,  *_No. 04-7041 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

You didn't know DC appealed the DC Appeals court ruing - which uipheld the individual right -  to the USSC, which then generated DC the _Heller _decision?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Heller was the precedent setting ruling.


So...  you cannot support you claim that *every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled [contrary to Heller]*
Thank you


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> False.
> 
> _*United States v. Emerson*_, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)
> _*Heller v. District of Columbia,  *_No. 04-7041 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
> ...



The case involved a federal statute that prohibited the transportation of firearms....not a states law.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> The case involved a federal statute that prohibited the transportation of firearms....not a states law.


Look at you, trying to move the load posts.

You said:
*In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated **any law** as a violation of the Second Amendment.*
"Any law"
Both of these appeals court ruling did exactly that.

You should probably quite while you're behind.


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Look at you, trying to move the load posts.
> 
> You said:
> *In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated **any law** as a violation of the Second Amendment.*
> ...


"Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with Judge Cummings’ interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment. *But the court nevertheless upheld the federal law in question*, concluding that the Second Amendment right could be subject to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions that are reasonable."


----------



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing in the Constitution is absolute.





True,.. but it's just like marvin martian already said,.. that only happens when democrats are in charge.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> "Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with Judge Cummings’ interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment. *But the court nevertheless upheld the federal law in question*, concluding that the Second Amendment right could be subject to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions that are reasonable."


Fact remains:
An appeals court, prior to _Heller_,  ruled the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms not subject to membership in the militia; the fact a statute was not overturned by the decision is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Thus, your criticims of _Heller _have no basis in reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

Biden:

_"There’s no violation of the Second Amendment right," Biden said in New York City while discussing background checks and other ways to address gun crime. "We talk like. There’s no amendment that’s absolute. When the amendment was passed it didn’t say anybody can own a gun, any kind of gun, and any kind of weapon. You couldn’t buy a cannon when this amendment was passed so there’s no reason why you should be able to buy certain assault weapons. But that’s another issue."_

In 1791, anyone could buy any weapon, if they had the money.
Someone might not sell a cannon to a 10 yr old, but there were no laws against it.
Want to buy 10 cannons for your ship?   Show me the money.
Further,  no one was charged with illegal possession of a firearm.  Why?  There were no laws to that effect.

And lets address the obvious:  the fact the protections of 2nd is not absolute in no way means you can restrict the right to keep and bear arms any way you like --- like all other fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitution, a restriction must be demonstrably necessary, and demonstrable effective -- else, it infringes on said right.


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:
> An appeals court, prior to _Heller_,  ruled the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms not subject to membership in the militia; the fact a statute was not overturned by the decision is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
> 
> Thus, your criticims of _Heller _have no basis in reality.



What I posted was what Chief Justice Warren Burger said about it and how the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.  Before that, gun regulations and laws by the States were not overturned by the SC.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> What I posted was what Chief Justice Warren Burger said about it...


Berger didn't say this - you did:
*In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.*
You still haven't cited a USSC decision overturned by _Heller_ - because there are none. Your statement is false.

Berger didn't say this - you did:
*In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.*
I proved you wrong.

Thus, your criticisms of _Heller _have no basis in reality.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.
> 
> Just like with the right to religion, just because you have that right doesn't mean you can have human sacrifices for your religion..
> 
> ...


Another incoherent post


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Berger didn't say this - you did:
> *In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.*
> You still haven't cited a USSC decision overturned by _Heller_ - because there are none. Your statement is false.
> 
> ...



Except the part that said "*But the court nevertheless upheld the federal law in question". * That means it was not invalidated.

In the states I grew up in we always had the right to own and purchase weapons.  Parents could buy their kids weapons too.  But there were states that had restrictions on weapons and the courts allow those laws.  It is not a criticism of the expansion of federal power over the states in Heller.  It is what it is.  History.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.



Does it?  NFA-34 required registration and a tax paid for transfer.

You could argue the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did, by utilizing Title II of the GCA-68 and closing the registration window for NFA / Title II arms . . .

In 1934, Congress knew it could not outright ban military useful arms; it evolved past that recognition of limited powers.



Otis Mayfield said:


> That's clearly against the Second Amendment.



Absolutely correct.  If the Supreme Court's "_Miller_ rule" is controlling and applied to gun laws by the courts, the constitutional hurdle for gun control is very, very high. 

In 1942, the 1st Circuit, in analyzing _Miller_ recognized what applying the "_Miller_ rule" would mean:
​" . . . 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.  . . .  [A]ccording to it [the _Miller_ rule] 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, . . . "​​_Cases v. U.S_, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)​
Of course Scalia in _Heller_ elevated _Miller_'s "in common use" dicta to a full partner in the Court's protection tests, adding it to the Court's _type_ criteria (garnered from _Aymette_); if the arm is of a type that is "_any part of the ordinary military equipment_" and/or of a type "_that its use could contribute to the common defense_", the power claimed by a government to restrict the possession and use by private citizens of that type of arm, must be repelled (or invalidated if already in force).



Otis Mayfield said:


> They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.



Who is "they"?  Were "they" federal legislators?  Were there any federal laws enacted that expressly prohibited Blacks from owning guns?  

Certainly there were *state *laws that did, but by being state laws there was no violation of any right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Except the part that said "*But the court nevertheless upheld the federal law in question". * That means it was not invalidated.


I cited two cases.   You missed the 2nd one?  
It was the DC circuit court that overturned DC's ban on handguns, subsequently upheld in DC v Heller.

Your criticisms of _Heller _have no basis in reality.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.
> 
> Just like with the right to religion, just because you have that right doesn't mean you can have human sacrifices for your religion..
> 
> ...



Your comparison fails.  The legitimate prohibition of human sacrifice during a religious ceremony does not infringe on any right encompassed in the wider practice of religion.  The prohibition is extremely narrow, applied to a specific act by a specific person.  It does not forbid anything but the act of ceremoniously inflicting death.

Taken to the logical end that gun control operates in, you would demand forbidding immersive baptism because it could result in the drowning of a person if they are held under water by the celebrant.

Gun control does not follow your exemplar; it forbids all manner of actions and possession of items that have no direct relationship to "murder" and it is applied to all people in a jurisdiction without any individuality.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.



The only thing that is a fraud is citing Burger as an authority on the 2nd Amendment. 

While on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger never wrote a word about the Second Amendment. After he left the Court he became a paid puppet for Handgun Control Inc. (what the Brady Campaign was called in the early 90's). 

A more in depth examination of Burger's 2nd Amendment views is his commentary in the January 14, 1990 issue of Parade Magazine. Placed next to the later PBS comments, the Parade article has such incredible contradictions of constitutional understanding it can only be read as evidence of Burger's willingness to sell anti-gun statements hostile to his own beliefs to the highest bidder. 

In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "_need not be challenged_". He continues that, "_the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game,_" in the same fashion that no one could, "_challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . _." 

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "_To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."_

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns. 

OK

Burger goes further and recognizes three exemplary rights -- hunting, fishing, and buying cars -- that are so firmly guaranteed *by the Constitution* that they are beyond question while knowing that no Supreme Court case has ever held any of these activities to be Constitutionally protected.

What can we draw from Warren's wandering analysis?

Machine guns (an presumably cheap?? handguns) can be regulated in a fashion like motor vehicles but guns suitable for defense of the home and guns suitable for hunting should be as immune from governmental oversight as fishing equipment since the right to own such things is unquestionable and not subject to challenge (including any militia based attack on the right).

Sounds like in 1990 he's advocating the NRA's position that a unassailable constitutional right to own guns for various legal purposes _without any militia conditioning_ exists . . . 

And then he is paid by handgun Control Incorporated to say such a position is a "fraud" less than a year later????

.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Feb 4, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Does it?  NFA-34 required registration and a tax paid for transfer.
> 
> You could argue the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did, by utilizing Title II of the GCA-68 and closing the registration window for NFA / Title II arms . . .
> 
> ...



You can't own modern fully auto weapons. I think the cutoff year is 1984 and newer are illegal.


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> I cited two cases.   You missed the 2nd one?
> It was the DC circuit court that overturned DC's ban on handguns, subsequently upheld in DC v Heller.
> 
> Your criticisms of _Heller _have no basis in reality.


 Your second case was the Heller case that was appealed to the SC that allow them to set the new precedent separating the individuals right to own weapons from required militia service.


----------



## marvin martian (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> I have never insisted that people get their shots or lose a job much less inoculations for kids to attend schools. Can you provide proof of me ever doing as such? If not then you have just proven what a liar you are.



It doesn't matter. You're supporting the regime that's demanding it. You're a collaborator.


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 4, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The only thing that is a fraud is citing Burger as an authority on the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> While on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger never wrote a word about the Second Amendment. After he left the Court he became a paid puppet for Handgun Control Inc. (what the Brady Campaign was called in the early 90's).
> 
> ...


I believe he said it was the"unfettered individual right" to weapons like machine guns and Saturday night specials that he didn't agree with.  Most states allowed hunting weapons, rifles, shotguns and handguns.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 4, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Banning firearms doesn't change the person but will increase the number of outlaws immediately.
> 
> .​


Lol, ya gunna turn your s in if they do ban them? I am not. Bout as much chance of the libs taking your guns as the repugs doing away with abortion. Both issues are put in our face so we ignore what the parties really care about which is moving your money into theirs and their donors pockets


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 4, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Lol, ya gunna turn your s in if they do ban them? I am not. Bout as much chance of the libs taking your guns as the repugs doing away with abortion. Both issues are put in our face so we ignore what the parties really care about which is moving your money into theirs and their donors pockets


.

I am not going to turn anything in.

They will always leave loopholes for someone to own a firearm.
The government knows what I own and what I can do with it ... They taught me.

.​


----------



## whitehall (Feb 4, 2022)

Joe Biden has more guns surrounding him than most state and local police forces have at their disposal but he is correct that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute. There are literally volumes of laws that impact the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and most Americans accept it and deal with it. So what's the problem again?


----------



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

whitehall said:


> Joe Biden has more guns surrounding him than most state and local police forces have at their disposal but he is correct that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute. There are literally volumes of laws that impact the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and most Americans accept it and deal with it. So what's the problem again?





Well, it should be absolute to those deserving of it anyways.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> It is not a right to have an abortion that is not the case.. The case is the right to the liberty to control your own body.



What if I told you the "_penumbral rights theory_", by which the right to privacy and the derivative right to abortion was recognized and secured*, is dependent upon the fundamental, inviolate nature of the individual right to arms as secured by the 2nd Amendment?

If the right to arms can be restricted, (or extinguished / rescinded), then the _"rational continuum" of liberty_ represented in the rights secured in the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights**, can not be said to exist.  Thus the justification for the penumbral rights theory evaporates along with legal contrivance recognizing and securing the right to privacy (and abortion and LGBTQ rights).

*_Griswold v CT _and_ Roe v Wade_
**Harlan's dissent in _Poe v Ullman_, cited in _Griswold_ as the foundational principle for penumbral rights, elevated to the opinion of the Court in _Planned Parenthood v Casey_


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.



Of course it did. From the very first case that the Court spoke directly on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (as two separate, distinct things) the Supreme Court has never endorsed any other interpretation but the 2ndA recognizing and securing (not granting, giving, creating or establishing) the individual right to arms, without any conditioning or qualification.

In that first case, _US v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Court recognized the right of two Freemen, former slaves then citizens, to possess and carry arms for self defense in public from white oppressors _in a state and at a time_ that the state had no militia (it being disbanded by the governor on the orders of Congress).  _Cruikshank_ shows without any dispute that SCOTUS recognizes and endorses the 2nd Amendment securing an individual right independent of any militia association. These were two black men who, even if Louisiana had a militia, they could not enroll (see Militia Act of 1792).

Whatever permutation of "collective right" interpretation you care to posit, there was no such theory in _*any*_ federal court before 1942; _U.S. v. Tot, _131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation and _Cases v. U.S_., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right".  

.


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute​



This, a constitutional analysis,--- from a guy who needs names written down 
on a card at pressers for him just so he knows who he is calling on?


----------



## themirrorthief (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


a  first  step  would  b  taking  guns  away  from  capital  police


----------



## Atticus Finch (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.
> 
> Just like with the right to religion, just because you have that right doesn't mean you can have human sacrifices for your religion..
> 
> ...


But because you have a vagina you can murder a unborn child.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can't own modern fully auto weapons. I think the cutoff year is 1984 and newer are illegal.



Just stop it . . . 

There are hundreds of thousands of full-auto NFA arms in the hands of private citizens.

I cited precisely the 1986 law that closed the NFA-34 registration of newly manufactured NFA arms.  That effectively froze the nation's available census of NFA arms (and juiced the value of those guns --real "assault rifles"-- into the many tens of thousands of dollars.  

*You can go to Gunbroker right now and buy a full auto "machine gun"*: 

Screengrab taken seconds ago . . . 



 

IT AIN'T A BAN!!!!!!!

Google Big Sandy Shoot or Knob Creek . . . All private citizens shooting machine guns up to anti-aircraft guns and Vulcan mini-guns . . . 

Again, just stop saying crap when you don't know what you are talking about!


----------



## FJB (Feb 4, 2022)

Atticus Finch said:


> But because you have a vagina you can murder a unborn child.




I know what you're saying and I agree, but men can be just as insensitive and cruel when it comes to insisting upon their girlfriends/wives get an abortion as well. However, that's changing the subject though.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 4, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.
> 
> That's clearly against the Second Amendment.
> 
> They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.


No it doesn't.  OMG! 🙄


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> The article never made that claim.  U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.
> 
> According to the Second Amendment, “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.”9 Prior to the _Heller_ decision, there was little disagreement among the courts about this language's meaning. *In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.*
> 
> ...


Yup it needed to go to the Supreme Court because liberals were to stupid to understand basic English


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

Atticus Finch said:


> But because you have a vagina you can murder a unborn child.


Actually, you would need a functional uterus..


----------



## martybegan (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like the right to have an abortion.



What right to an abortion?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 4, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can't own modern fully auto weapons. I think the cutoff year is 1984 and newer are illegal.


You're wrong, bro


----------



## Atticus Finch (Feb 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Actually, you would need a functional uterus..


They go hand in hand.Do they not?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 4, 2022)

Mac1958 said:


> Can you take a bazooka into a bank?
> 
> No.  How much time do you spend fighting that rule?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 4, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That motherfucker is calling a Glock a "weapon of war".  Just more evidence that the Communists want to ban all guns.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 4, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing in the Constitution is absolute. You have heard of the amendment process, right?



the amendment process changes the constitution, therefore it's not about interpretation at that point. 

And absolute is a strong term. What should be the standard is any right is only limited for an overwhelming government interest, and even then only the minimal actions needed should be taken to meet that interest.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 4, 2022)

Mac1958 said:


> Can you take a bazooka into a bank?


A bank is private property.  Try again.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 4, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing in the Constitution is absolute. You have heard of the amendment process, right?


Is private property absolute?


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 4, 2022)

Wyatt earp said:


> View attachment 597129


Interesting that your mind would go directly there.

Trump voter?


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Feb 4, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Just stop it . . .
> 
> There are hundreds of thousands of full-auto NFA arms in the hands of private citizens.
> 
> ...



*In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens.  This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true).










						Who Can Own a Full-Auto Machine Gun? - RocketFFL
					

Are Machine Guns Legal? Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly legal for a law-abiding American citizen to own/possess a machine gun (sometimes called a full-auto firearm or automatic weapon). The absolute easiest way is for someone to get a Federal Firearms License or “FFL” (even a...




					rocketffl.com
				



*


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> I believe he said it was the"unfettered individual right" to weapons like machine guns and Saturday night specials that he didn't agree with.  Most states allowed hunting weapons, rifles, shotguns and handguns.



Sigh . . . 

Burger didn't say "unfettered individual right", that was the characterization of the author of the Politico commentary you linked to, the anti-gun hack Michael Waldman.

Here is the segment of the 12/16/1991 PBS interview when Burger discusses the 2nd Amendment:

"MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Some scholars have argued that the Bill of Rights is still flawed, that some of its provisions need reconsidering, that it's over rated. How do you respond to that?​​JUSTICE BURGER: That is as with anything in this life, it could be better here or there.​​MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Like where, for example?​​JUSTICE BURGER: Well, that's a harder one to answer. If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment.​​MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Which says.​​JUSTICE BURGER: That says a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, people's rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It's got to be registered, that you can't just deal with it at will. Someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days' waiting period. And I said, yes, I'm very much against it, it should be thirty days' waiting period so they find out why this person needs a handgun or a machine gun.​​MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the opinion polls, finally, that suggest that the Bill of Rights would not be popularly supported if it were up for ratification today?​​JUSTICE BURGER: I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that at all. In fact, I think it's a little bit ridiculous. Any poll can be manipulated by how the question is asked and if you ask some active member of the NRA if the Second Amendment should be changed, of course, he or she would go up in the air.​​MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That's the National Rifle Association.​​JUSTICE BURGER: Yes. I don't want to get sued for slander, but I repeat that they have misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man. I have guns. I've been a hunter ever since I was a boy.​​MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you think the poll suggesting that the public wouldn't support a Bill of Rights is just wrong?​​JUSTICE BURGER: It might not be exactly the same as this one. It might have some more things in than are here. It might just, bail provisions right now to provide that if a person comes into court charged with one crime and he is now on bail from a previous crime for which he has not yet been tried that he shouldn't be released, that's a debate that's going on right now. There might be some stricter provisions about bail. But I'm not even sure of that. When we have the hysteria that we have right now, with six, eight, ten people being killed over a weekend in a small area like Washington, people get a little bit emotional. I don't think we ever want to change the Constitution or any part of it based on some immediate emotional appeal and that's why that's, of course, where the Supreme Court and all the other judges come in. And the judges will see to it that emotion doesn't dominate these things.​​MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Chief Justice, thank you for being with us."​​
Holy Christ what gall . . .   First, there shouldn't be a 2ndA but since we have it, let's not bother the people and actually amending the Constitution, let's allow judges to act for emotional reasons (but without emotion) to change the Constitution.  

His meandering constitutionally incoherent musings show he *knows* the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids what he wants to do and that the structure of the Constitution frustrates the leftist, authoritarian usurpation he would arbitrarily force, to violate the fundamental rights of citizens.

I would be happy knowing Burger and Stevens are holding hands, roasting in Hell.

.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 4, 2022)

Mac1958 

What's so funny?  You didn't know a bank is private property?...lol


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 4, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> *In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens.  This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Someone with a class 7 FFL can build, own and possess a new automatic weapon.

Anyone can own and possess an automatic weapon with a tax stamp (the tax stamp is unconstitutional).


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

For fun and the amusement of the class, let's recap:



Otis Mayfield said:


> NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.





Abatis said:


> Does it?  NFA-34 required registration and a tax paid for transfer.
> 
> You could argue the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did, by utilizing Title II of the GCA-68 and closing the registration window for NFA / Title II arms . . .





Otis Mayfield said:


> You can't own modern fully auto weapons. I think the cutoff year is 1984 and newer are illegal.





Abatis said:


> I cited precisely the 1986 law that closed the NFA-34 registration of newly manufactured NFA arms.  That effectively froze the nation's available census of NFA arms (and juiced the value of those guns --real "assault rifles"-- into the many tens of thousands of dollars.





Otis Mayfield said:


> *In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens.  This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true).*



Did you think *bolding* the text would make what you wrote sound original or authoritative or especially compelling or that it corrected or refuted anything I wrote?

It would seem you finally convinced and _corrected _*yourself,* so I guess some "welcome to the party" congratulations can be sent your way.

Not by me; I  think you are an obstinate blowhard who sometimes, after a few stumbles, trips over the truth . . .  Problem is you will pick yourself up, dust yourself off and go right back to spewing wrong BS like nothing happened.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Feb 4, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Someone with a class 7 FFL can build, own and possess a new automatic weapon.
> 
> Anyone can own and possess an automatic weapon with a tax stamp (the tax stamp is unconstitutional).



Yes, like those Hollywood companies that rent firearms to movies.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.
> 
> That's clearly against the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...




Let me fix that for you...

*They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment....

It should actually read......*

*The democrat party, the party created by slave owners, banned black slaves and later black Americans from owning guns from the days of slavery into jim crow in a clear violation of the Second Amendment...*


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
> 
> Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.
> 
> ...




Not a conservative if that was his view on the 2nd Amendment......

And wrong....till 2008 it was accepted that Americans could own, and carry guns for self defense, it wasn't until fascists like you began your moves to ban more and more guns that it had to be taken to court as you tried your best to take guns away from people.......

Heller was not the first time, it was resolved in most states long before morons like you made your moves to ban and confiscate guns...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 6, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Your second case was the Heller case that was appealed to the SC that allow them to set the new precedent separating the individuals right to own weapons from required militia service.


And was an example of the US Curcuit court invalidating a law based in the 2nd Amendment
Thus, it disproves your claim that no such ruling existed before DC v Heller.

Your criticisms of _Heller _have no basis in reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 6, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> *In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens.  This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not exactly correct.
Only machineguns -registered- prior to the date were transferrable to civilians.
Obviously, this includes any guns manufactured after that date, but it also applies to that old Sten gun your grandfather brougnt home from the war and hid in his attic.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 6, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> What I posted was what Chief Justice Warren Burger said about it and how the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.  Before that, gun regulations and laws by the States were not overturned by the SC.



Can you comprehend that the Supreme Court can recognize the individual right to arms without overturning the challenged law?

One of the biggest problems with 2nd Amendment case law is that in the majority of the cases the Court has heard before _Heller_, the citizen claiming the 2nd Amendment's protection were felons or otherwise barred from owning a gun.

For instance, in_ Lewis v. United States_, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the petitioner was a felon and he was challenging his conviction as a felon in possession.  The case was granted because Lewis' conviction was uncounseled, no lawyer appeared for him so it was technically a bad conviction.  So the question for the Court was, is *any* felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm?

SCOTUS upheld the prohibition, but the case clearly endorses the right of a citizen to acquire and possess and use guns -- *up to the moment he is convicted of a crime for which the dispossession is enforced*.

For instruction, the Court quoted the Senator who wrote the section of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that established the gun prohibition for crimes punishable of over a year in prison.

The Court said (internal citations removed):

"Senator Long, who introduced and directed the passage of Title VII, repeatedly stressed conviction, not a "valid" conviction, and not a conviction not subject to constitutional challenge, as the criterion. For example, the Senator observed:​​"So, under Title VII, every citizen could possess a gun until the commission of his first felony. Upon his conviction, however, Title VII would deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and had been expressedly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm."​​Inasmuch as Senator Long was the sponsor and floor manager of the bill, his statements are entitled to weight."​​
It's clear if you read the case there are no other demands on "*every citizen*" for the Court to recognize the citizen's right to keep and bear arms but to not become a felon.

The Court goes through all the mechanisms Lewis had to relieve the gun dispossession before he armed himself in violation of the law, such as appeal his bad conviction and be granted a pardon.  

It is worthy of noting that *never* does the Court say Mr Lewis would then need to present himself at the local National Guard Recruiting Office and enlist, to have his 2nd Amendment rights restored.



BlindBoo said:


> Your second case was the Heller case that was appealed to the SC that allow them to set the new precedent separating the individuals right to own weapons from required militia service.



The lower (DC Circuit) case that was appealed by DC to the Supreme Court as _DC v Heller_ was _Parker_ v. _District of Columbia_, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007).

DC lost _Parker_, the DC statutes were declared unconstitutional in _Parker_ by the DC Court of Appeals. SCOTUS heard DC's appeal (refiled with Dick Heller as named party) and upheld the lower court's decision, invalidating DC's handgun ban and storage law.

A big hint when looking at federal cases is the first name is the party that lost previously, and is appealing the lower decision to a higher Court.

So, Parker lost at the District court, appealed to the Circuit court and won and then DC appealed to SCOTUS . . . (Against the wishes of every Democrat)


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 8, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.
> 
> Just like with the right to religion, just because you have that right doesn't mean you can have human sacrifices for your religion..
> 
> ...


Does the Second Amendment say that you have the right to shoot your gun?  Of course not.  Keeping and bearing are not shooting.  No one said they're one in the same or that the right to keep and bear includes the right to kill.  

Talk about showing your ignorance.  Geez.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 8, 2022)

FJB said:


> You need to learn how to read bro. I said that certain people shouldn't be allowed to have weapons and background checks should be performed, as it's not the weapon that's the issue it's the person using it. Just like a car wouldn't kill somebody unless there was a person behind the wheel controlling it.


Thanks for the clarification.  At first, I thought you were implying Joe Biden is wrong (which he is).  Now I see that you agree with him.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 8, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Thanks to the Constitution they have a right to deny firearms to felons and they can also use a conviction to make you a slave.


Where is that in the Constitution?  Mine doesn't say that.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 8, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> The article never made that claim.  U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.
> 
> According to the Second Amendment, “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.”9 Prior to the _Heller_ decision, there was little disagreement among the courts about this language's meaning. *In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.*
> 
> ...


But appellate courts aren't the final arbiter, are they?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 8, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nothing in the Constitution is absolute. You have heard of the amendment process, right?


Everything in the Constitution is absolute.  If you amend the Constitution to take something out, it's no longer in the Constitution.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 8, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Heller was the precedent setting ruling.
> 
> "When the Constitution was first ratified, most of its provisions specified the extent and limits of federal government authority. Even the familiar protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights—*such as the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion clauses—initially affected only the powers of the federal government, not the state governments*.10 In 1868, however, the 14th Amendment was ratified, explicitly forbidding states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”11 As a result, the Supreme Court began to decide that most of the Bill of Rights guarantees were included in—or “incorporated” into—the more general language of the 14th Amendment as a limit on state (not just federal) powers. But the court has never accepted the argument that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated en masse, preferring a case-by-case (right-by-right) approach.12
> 
> Until the _McDonald_ decision, the Second Amendment remained one of the very few parts of the Bill of Rights not so “incorporated.” In fact, in a pair of 19th-century cases—_United States v Cruikshank_ (1876)13 and _Presser v Illinois_ (1886)14—t*he court found that the Second Amendment limited only the federal government. Numerous state laws affecting gun ownership have been upheld on this basis."*



Selective incorporation is a crock and always was a crock.  Nothing in the Constitution gave the Supreme Court the authority to selectively do anything.  They might legitimately believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States and they might or might not be correct in that belief - but they can't possibly believe that the 1st, 4th, 5th Amendments obligate the States but the 2nd does not.  That is an asinine idea from the start.  The logic applied must be applied equally across the board or, as was the case from the first Incorporation case, it was just the Court making it up according to their personal wishes rather than the Constitution they were sworn to uphold. With selective incorporation they set themselves up as Supreme Rulers rather than the constitutionally defined Supreme Court.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 8, 2022)

FJB said:


> Well, it should be absolute to those deserving of it anyways.


Are you a moron?  If a right is absolute as long as the government says you deserve it then it is never, ever, absolute, is it?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 8, 2022)

Oh, well your constitution is dead then. You ever hear of the 27 amendments to the constitution? And if you want to be super pedantic with regards to taking something OUT, then there is the 18th.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 8, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Selective incorporation is a crock and always was a crock.



Yes but it is a complicated crock.

The original intent of the 14thA was corrupted and nearly destroyed by SCOTUS; selective incorporation is a work around of an early case that the Court really can't revist (although it should).

This problem comes down to the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause . . .  That construction, that phrase was purposeful by the framers of the 14th and it intended to extend the enforcement of the federal Bill of Rights (the first eight amendments) onto the states.  

The Supreme Court effectively disabled the "privileges or immunities" clause in 1873 in a decision called, _The Slaughter House Cases._

Truth is, "selective incorporation" is a contrivance invented by the Court as a workaround to _Slaughter House_. Because _Slaughter House_ disabled the 14th's "privileges or immunities" clause, that pretty much extinguished the principle of liberty, based entirely in the limitations inherent in the strictly enumerated powers of Constitution.  Removing that principle of liberty left only "due process" and "equal protection" as the legal processes to protect substantive fundamental rights from state abridgment. 

Those two amorphous, subjective concepts demand a specific law already enacted, or government action that already happened, to be challenged claiming a specific rights injury.  Then the Court must undertake an excruciating examination of the affronts to "due process" or "equal protection" in that rights injury and how, maybe, those "protections" are owed to the citizen . . .  That piecemeal process is how we were saddled with "selective incorporation".

This shifted the question of a law's constitutionality from, "_does government have the power_" to "_does a citizen have the right_" and that allowed the Court to define our rights and determine the "scope" of our rights and invent mechanisms like "standing" to deny citizen's claims before the merits are even heard . . . much to the detriment to the concept of "liberty".

_Slaughter House_ has forced a Winchester Mansion of Law to be built, with many added rooms that were conjured to work around it. Everyone knows _Slaughter House_ needs to be revisited and overruled, but that would be revolutionary.

When SCOTUS granted cert to Alan Gura's _McDonald v Chicago _appeal of Chicago's gun ban, _and not the NRA's_, many people of both sides of the political spectrum were excited (the cases were joined later). 

Gura's primary argument was to hold the 2ndA applicable to Chicago under the 14th's POI clause (the NRA's appeal was strictly a due process claim). Progressive groups like the Constitutional Accountability Center supported _McDonald_ because it appeared the Court _might_ be saying it _might_ entertain revisiting _Slaughter House_. 

The Constitutional Accountability Center was very active in the run-up to _McDonald v Chicago_. They wrote often about the _McDonald_ case, the 14th's POI clause and the damage _Slaughter House_ had wrought, *(1)*, *(2)*, *(3) *(just a sample, there are many other articles), and CAC *filed an amicus with SCOTUS supporting McDonanld and Gura's POI argument*.

Progressives supported _McDonald_ because if the Court were overturn _Slaughter House_ and reinvigorate the POI clause of the 14th, that would allow full recognition and enforcement of all enumerated and unenumerated rights using foundational, fundamental constitutional principle. 

It would allow the political yoke [JOKE] of the penumbral rights theory to be cast off, which was just another contrivance invented as a _Slaughterhouse_ workaround, crowbarring the 9th Amendment into use.  The penumbral rights theory has its very own wing in the Winchester Mansion of Law built because of _Slaughter House_.

The story of "incorporation" is sabotage . . . The framers of the 14th and every state that ratified the 14th understood that the intent was to make the full panoply of the "privileges or immunities" of citizens and the rights recognized in the first 8 Amendments fully enforceable on the states *immediately*. Within 5 years of the 14th's ratification, the Court disrupted and frustrated that intent, and liberty and our rights have been suffering ever since.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 8, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you even stop to think what the hell people have said?

1) No right is absolute. Free speech doesn't allow for treason or libel.

2) The Second Amendment does NOT protect people to have nukes, does not protect people to have SAMs. It doesn't prevent them stopping individuals in prisons from arms. 

Are you suggesting the Second amendment should allow a prisoner, in prison, to have a nuclear weapon at all times? Are you freaking out of your MIND?


----------



## Batcat (Feb 8, 2022)

FJB said:


> If they start banning guns the crime rate is only going to escalate because the bad guys are the only ones are going to have them.


Plenty of otherwise honest citizens will refuse to turn in their weapons and consequently will become criminals. That will prove  the old quote true. “If guns are banned only criminals will have guns.”


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 8, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Everything in the Constitution is absolute.  If you amend the Constitution to take something out, it's no longer in the Constitution.


The words are but the decisions or interpretations made by the court can be transient.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 8, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Where is that in the Constitution?  Mine doesn't say that.


13 Amendment


----------



## FJB (Feb 8, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Thanks for the clarification.  At first, I thought you were implying Joe Biden is wrong (which he is).  Now I see that you agree with him.




No I don't agree with him, he wants to ban certain kinds of weapons for everybody. 






woodwork201 said:


> Are you a moron?  If a right is absolute as long as the government says you deserve it then it is never, ever, absolute, is it?






That's because rights are a privilege, not a requirement. If nobody ever abused their rights then they wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) be taken away from them.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> 13 Amendment


Not a mention there of firearms.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away?


Freedom Haters always lie to disguise their intention to violate our civil liberties.




Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You're wrong, bro


The thing is though, not everyone who wants a post-86 gun is going to be able to become a licensed machine gun manufacturer.




woodwork201 said:


> Does the Second Amendment say that you have the right to shoot your gun?  Of course not.  Keeping and bearing are not shooting.  No one said they're one in the same or that the right to keep and bear includes the right to kill.


That is incorrect.  Bearing includes shooting and killing.




frigidweirdo said:


> The Second Amendment does NOT protect people to have nukes, does not protect people to have SAMs.


It might protect the right of militiamen to have such weapons.  They could be useful in repelling an invasion.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

Mac1958 said:


> The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.


That doesn't make it OK to violate the Second Amendment.




Dr Grump said:


> Nothing in the Constitution is absolute.


That doesn't make it OK to violate the Constitution.




frigidweirdo said:


> No right is absolute. Free speech doesn't allow for treason or libel.


That doesn't make it OK to violate people's rights.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.


That Burger character sure was dishonest.




BlindBoo said:


> When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.


No he wasn't.




BlindBoo said:


> Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig.


His view seemed that way twenty-five seconds later.




BlindBoo said:


> Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when _District of Columbia v. Heller _struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home.


They would be started to learn it because it isn't true.

The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.




BlindBoo said:


> In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.


No it hadn't.  The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.




BlindBoo said:


> Yeah, what would he know about jurisprudence and Supreme Court decisions.


It appears that this Burger clown didn't know very much at all about the subject.




BlindBoo said:


> The article never made that claim.  U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.


That is incorrect.  The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.  Note the Miller ruling as one example.




BlindBoo said:


> Your second case was the Heller case that was appealed to the SC that allow them to set the new precedent separating the individuals right to own weapons from required militia service.


The required militia service?  What requirement is that?


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The required militia service? What requirement is that?


The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia, ” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia









						How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
					

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.




					www.brennancenter.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 16, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> The amendment grew out of the political tumult...


None of this changes the fact you were caught making several false statement re: the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and the jurisprudence regarding same.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> None of this changes the fact you were caught making several false statement re: the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and the jurisprudence regarding same.


Those were quotes taken out of context from the publications I cited and you know it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 16, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Those were quotes taken out of context from the publications I cited and you know it.


Your statements were false.
If you did not know they were false when you made the, you knew it after I demonstrated them to be.
Disagree?
Feel free to pick a point you tried to make are re-argue it.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 16, 2022)

At the end of the day, the 2nd has outlived its usefulness. Plus my choice of being armed is a nuclear warhead. Where can I get one?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 16, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.
> 
> “Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.
> 
> ...


If the Founders didn't intend for the people to have the right to keep and bear arms, they would have never ratified an amendment that says "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The regulations placed on gun ownership are unconstitutional.  No other constitutional amendment is as infringed upon as the 2nd Amendment.  It's time to put those regulations to bed, forever.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 16, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> At the end of the day, the 2nd has outlived its usefulness. Plus my choice of being armed is a nuclear warhead. Where can I get one?


The 2nd Amendment is more important now, than any other time in our history.

You don't have a clue how dumb the nuke reference is...lol


----------



## Batcat (Mar 16, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Does the Second Amendment say that you have the right to shoot your gun?  Of course not.  Keeping and bearing are not shooting.  No one said they're one in the same or that the right to keep and bear includes the right to kill.
> 
> Talk about showing your ignorance.  Geez.


However a person in this nation has the right of self defense.









						Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw
					

Self-defense refers to your right to protect yourself from suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence.  This is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. Learn about self-defense law and...




					www.findlaw.com
				




In some circumstances a person can use lethal force for self defense. A firearm is considered a lethal force instrument. It is not illegal to shoot an aggressive individual to stop his attack. If you do shoot your attacker it is possible that you may kill him. Killing is not murder. Therefore it is legal to use a firearm for legal and legitimate self defense by shooting an attacker even if it kills him. Of course your decision to use lethal force will be scrutinized and you may be prosecuted if those in authority feel your actions did not meet the requirements for legitimate self defense. 

Note: the laws on legitimate self defense vary state to state. 









						3/4 of States Are Now Stand Your Ground; only 12 Are Duty to Retreat
					

But what exactly do these terms mean?




					reason.com
				












						Using Lethal Force
					

Armed Defense Reality You Shoot – Then What? Make These 2 Calls Most Comprehensive 4 Levels of Protection Immediate Support Complete Service Details Good in Most States Civil Suit Protection Member…




					www.secondcalldefense.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 16, 2022)

Batcat said:


> However a person in this nation has the right of self defense.


And the exercise of the right to self-defense is one of the traditionally legal uses of a firearm.
Thus, the 2nd Amendment protects the right to use a gun - that is, shoot someone - in self-defense.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It might protect the right of militiamen to have such weapons.  They could be useful in repelling an invasion.



No, it doesn't. It protects them to have weapons like guns. Clearly no one is complaining people don't have nukes.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That doesn't make it OK to violate the Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem here is, if you think the 2A is absolute and the government does something that YOU think violates the 2A, doesn't mean it does violate the 2A.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And the exercise of the right to self-defense is one of the traditionally legal uses of a firearm.
> Thus, the 2nd Amendment protects the right to use a gun - that is, shoot someone - in self-defense.



No, it doesn't. 

The Second Amendment only protects the right to be in the militia and the right to own a gun. 

The right to self defense might very well exist somewhere in the constitution, 9th Amendment, for example, but it's not in the 2A.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 16, 2022)

Mac1958 said:


> Can you take a bazooka into a bank?
> 
> No.  How much time do you spend fighting that rule?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.



That is the stupidest black & white rationalization I've ever read.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 16, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Second Amendment only protects the right to be in the militia and the right to own a gun. The right to self defense might very well exist somewhere in the constitution, 9th Amendment, for example, but it's not in the 2A.



Soo, you have the right to keep and bear arms against--- WHO?  Your friends and family?  What other point is there to it other than DEFENSE?  Defense of self, defense of property, and defense of country.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.


I presume that's what you meant by requirement.  Fair enough.  I just wanted to be sure what you were referring to.




BlindBoo said:


> There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia, ” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”


Yes, but even though they had a specific reason for drafting the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment still protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns privately for the defense of their homes.

There is an argument to be made for people also having the right to be armed outside their homes, although it isn't quite as secure as the right to protect one's home.  It'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter this summer.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> At the end of the day, the 2nd has outlived its usefulness.


That is incorrect.  Our civil liberties are still proving quite useful.




Dr Grump said:


> Plus my choice of being armed is a nuclear warhead. Where can I get one?


You'll have to get the government to form a militia, and then you'll need to join that militia.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, it doesn't. It protects them to have weapons like guns.


Not according to the Constitution.  The Constitution says that the militia has the job of repelling foreign invasions.

Clearly anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft missiles are required for the job of repelling foreign invasions.  And clean tactical nukes would be pretty useful too.




frigidweirdo said:


> Clearly no one is complaining people don't have nukes.


You must have missed the message from Dr Grump just a few posts before yours.  I believe it was #118.




frigidweirdo said:


> The problem here is, if you think the 2A is absolute and the government does something that YOU think violates the 2A, doesn't mean it does violate the 2A.


Restrictions on fundamental rights are required to pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.  That means that any gun restriction that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest is unconstitutional.


----------



## Flash (Mar 17, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't this the same jackass that also said global warming is caused by White Supremacists?  LOL!

He doesn't know jackshit about the Bill of Rights.

Very little wiggle room in "shall not be infringed".


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Not according to the Constitution.  The Constitution says that the militia has the job of repelling foreign invasions.
> 
> Clearly anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft missiles are required for the job of repelling foreign invasions.  And clean tactical nukes would be pretty useful too.
> 
> ...



I think maybe you don't understand how the Bill of Rights and the 2A work. 

The militia wasn't first mentioned in the 2A. It was first mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. It was already there when they started discussing the 2A.

The militia is protected by the 2A in order to be able to carry out its purpose, or purposes.

1) They protect the right to keep arms so individuals will have guns that the US government cannot take when they call up the militia to federal service.

2) They protect the right to be in the militia (right to bear arms) so the feds can't basically say that certain people are ineligible for militia duty. 

Clearly the National Guard is a part of the Militia, and has such weaponry.

So, when the NRA doesn't attack the US government for banning nukes and anti-tank weapons etc, you kind of thing the US government isn't doing anything unconstitutional.

Yes, I must have missed that message.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I think maybe you don't understand how the Bill of Rights and the 2A work.


I understand how they work.




frigidweirdo said:


> The militia wasn't first mentioned in the 2A. It was first mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. It was already there when they started discussing the 2A.
> The militia is protected by the 2A in order to be able to carry out its purpose, or purposes.
> 1) They protect the right to keep arms so individuals will have guns that the US government cannot take when they call up the militia to federal service.
> 2) They protect the right to be in the militia (right to bear arms) so the feds can't basically say that certain people are ineligible for militia duty.


Agreed.




frigidweirdo said:


> Clearly the National Guard is a part of the Militia, and has such weaponry.


That is incorrect.  The National Guard is part of the US Army.  They are about as far from being militia as you can get.




frigidweirdo said:


> So, when the NRA doesn't attack the US government for banning nukes and anti-tank weapons etc, you kind of think the US government isn't doing anything unconstitutional.


The US government is doing something unconstitutional by not having a militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I understand how they work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read the Dick Act. The National Guard is the MILITIA. 

It's the "organized militia" as opposed to the "unorganized militia" created just to stop people demanding access to the National Guard.









						Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"the *Dick Act*, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized."

No, there is NOTHING that says the US Federal government needs to have a militia. The US Constitution merely gives power to the government to do things. They have the power to wage war, doesn't mean they HAVE TO ALWAYS WAGE WAR (though you might be forgiven for thinking otherwise).


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Read the Dick Act. The National Guard is the MILITIA.
> 
> It's the "organized militia" as opposed to the "unorganized militia" created just to stop people demanding access to the National Guard.
> 
> ...


They can call themselves a militia all they want, but that doesn't make them a militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.

As part of the US Army, they are about as far from a real militia as you can get.




frigidweirdo said:


> No, there is NOTHING that says the US Federal government needs to have a militia. The US Constitution merely gives power to the government to do things. They have the power to wage war, doesn't mean they HAVE TO ALWAYS WAGE WAR (though you might be forgiven for thinking otherwise).


Actually there is such a requirement.  The Founding Fathers were concerned that a future malicious government would disregard the militia and then use its absence to justify raising a standing army.

To counter this possibility, they created the first half of the Second Amendment, which requires the government to always have a militia to protect the security of the state.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> They can call themselves a militia all they want, but that doesn't make them a militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.
> 
> As part of the US Army, they are about as far from a real militia as you can get.
> 
> ...



A militia "in the eyes of the constitution", as you put it, is a militia that has state appointed officers and can be called up into federal service.

_"Article 1 Section 8_

_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"_
That is what it says about the militia. A militia is, whatever it is, could be a bunch of gay people with huge arses singing dirty songs. "the Militia" has state appointed officers and Congress prescribed discipline.

Nothing else.

You show me where in the Constitution it says they NEED to have a militia.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> A militia "in the eyes of the constitution", as you put it, is a militia that has state appointed officers and can be called up into federal service.
> 
> _"Article 1 Section 8_
> 
> ...


There is a bit more than that.  The Framers clearly intended the existence of the militia to prevent a standing army from being necessary.

To claim that a standing army counts as the militia is clearly contrary to the intent of the Framers.

There is also the fact that the Constitution limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion.  The National Guard does much more than that.

And also the fact that militiamen have the right to keep their weapons at home.  Guardsmen are not allowed to do so.




frigidweirdo said:


> You show me where in the Constitution it says they NEED to have a militia.


"A well regulated Militia, being *necessary* to the security of a free State"


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> There is a bit more than that.  The Framers clearly intended the existence of the militia to prevent a standing army from being necessary.
> 
> To claim that a standing army counts as the militia is clearly contrary to the intent of the Framers.
> 
> ...



The militia already existed, they merely wanted to protect it. That's what the 2A is, protection from the federal govt. Remember the constitution can only empower or depower the federal govt (and now the state govts), that's what it did, same as all the other clauses in the constitution. 

The National Guard is NOT a standing army. It's a semi-professional army. 

Well, the National Guard has duel status. You can get around anything if you want. 

Every US citizen can keep "arms" at home. The right to keep arms is universal. Like all rights it has limits, prisoners cannot keep arms, those released from prison is more controversial. Some say that you can limit rights once someone has been convicted of a crime, you can take their life away, for example.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The militia already existed, they merely wanted to protect it. That's what the 2A is, protection from the federal govt. Remember the constitution can only empower or depower the federal govt (and now the state govts), that's what it did, same as all the other clauses in the constitution.


Agreed.




frigidweirdo said:


> The National Guard is NOT a standing army. It's a semi-professional army.


That is incorrect.  The National Guard is part of the United States Army, which is very much a standing army.




frigidweirdo said:


> Well, the National Guard has duel status. You can get around anything if you want.


Its status as part of the US Army means that it is not the militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.




frigidweirdo said:


> Every US citizen can keep "arms" at home. The right to keep arms is universal. Like all rights it has limits, prisoners cannot keep arms, those released from prison is more controversial. Some say that you can limit rights once someone has been convicted of a crime, you can take their life away, for example.


Agreed.


----------



## Batcat (Mar 17, 2022)

If those Javelin and Stinger missiles fall into terrorist hands they could causev a lot of problems.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 17, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.
> 
> That's clearly against the Second Amendment.
> 
> They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.


And both are wrong and anyone doing that should be summarily executed.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  Our civil liberties are still proving quite useful.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to get the government to form a militia, and then you'll need to join that militia.


So we agree. You should belong to a militia before being able to carry a firearm. That is exactly what the second says. Cool.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> So we agree. You should belong to a militia before being able to carry a firearm.


No.  We don't agree.




Dr Grump said:


> You should belong to a militia before being able to carry a firearm. That is exactly what the second says.


That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.  And the right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their home.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 17, 2022)

FJB said:


> Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you own a tank?


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

bodecea said:


> Can you own a tank?


Yes.

But if you want the guns on the tank to be functional, you will need to acquire NFA transferable machine guns and register the main gun as a large bore destructive device.

NFA transferable machine guns are pretty expensive because there are so few of them.  Registering the main gun as a large bore destructive device should be easy however, assuming there are no laws against them in your state.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> No.  We don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.  And the right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their home.


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 long as they belong to a militia...


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> The Second Amendment only protects the right to be in the militia and the right to own a gun.
> 
> The right to self defense might very well exist somewhere in the constitution, 9th Amendment, for example, but it's not in the 2A.


The whole point of law abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms is for self defense.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> As long as they belong to a militia...


That is incorrect.  The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes.


That's not what the second says....


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> That's not what the second says....


Correct.  The Second Amendment does not define the right to keep and bear arms.  It merely protects the preexisting right from infringement.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Correct.  The Second Amendment does not define the right to keep and bear arms.  It merely protects the preexisting right from infringement.


What preexisting right? Link please...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 17, 2022)

FJB said:


> Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute


President Biden is correct.

And Scalia agrees with him:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”






						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> What preexisting right?


The right to keep and bear arms.




Dr Grump said:


> Link please...


_"Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the *free peasant* who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England.  *His free status was marked by his right to bear arms*, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king.  His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings."_








						ceorl | English peasant
					

ceorl, also spelled Churl,  the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of...



					www.britannica.com
				




_"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605.  Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied *free* male.  It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd.  Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."_








						fyrd | Anglo-Saxon militia
					

fyrd,  tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately ad 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.
> 
> That's clearly against the Second Amendment.
> 
> They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.


no firearm was banned because of the NFA 1934 that act only placed a stamp act on short-barrel shotguns. BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT was not advised that short-barrel shotguns were used by the military.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> President Biden is correct.
> And Scalia agrees with him:
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”


That doesn't make it OK for people to violate the Second Amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> President Biden is correct.
> 
> And Scalia agrees with him:
> 
> ...


no, he's not correct idiot 
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, so you don't have any links, just a blurb from the EB explaining life in the UK 1000 years ago. Thanks...Yeah, didn't think there was any pre existing right written down in law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That doesn't make it OK for people to violate the Second Amendment.


No one said it did.

President Biden is correct that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ as affirmed by Scalia in _Heller_.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> no, he's not correct idiot
> The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


lol

Well, feel free to dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> lol
> 
> Well, feel free to dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.


Idiot those were his words


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one said it did.
> 
> President Biden is correct that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ as affirmed by Scalia in _Heller_.


Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one said it did.
> 
> President Biden is correct that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ as affirmed by Scalia in _Heller_.


it's absolute for one reason it's the only right that ends with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.


Yes it can be amended but try it and find out just how hard that will be. and FYI that right tell the government they have no right from taking that right away. gun owners will keep their guns no matter how you whine


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Idiot those were his words


You truly are an ignoramus.

No right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’ – including the Second Amendment; Scalia affirmed that fact in _Heller_, and President Biden is likewise correct.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You truly are an ignoramus.
> 
> No right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’ – including the Second Amendment; Scalia affirmed that fact in _Heller_, and President Biden is likewise correct.


You used a snippet of his words I posted what you left out.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  *Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*. Pp. 54–56.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.


Not exactly.

Amendments can’t be changed _per se_, but they can be repealed via Constitutional amendment, such as the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Other than repealing an Amendment by amending the Constitution, the courts interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to determine their meaning – in this case the _Heller_ Court affirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ that no right is ‘unlimited.’

That Scalia affirmed the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited is the fundamental reason why American conservatives have come to loathe the _Heller_ decision, that Scalia ‘betrayed’ conservatives:

“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” _ibid_


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You used a snippet of his words I posted what you left out.
> 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  *Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*. Pp. 54–56.


Having nothing whatsoever to do with the settled, accepted fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute’ and that President Biden was correct to acknowledge that fact.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> That's not what the second says....



Do you believe a doctrine or determination exists in law that the right to keep and bear arms of the citizen is created and thus dependent upon, or qualified by, the words of the 2nd Amendment?

Do you have anything like a citation to a SCOTUS decision or any other authority to point to for support, or are you just spouting bald opinion from your imagination?

Without you citing an actual authority for your statement, it has all the weight of sharing you think Chevy makes the best truck . . .


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Oh, so you don't have any links,


That is incorrect.  I gave you a link to Encyclopedia Britannica.  Are they not reputable enough for you?




Dr Grump said:


> just a blurb from the EB explaining life in the UK 1000 years ago.


Entries from Encyclopedia Britannica establishing that the right to keep and bear arms existed 1400 years ago.




Dr Grump said:


> Thanks...Yeah, didn't think there was any pre existing right written down in law.


You were wrong.  It's been written down for the past 1400 years.




Dr Grump said:


> Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.


The American people are not going to abolish our civil liberties.  Sorry.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one said it did.


Lots of progressives use the phrase that it isn't absolute as cover for their efforts to violate the Second Amendment.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That Scalia affirmed the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited is the fundamental reason why American conservatives have come to loathe the _Heller_ decision, that Scalia ‘betrayed’ conservatives:


I'm an American conservative, and I remain delighted with the Heller decision.

Is it perfect?  No.  But it's a great first step.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> no firearm was banned because of the NFA 1934 that act only placed a stamp act on short-barrel shotguns.


That stamp made it impossible for most people to acquire such guns.

Making something impossible to acquire is an awful lot like banning it.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> What preexisting right? Link please...





Dr Grump said:


> Oh, so you don't have any links, just a blurb from the EB explaining life in the UK 1000 years ago. Thanks...Yeah, didn't think there was any pre existing right written down in law.



Damn, I should have read ahead, you went and proved you are oblivious / ignorant / clueless to what the law is . . . 

The right to arms is NOT granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment.

That fundamental, foundational principle of the Constitution forces the legal fact that the right can not be argued to be_ in any manner_ dependent upon the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution) for its existence.

The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent re-affirming this principle for going on 150 years:

​*Supreme Court, 1876:* "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

*Supreme Court, 1886:* "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

*Supreme Court, 2008:* "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

Just a follow up, just in case you feel the need to regale us further with your expertise in analysis of the meaning of terms and constructions contained in the Bill of Rights . . .  Please tell us what the word "retained" means in the 9th Amendment; what condition does that word presume regarding the source and nature of our rights?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​​.


----------



## LilOlLady (Mar 17, 2022)

You people must know that banning guns is impossible because first, you have to know I have a gun, come and take it away and in 30mins I will have another one or two. Guns do not kill people anyway, it is crazy people who kill.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The National Guard is militia based, it's based around the Militia. When called up into federal service it is a part of the US military. But then the militia has been like this for 200+ years. 

No, you're wrong about it's status in the US military making it not the militia.

Read the Dick Act. 





__





						Dubuque Telegraph-Herald - Google News Archive Search
					





					news.google.com
				




Here's an article from 1903. Says: "an enactment which reorganizes the militia"

It has the "organized militia" and "unorganized militia". You might disagree with this, but it is what it is. 









						National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"The *National Guard* is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions."





__





						Frequently Asked Questions - Army National Guard
					





					www.nationalguard.mil
				




" How is the Army National Guard different from the Army Reserve
Our National Guard mission makes us different. Unlike the Army Reserve, we have a dual mission, meaning we answer to both state and federal governments. So Guard Soldiers can be deployed by either the governor of their resident state or the president of the United States, depending on where they are needed most."





__





						How We Began - About the Guard - The National Guard
					





					www.nationalguard.mil
				




"We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts."


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 17, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The whole point of law abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms is for self defense.



What do you mean by "self defense"?

Read the first amendment clauses of the RBA in state constitutions.

"1776 North Carolina: *That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"*

"defence of the State"

"1776 Pennsylvania: *That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"*

"defence of themselves and the state"

*"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."*

"common defence"

These are essentially the three types of clauses up to 1795.

Defence of the state is kind of easy to understand. "common defence" and "defence of themselves" I'd say is the same thing. Why?

Because of what started to happen after 1817. 

"1817 Mississippi: *Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."*

So, instead of "defence of themselves" it became "defence of himself", clearly a difference here. Clearly the plural "themselves" is "common" and "himself" is "individual". 

So, it is pretty clear that in 1792 and before, the RBA acts were about the defense of the common unit, rather than individual self defense. 

Note, many things were not protected. They didn't protect hunting. Why? What was the point of protecting hunting? The US Constitution is about the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They saw a problem with the English crown taking away the ability of colonists to defend themselves, so they took this power away from the government. They didn't need to take the power to prevent individual self defense because it wasn't an issue in those days.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> President Biden is correct.
> 
> And Scalia agrees with him:
> 
> ...



That the RKBA is not absolute, does not mean that government's powers to restrict the RKBA are absolute.

Since you are such a fan of Scalia, I remember him warning modern judges and legislators against constant reassessing of the value of the right to arms in modern society;

"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."​

And I remember Scalia doubling down on that theme . . . and this can only be taken as him speaking directly to "the legislature" and its power to dictate to the people what arms they are allowed to possess and use:


"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."​

So while the RKBA isn't absolute, the government does not possess malleable, subjective, ever evolving powers to restrict the right.

.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 17, 2022)

LilOlLady said:


> You people must know that banning guns is impossible because first, you have to know I have a gun, come and take it away and in 30mins I will have another one or two. Guns do not kill people anyway, it is crazy people who kill.



Crazy people with guns are far more effective killers than crazy people without guns.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 17, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Also, it is an amendment. Amendments can be changed. No more prohibition or slavery in the US last time I looked.



Just because the process is set-out to amend / modify the Constitution doesn't mean the changes you want to see occur are possible. 

There are huge obstacles to jump, the first and not the least is the impossibility of the math.  The thought that there are 38 states that would vote to ratify a new federal amendment, is hilarious; there is no hunger for gun control in the states, quite the opposite.

There's an even bigger problem, the question if the state governments can even consider such an amendment under the powers granted to them under their own constitutions. 

I know you have this denial of the principle of pre-existing / inherent rights, but under the state constitutions that principle is a structural component.   State constitutions call out the inherent rights of their people as an initial act and declare those rights are forever excepted out of the powers of government and shall remain inviolate (*that's how it is worded in my state, Pennsylvania*). 

That is done before a single power is granted / conferred.  That is a very strong statement about the relationship between rights and powers and the sovereignty of the citizen.

So, back to the question, how can a state consider a federal amendment that surrenders rights of the state's citizens to the feds, if that right is forever locked away from their consideration? 

I argue that before an amendment rescinding or modifying the federal 2nd Amendment can be considered by the states, most, if not all states would each need to convene their own constitutional conventions, just to grant their government new power to allow them to give away a right that the state recognizes and promises to protect and declares forever outside of their power.

I'd be glad to hear your oppositional argument to those points . . .


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Do you believe a doctrine or determination exists in law that the right to keep and bear arms of the citizen is created and thus dependent upon, or qualified by, the words of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Do you have anything like a citation to a SCOTUS decision or any other authority to point to for support, or are you just spouting bald opinion from your imagination?
> 
> Without you citing an actual authority for your statement, it has all the weight of sharing you think Chevy makes the best truck . . .


Why do I have to cite the SCOTUS? It's a group of men and women with an opinion. The only difference is they get to put it into law, I don't. And no I don't. I think the right to form a militia that can bear arms is the point of the 2nd. Otherwise, why mention militia at all. Why not just say "Hey, guys, this amendment says you can carry your peashooter anywhere you want, any time of day and have it on your persons all the time if you want"?


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  I gave you a link to Encyclopedia Britannica.  Are they not reputable enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not a civil liberty. And pre 1400 years ago? Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I know you have this denial of the principle of pre-existing / inherent rights, but under the state constitutions that principle is a structural component.   State constitutions call out the inherent rights of their people as an initial act and declare those rights are forever excepted out of the powers of government and shall remain inviolate (*that's how it is worded in my state, Pennsylvania*).
> 
> That is done before a single power is granted / conferred.  That is a very strong statement about the relationship between rights and powers and the sovereignty of the citizen.
> 
> ...


If it locked away forever, then why have the second at all?
That being said, there is a problem with your 'inherent' rights. Who gets to decide what one is? I like raping and pillaging. That is my inherent right.

That being said. You are right of course. No state will ever repeal the second or be on board with such an idea.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 17, 2022)

Abatis said:


> ​*Supreme Court, 1876:* "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."​​*Supreme Court, 1886:* "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​​*Supreme Court, 2008:* "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​
> ​.


So you quote three justices who gave their _opinion_. And that is all it is. An opinion. You don't think I could hunt around and find opinions from justices over the years who back up my opinion. Hell, it's already been posted a couple of times on this thread alone.


----------



## Batcat (Mar 18, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I presume that's what you meant by requirement.  Fair enough.  I just wanted to be sure what you were referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chances are the Supreme Court will say packing heat in public is up to the individual states. In other words, it will cop out.


----------



## scruffy (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> It's not a civil liberty. And pre 1400 years ago? Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?


Hey guess what - I don't care.

I don't care what you CALL it.

I have an absolute and inviolable right to protect myself and my family.

And I do not give a rat's ass what Creepy Joe or the Supreme Idiots or anyone else has to say about it.

LilOlLady is right, if you take my weapon I'll have another one 30 minutes later. Law or no law. That's the reality. Gun restrictions are worthless, they're exactly like drug laws, no one pays attention to them.

Except for the cartels and the Chinese - because the minute you ban something, they'll go into business making it.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 18, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Hey guess what - I don't care.
> 
> I don't care what you CALL it.
> 
> ...


Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.




Wrong...the problem is the democrat party attacking the police to the point they can't, or won't, do their jobs for fear of persecution, and the democrat party releasing the most violent gun offenders over and over again......

We don't have a gun problem, no matter the type, we have a political party, the democrat party, that feeds off of the violence they create by attacking the police and releasing violent criminals....

If they would stop releasing gun offenders, with multiple gun felonies, over and over again, our gun violence issues would drop by about 95%.....

Our gun violence is fueled by a tiny number of violent offenders in tiny areas of democrat party controlled cities, and these individuals commit almost 95% of all gun violence....and yet democrat party prosecutors and judges keep releasing them....

You are fixated on guns......that isn't the problem....releasing violent criminals is the problem.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.




This is why we have gun violence problems in democrat party controlled cities....

Man fired gun into restaurant ceiling while on electronic monitoring for more than 27 felonies including home invasion, carjacking, and kidnapping: prosecutors​-----
Joshua Noah was supposed to be on electronic monitoring for two separate felony cases. He is charged with 27 felony counts in one case, including home invasion, kidnapping, carjacking, armed robbery, residential burglary, aggravated battery, and more. Charges in the other case include Class X armed violence, narcotics, and gun counts.
-----
A violent home invasion and kidnapping​In 2020, prosecutors said Noah and two other armed men broke into a Riverside family’s home, beat a man who owed them drug money, and dumped him in an alley on the 4300 block of West 47th Street in Chicago. While they were in the house, the crew allegedly pistol-whipped the man’s mother and threatened the family.

A judge allowed him to go home on electronic monitoring by posting a $15,000 bail deposit. Details about the other felony case were not immediately available.









						Man fired gun into restaurant ceiling while on electronic monitoring for more than 27 felonies including home invasion, carjacking, and kidnapping: prosecutors
					

Joshua Noah is accused of firing a gun into a restaurant ceiling and threatening patrons — while on electronic monitoring for more than 30 felonies, including home invasion, carjacking, kidnapping, armed robbery, residential burglary, armed violence, and gun charges.




					cwbchicago.com
				




So......again, it isn't the gun, it isn't normal people who own guns....the problem is the democrat party prosecutors and judges who keep releasing monsters like this back into primarily black neighborhoods .........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.




Guns aren't the problem....the democrat party is the problem....

Another example...

*Jorge Tenorio has several layers of problems. Until a couple of days ago, he was on electronic monitoring for a serious gun case that he picked up when federal and local law enforcement raided his home in August 2020 — while he was on electronic monitoring for another gun case and on probation for two other felonies.*

he-forged-an-employment-verification-letter-so-he-could-move-around-town-while-on-electronic-monitoring-for-two-gun-cases-prosecutors-say.html


----------



## scruffy (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.


Contradict yourself much? 

lol - I don't need a gun, Doctor. I have chemical and biological weapons too. I can do way more damage with those than with a peashooter. 

Seriously, there is an enormous spectrum of weaponry from 20 hz to 20 khz, and for some reason the Democrats are focusing "only" on the weapon that sits at exactly 7.62 khz. Why is that? 

Have you forgotten about the nail bombs the Tsarnaev brothers used? Or the airplanes? I mean, none of those guys had AR-15's. They either went to the airport or they went to Edmund Scientific 

No, the type of weapon is not the issue. Control is the issue. Registration is the issue. Compliance is the issue


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Contradict yourself much?
> 
> lol - I don't need a gun, Doctor. I have chemical and biological weapons too. I can do way more damage with those than with a peashooter.
> 
> ...




A muslim terrorist in NIce, France murdered 86 people and wounded 435.....more people killed than in any mass public shooting........using a rental truck.....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 18, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Chances are the Supreme Court will say packing heat in public is up to the individual states. In other words, it will cop out.


As the 2nd and 14th amendment apply to the US as a whole, this is unlikely.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Having nothing whatsoever to do with the settled, accepted fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute’ and that President Biden was correct to acknowledge that fact.


Are you that ignorant? I used his words that you left out the words were the second amendment protects firearms that are in common use. And AR is in common use. The second amendment does not protect firearms that are not in common use.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 18, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That stamp made it impossible for most people to acquire such guns.
> 
> Making something impossible to acquire is an awful lot like banning it.


But it didn't ban any firearm.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> As the 2nd and 14th amendment apply to the US as a whole, this is unlikely.


Which means all citizens in all the states have equal rights as stated in the US Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> It's not a civil liberty. And pre 1400 years ago? Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?


14th amendment says otherwise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 18, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Which means all citizens in all the states have equal rights as stated in the US Constitution.


Which is why the USSC will not leave it up to the states.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Which is why the USSC will not leave it up to the states.


Exactly the second amendment has been delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution therefore it is not a state issue


----------



## IamZ (Mar 18, 2022)

He gonna find out


----------



## Flash (Mar 18, 2022)

*"Shall not be Infringed".*

Only a stupid uneducated low information confused Moon Bat wouldn't understand what that means.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 18, 2022)

Flash said:


> *Shall not be Infringed".*
> 
> Only a stupid uneducated low information confused Moon Bat wouldn't understand what that means.


You can only find those four words in one amendment.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Why do I have to cite the SCOTUS?



Because they the part of government that has the power to interpret and declare what the law is and apply the Constitution and its principles to operations of the Legislative and Executive branches.



Dr Grump said:


> It's a group of men and women with an opinion. The only difference is they get to put it into law, I don't.



Correct.



Dr Grump said:


> I think the right to form a militia that can bear arms is the point of the 2nd.



No.

The 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any *legal *manner, shape or form. The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control.

The authority to call-up, organize and command the citizens as militia is enumerated in the Constitution's grant of powers to Congress in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 and Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, establishing the President as Commander in Chief of the part of the militia in actual service to the nation.

That _Congress shall have Power . . . to provide for calling forth the Militia . . . and provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia_, means nobody else can decree who among the citizenry is obligated to serve in the militia, or how enrollment will occur, or call-up the militia into service, or set the structure of militia organization and command, or declare how the militia is armed and what kinds of arms are appropriate for service, or to establish the regimen of training for the militia.

Legally, the 2ndA has no action or effect regarding militia; there is no right to form militia recognized in the 2ndA for anyone (the people or a state); militia formation is exclusively a power conferred to the federal government (for as long as he Constitution is in force).



Dr Grump said:


> Otherwise, why mention militia at all.



The first half of the 2ndA, the "declaratory clause" is a statement of principle.  It only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a dangerous standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state). 



Dr Grump said:


> Why not just say "Hey, guys, this amendment says you can carry your peashooter anywhere you want, any time of day and have it on your persons all the time if you want"?



Actually, the people possess the right to keep and bear arms even if the 2nd Amendment wasn't there.  I do not point to, or refer to the 2ndA for my right to arms because the right to arms is not granted, given created or established by the 2ndA, which means the RKBA is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution to exist.

The right to arms exists and is possessed by the citizen because "We the People" did not grant any power to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.  To put it another way, all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never given -- and now we are back to the principle of inherent, pre-existing rights.

.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> It's not a civil liberty. And pre 1400 years ago? Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?



The general militia principle, that the mass of armed citizens, armed without special permission of government, fulfill a dual role of workers and then when needed, the defensive force of a nation, goes back further than 1400 years.  That debate over the civic virtue of an armed citizenry goes back to Aristotle and Plato.  

The rationale of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment specifically, rests on the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, Harrington, Machiavelli, Cato's Letters, the English Whigs, Rousseau, Burgh, Montesquieu, Beccaria and many others. These writings Jefferson called, "_the elementary books of public right_." These writers attacked authoritarian rule, standing armies and vindicated the use of armed force to oppose tyranny and defend life.

The rationale backing the anti-gun rights side are found in the writings of Plato, Bodin, Hobbes and Filmer.  A central feature of those philosophies was a disarmed citizenry obeying the dictates of men whose authority was beyond question; the authoritarian ideals those writers advocated were disdained and dismissed by the founding fathers.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> If it locked away forever, then why have the second at all?



Yes, exactly!  Because of the novel form and structure of the Constitution -- that the government only has the specific, limited powers granted to it by the people *and no others*, and all powers that were not conferred by the people *were retained by the people* (_as rights_), there was great disagreement over adding a bill of rights after the Constitution was ratified.  

The Federalists believed a bill of rights to be dangerous and absurd, they argued the proposed bill of rights would:

"contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"? (*Federalist 84*)​
Of course in the end the Federalists "lost" the argument and we have a Bill of Rights and _*exactly*_ like they warned, the *exact* arguments they claimed would threaten our rights are being used to attack our rights . . . I'm pointing to you and your fellow anti-gunners and _your_ arguments.




Dr Grump said:


> That being said, there is a problem with your 'inherent' rights. Who gets to decide what one is? I like raping and pillaging. That is my inherent right.



The concept of inherent rights form the foundational principles of the United States and have been fully explained and have stood for centuries (John Locke and Algernon Sidney primarily).  Deviations and violations can be easily identified by those who know what the doctrine is; it is not difficult or complicated.



Dr Grump said:


> That being said. You are right of course. No state will ever repeal the second or be on board with such an idea.



Correct, I just take offense to people on the anti-gun rights side pointing to the amendment process, that simply because an amendment _*could*_ be written that would rescind the 2nd Amendment, that somehow their arguments are afforded legitimacy. 

.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> So you quote three justices who gave their _opinion_. And that is all it is. An opinion.



Do you really not understand how any of this works or is it you just choose to refuse to accept how it works?



Dr Grump said:


> You don't think I could hunt around and find opinions from justices over the years who back up my opinion.



Only the majority opinion has the force of law. 
Dissenting, contrarian opinions have no weight.
That doesn't mean it is wrong to take note of them, to understand opposing arguments, it means that you should not pretend that they repesent what the law is.



Dr Grump said:


> Hell, it's already been posted a couple of times on this thread alone.



There has been a shitton of lefist, anti-gun rights stupidity posed in this thread; it would become a full time job if someone tried to rebut it . . .


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong...the problem is the democrat party attacking the police to the point they can't, or won't, do their jobs for fear of persecution, and the democrat party releasing the most violent gun offenders over and over again......
> 
> We don't have a gun problem, no matter the type, we have a political party, the democrat party, that feeds off of the violence they create by attacking the police and releasing violent criminals....
> 
> ...


The US has ALWAYS had a gun problem.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> This is why we have gun violence problems in democrat party controlled cities....
> 
> Man fired gun into restaurant ceiling while on electronic monitoring for more than 27 felonies including home invasion, carjacking, and kidnapping: prosecutors​-----
> Joshua Noah was supposed to be on electronic monitoring for two separate felony cases. He is charged with 27 felony counts in one case, including home invasion, kidnapping, carjacking, armed robbery, residential burglary, aggravated battery, and more. Charges in the other case include Class X armed violence, narcotics, and gun counts.
> ...


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's politicise it. The bell tower shooting back in the 60s was in Texas. That bastion of dems. 




__





						List of mass shootings in the United States - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Doesn't seem dem or GoP specific to me.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 18, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Contradict yourself much?
> 
> lol - I don't need a gun, Doctor. I have chemical and biological weapons too. I can do way more damage with those than with a peashooter.
> 
> ...


The Tsarnaev brothers and 9/11 were exceptions, not the rule. More than 95% of mass killings involve guns. 
Registration - in the US at least - is totally pointless.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 18, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Actually, the people possess the right to keep and bear arms even if the 2nd Amendment wasn't there.  I do not point to, or refer to the 2ndA for my right to arms because the right to arms is not granted, given created or established by the 2ndA, which means the RKBA is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution to exist.
> 
> The right to arms exists and is possessed by the citizen because "We the People" did not grant any power to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.  To put it another way, all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never given -- and now we are back to the principle of inherent, pre-existing rights.
> 
> .


Again, if the right already exists (it doesn't BTW, only to the pro-gun lobby) why even have the 2nd at all?


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 18, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The general militia principle, that the mass of armed citizens, armed without special permission of government, fulfill a dual role of workers and then when needed, the defensive force of a nation, goes back further than 1400 years.  That debate over the civic virtue of an armed citizenry goes back to Aristotle and Plato.
> 
> The rationale of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment specifically, rests on the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, Harrington, Machiavelli, Cato's Letters, the English Whigs, Rousseau, Burgh, Montesquieu, Beccaria and many others. These writings Jefferson called, "_the elementary books of public right_." These writers attacked authoritarian rule, standing armies and vindicated the use of armed force to oppose tyranny and defend life.
> 
> The rationale backing the anti-gun rights side are found in the writings of Plato, Bodin, Hobbes and Filmer.  A central feature of those philosophies was a disarmed citizenry obeying the dictates of men whose authority was beyond question; the authoritarian ideals those writers advocated were disdained and dismissed by the founding fathers.


ALL, ancient history. Humanity has moved on. Now, if the US didn't have a professional, standing armed forces, sure. However, it does. Times have changed. Interesting that you keep on going back in history to make your point. We are now in the 21st century. In fact, with nukes, your point(s) are mute, in that they back up your argument because they don't. So you know the history of why there is an armed citizenry. There were lots of things that happened in the past that are no longer applicable. Slavery. Only land owners being allowed to vote. Women not voting. All in the past. As is you analogy. 

At the end of the day, weird as it may be, I'm going to quote comedian Jim Jeffries. The only reason US citizens have guns is because they like them. They love the power of them. Those auditors on YouTube love looking like big men on campus walking down the street with their peashooter strapped to their side. Or their semi auto. There is a reason the police stop and talk to them. It is not considered normal, civilised behaviour. I see the look on their faces. They feel big. Brave. Tough even. THAT is the reason you like your guns.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 18, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Correct, I just take offense to people on the anti-gun rights side pointing to the amendment process, that simply because an amendment _*could*_ be written that would rescind the 2nd Amendment, that somehow their arguments are afforded legitimacy.
> 
> .



I disagree. It is a legitimate argument. One amendment was added (13th) and one repealed (18th). Can the 2nd be repealed? Absolutely. There is a mechanism in place to make it so. Will it ever be repealed? Doubtful.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 18, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Do you really not understand how any of this works or is it you just choose to refuse to accept how it works?
> Only the majority opinion has the force of law.
> Dissenting, contrarian opinions have no weight.
> That doesn't mean it is wrong to take note of them, to understand opposing arguments, it means that you should not pretend that they repesent what the law is.
> ...



And yet if you discuss Roe vs Wade....


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Again, if the right already exists (it doesn't BTW, only to the pro-gun lobby) why even have the 2nd at all?



Again, absolutely correct, the 2nd is not needed for the right to exist; all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never given.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> ALL, ancient history. Humanity has moved on.



And yet it hasn't.  Are you arguing humanity has evolved past government always sliding to authoritarianism and brutality, and humans have abandoned the opposing force, the desire of people to live free? 



Dr Grump said:


> Now, if the US didn't have a professional, standing armed forces, sure. However, it does.



That is the most compelling reason for an armed citizenry.



Dr Grump said:


> Times have changed. Interesting that you keep on going back in history to make your point. We are now in the 21st century. In fact, with nukes, your point(s) are mute,



Well, the history lesson I gave you was only in rebuttal to your ignroance of the concept of an armed citizenry throughout thousands of years of history.



Dr Grump said:


> So you know the history of why there is an armed citizenry.



Yes, I do.



Dr Grump said:


> There were lots of things that happened in the past that are no longer applicable. Slavery. Only land owners being allowed to vote. Women not voting. All in the past. As is you analogy.



What was the mark of a Slave?  Being disarmed and rendered harmless to those in authority.

Rep. George A. Yeaman (Unionist, Kentucky) clearly stated this fact during the ratification debates of the 14th Amendment:

"Let proclamations be withdrawn, let statutes be repealed, let our armies be defeated, let the South achieve its independence, yet come out of the war with an army of slaves made freemen for their service, who have been contracted with, been armed and drilled, and have seen the force of combination.  Their personal status is enhanced . . .  They will not be returned to slavery."​
.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> I disagree. It is a legitimate argument. One amendment was added (13th) and one repealed (18th). Can the 2nd be repealed? Absolutely. There is a mechanism in place to make it so. Will it ever be repealed? Doubtful.



How many amendments have rescinded an original, fundamental right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights?



Dr Grump said:


> And yet if you discuss Roe vs Wade....



Do you have a working understanding of* how* the right to abortion was recognized and deemed constitutionally protected in _Roe v Wade_?

Did _Roe v Wade_ create or grant the right to abortion, or did the SCOTUS declare the right to be covered under a right that already existed and that states were forbidden to enforce laws restricting the right?

I would argue you haven't a damn clue about _Roe v Wade_ or _Griswold v CT_ which recognized the right to privacy by way of "*penumbral rights*" from which the right to abortion is said to reside . . .

I have no problem discussing _Roe v Wade_.
I enjoy discussing _Roe v Wade_.
_Roe v Wade_ is a quagmire for anti-gun leftists, it will be *YOU* who will be running away from discussing it.

Here's a little taste for you  . . .

The most effective path to extinguish the right to abortion (and LGBTQ+ rights), is to rescind or severely restrict the right to keep and bear arms. 

If that was to occur, the theory of "penumbral rights" is proven to be a false contrivance.

.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> The US has ALWAYS had a gun problem.


no it has never had a gun problem it has a democrat problem


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> I disagree. It is a legitimate argument. One amendment was added (13th) and one repealed (18th). Can the 2nd be repealed? Absolutely. There is a mechanism in place to make it so. Will it ever be repealed? Doubtful.


we've added 14 amendment since the formation of this country and we've only had one repealed
Do you know the history of the 27th amendment?
Commonly known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, the Twenty-seventh Amendment was actually the second of 12 amendments proposed by the first Congress in 1789 (10 of these would be ratified and become the Bill of Rights). Absent a time period for ratification by the states, the expiration of which would render the amendment inoperable, it remained dormant for almost 80 years after only six states voted for ratification (Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia). In 1873 Ohio ratified the amendment as an expression of dissatisfaction with then-current attempts by Congress to increase the salaries of its members. The amendment once again lay dormant, but in 1978 another state, Wyoming, ratified it. In 1982, after an undergraduate research paper written by Gregory Watson, then a student at the University of Texas in Austin, became the foundation for a movement to curtail political corruption by ratifying the amendment, efforts picked up steam. (Watson had received a “C” for the paper, his professor saying that the argument that the amendment was still pending was not convincing.) By May 5, 1992, the requisite 38 states had ratified the amendment (North Carolina had re-ratified it in 1989), and it was certified by the archivist of the United States as the Twenty-seventh Amendment on May 18, 1992, more than 202 years after its original proposal.








						Twenty-seventh Amendment | United States Constitution
					

Twenty-seventh Amendment,  amendment (1992) to the Constitution of the United States that required any change to the rate of compensation for members of the U.S. Congress to take effect only after the subsequent election in the House of Representatives. Commonly known as the Congressional...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> ALL, ancient history. Humanity has moved on. Now, if the US didn't have a professional, standing armed forces, sure. However, it does. Times have changed. Interesting that you keep on going back in history to make your point. We are now in the 21st century. In fact, with nukes, your point(s) are mute, in that they back up your argument because they don't. So you know the history of why there is an armed citizenry. There were lots of things that happened in the past that are no longer applicable. Slavery. Only land owners being allowed to vote. Women not voting. All in the past. As is you analogy.
> 
> At the end of the day, weird as it may be, I'm going to quote comedian Jim Jeffries. The only reason US citizens have guns is because they like them. They love the power of them. Those auditors on YouTube love looking like big men on campus walking down the street with their peashooter strapped to their side. Or their semi auto. There is a reason the police stop and talk to them. It is not considered normal, civilised behaviour. I see the look on their faces. They feel big. Brave. Tough even. THAT is the reason you like your guns.



Jim Jeffries?  An unfunny comedian is your go to source?

Americans own and carry guns for self defense, sport, hunting, collecting…….and to prevent our fascist democrats from implementing  their dreams of concentration camps for their enemies….


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The National Guard is militia based, it's based around the Militia. When called up into federal service it is a part of the US military. But then the militia has been like this for 200+ years.


The militia has never been part of the US Army.




frigidweirdo said:


> No, you're wrong about it's status in the US military making it not the militia.


That is incorrect.  The Framers intended clearly that the militia be present in order to render a standing army unnecessary as much as possible.

To make a standing army count as the militia is very clearly contrary to the intention of the Framers.

Further, the Constitution limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion.  There is no role for the militia outside US borders.

Further yet, militiamen have the right to take their military weapons home with them.  Guardsmen are not allowed to do this.




frigidweirdo said:


> Read the Dick Act.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What it isn't, is any sort of militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.

They can claim whatever they want to claim, but it doesn't make it so.




frigidweirdo said:


> Crazy people with guns are far more effective killers than crazy people without guns.


Their record of killing people with bombs and of killing people with high speed trucks says differently.




frigidweirdo said:


> So, it is pretty clear that in 1792 and before, the RBA acts were about the defense of the common unit, rather than individual self defense.


It doesn't matter what specific reason the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for.  It still protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, including the part where people have guns for the private defense of their homes.




frigidweirdo said:


> Note, many things were not protected. They didn't protect hunting. Why?


Because the right to keep and bear arms is about the militia and private self defense, and is not about hunting.




frigidweirdo said:


> What was the point of protecting hunting?


It's actually a nice idea.  But the ancient right didn't do that.  So this is what we are left with.




frigidweirdo said:


> The US Constitution is about the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They saw a problem with the English crown taking away the ability of colonists to defend themselves, so they took this power away from the government. They didn't need to take the power to prevent individual self defense because it wasn't an issue in those days.


Actually it was an issue a now and then.  That is why the right also covers people having guns to privately defend their homes.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The general militia principle, that the mass of armed citizens, armed without special permission of government, fulfill a dual role of workers and then when needed, the defensive force of a nation, goes back further than 1400 years.  That debate over the civic virtue of an armed citizenry goes back to Aristotle and Plato.
> The rationale of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment specifically, rests on the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, Harrington, Machiavelli, Cato's Letters, the English Whigs, Rousseau, Burgh, Montesquieu, Beccaria and many others. These writings Jefferson called, "_the elementary books of public right_." These writers attacked authoritarian rule, standing armies and vindicated the use of armed force to oppose tyranny and defend life.
> The rationale backing the anti-gun rights side are found in the writings of Plato, Bodin, Hobbes and Filmer.  A central feature of those philosophies was a disarmed citizenry obeying the dictates of men whose authority was beyond question; the authoritarian ideals those writers advocated were disdained and dismissed by the founding fathers.


I count Hobbes on the gun rights side.  If my memory is correct, Leviathan allowed people self defense whenever an agent of the government was not around to protect them.




Abatis said:


> Legally, the 2ndA has no action or effect regarding militia; there is no right to form militia recognized in the 2ndA for anyone (the people or a state); militia formation is exclusively a power conferred to the federal government (for as long as he Constitution is in force).
> 
> The first half of the 2ndA, the "declaratory clause" is a statement of principle.  It only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a dangerous standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).


I see the statement that the militia is necessary as being a legal requirement that the government always have a militia in good working order.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> The US has ALWAYS had a gun problem.


I don't see any problem.




Dr Grump said:


> The Tsarnaev brothers and 9/11 were exceptions, not the rule. More than 95% of mass killings involve guns.


The victims would be just as dead if they were killed with bombs.




Dr Grump said:


> Again, if the right already exists (it doesn't BTW, only to the pro-gun lobby)


Our rights do exist.  But this is the primary reason why people need to keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump).

Progressives mean to abolish our freedom, and they even say that our freedom doesn't exist.

Republicans protect America from progressives.




Dr Grump said:


> ALL, ancient history. Humanity has moved on. Now, if the US didn't have a professional, standing armed forces, sure. However, it does. Times have changed. Interesting that you keep on going back in history to make your point. We are now in the 21st century. In fact, with nukes, your point(s) are mute, in that they back up your argument because they don't. So you know the history of why there is an armed citizenry. There were lots of things that happened in the past that are no longer applicable. Slavery. Only land owners being allowed to vote. Women not voting. All in the past. As is you analogy.


The notion that "freedom and civil liberties only belong in the past and have no place in modern society" is wrong.

It is again why people need to keep voting for Republicans.

Progressives mean to abolish our freedom and civil liberties, and Republicans will protect America from progressives.




Dr Grump said:


> At the end of the day, weird as it may be, I'm going to quote comedian Jim Jeffries. The only reason US citizens have guns is because they like them.


That is more than enough reason for someone to own guns.




Dr Grump said:


> I think the right to form a militia that can bear arms is the point of the 2nd.


It isn't.

The points of the Second Amendment are:

a) To require the government to always have a highly effective militia, and

b) to forbid the government from infringing the preexisting right to keep and bear arms.




Dr Grump said:


> Otherwise, why mention militia at all.


Because they wanted to require the government to always have a highly effective militia.




Dr Grump said:


> Why not just say "Hey, guys, this amendment says you can carry your peashooter anywhere you want, any time of day and have it on your persons all the time if you want"?


The right to keep and bear arms includes at the very least people using guns to privately defend their homes.




Dr Grump said:


> It's not a civil liberty.


Yes it is.  These denials of our civil liberties is why it is important to keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump).

Republicans will prevent progressives from abolishing America's freedom.




Dr Grump said:


> And pre 1400 years ago?


There is reason to believe that the right predates that.  However, that is when the Germanic tribes first started writing stuff down.




Dr Grump said:


> Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?


The Germanic tribes appear to have originated around 600 BC in the pre-Roman Iron Age, so if you want to penpoint the origin of the right, that is probably when it originated.




Dr Grump said:


> there is a problem with your 'inherent' rights. Who gets to decide what one is? I like raping and pillaging. That is my inherent right.


If a right actually exists, there will be a legal history of it having existed.




Dr Grump said:


> So you quote three justices who gave their _opinion_. And that is all it is. An opinion.


There are facts to back up that opinion.  Like the fact that the right to keep and bear arms predates the Second Amendment.  And the fact that the Second Amendment does not attempt to define the right.  It merely says that the right shall not be infringed.




Dr Grump said:


> You don't think I could hunt around and find opinions from justices over the years who back up my opinion. Hell, it's already been posted a couple of times on this thread alone.


I don't think you can find any Supreme Court rulings that back up your opinion.

Although if you presented a compelling argument that the Supreme Court is wrong, I would be happy to listen to that argument.




Dr Grump said:


> Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.


If you are referring to pistol grips and flash suppressors, they are not any sort of problem at all.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Chances are the Supreme Court will say packing heat in public is up to the individual states. In other words, it will cop out.


It is possible that they could rule that the right to be armed outside your home is not as extensive as the right to be armed in your home, but I think they will rule that the right to be armed outside your home does exist at some level.

Just as important, they are likely to require Strict Scrutiny for the Second Amendment.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> But it didn't ban any firearm.


"Banning guns" versus "preventing people from being able to acquire guns" is what they call a distinction without a difference.




bigrebnc1775 said:


> we've added 14 amendment since the formation of this country and we've only had one repealed


Not only that, but there has also been only one time that the Constitution was amended to remove a freedom.

That only amendment to remove a freedom is also the only amendment to later be repealed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> "Banning guns" versus "preventing people from being able to acquire guns" is what they call a distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it wasn't a ban though it was an attempt to prevent criminals from accessing saw off shotguns


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I count Hobbes on the gun rights side.  If my memory is correct, Leviathan allowed people self defense whenever an agent of the government was not around to protect them.



No doubt Hobbes is enthusiastically for individual self defense but his conception of rights is without any moral component.  His is a doctrine of --_might makes right_ -- and says that rights are possessed but neither owed to, or respected in, other people. There is no sense of "equal" rights to be found . . .

With his authoritarian (monarchical) governmental philosophy, Hobbes is grouped with Bodin and Filmer, in opposition to Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu and Rousseau.



Open Bolt said:


> I see the statement that the militia is necessary as being a legal requirement that the government always have a militia in good working order.



But the declaratory clause has no legal operation to mandate or compel anything.

In the cases where disputes and conflicts over militia powers were settled, the origin and extent of militia powers was examined, and the 2nd Amendment is simply not  examined for direction or held to have any action pertaining to militia, especially directing federal, state or citizen action.

The only constitutional authority comes from the militia clauses in the body of the Constitution (Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16) and from that authority the Militia Act of 1792 was enacted, giving direction for militia. 

SCOTUS's first "militia" case decided which government, federal or state could prosecute a militia member for refusing to serve when called into actual service.  

In a statement that speaks to federal supremacy over militia powers, it also speaks to this question about where militia powers come from and to what extent they have been exercised, SCOTUS referred to §8 and the Militia Act of 1792 and said; 

"Upon the subject of the militia. Congress has exercised the powers conferred on that body by the constitution, as fully as was thought right, and has thus excluded the power of legislation by the States on these subjects, except so far as it has been permitted by Congress . . . ."​​_Houston v. Moore_ 18 U.S. (5 Wheaton) 1, 24 (1820)​​The 2nd Amendment was mentioned in that case, in Justice Story's separate opinion and only to say the the 2nd Amendment did not have any important bearing in deciding militia issues.  

Ever since 1820 SCOTUS has been consistent in other "militia" cases, -- even in modern times when the "state's right" and "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment held sway -- the 2nd Amendment is absolutely ignored.  

In _Perpich v. Department of Defense_, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the constitutionality of Congress' repeal of its own provision which had previously allowed governors to decline to send National Guard units outside the United States on training missions, was challenged. 

The conflict in _Perpich_ was between federal legislative and state _executive_ powers and was resolved decisively in favor of the federal government and the Supreme Court did not cite the Second Amendment for any instruction or operation of law.

I get that the 2ndA says "militia" but everything in foundational philosophy and constitutional law tells us, it is as the framers described the clauses contained in the proposed amendments when they were were transmitted to the states . . .  The first half of what became the 2nd Amendment is a "declaratory clause", merely a statement of principle that does not, in itself, direct any action. 

If one really needs it to "mean" something" one could say that the declaratory clause states a reason why _the 2nd Amendment exists_, why the pre-existing, fully retained right to arms is being forever excepted out of the powers of government and held inviolate.

Of course the second half of the 2ndA is a "restrictive clause" that binds action . . . 

The Preamble of the Bill of Rights says (emphasis added):

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further* declaratory and restrictive clauses* should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.​​




						The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
					

Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original. On September 25, 1789, the...




					www.archives.gov
				


​.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 19, 2022)

FJB said:


> Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute​



So, Joe Biddum, the guy who can't pass out millions of full auto rifles fast enough to the Ukraines and gave 28 billion in war weapons to the terrorist Taliban is here to tell you now that your own constitutional guarantees for self defense here are in murky waters as far as HE is concerned, and he is supposed to be the top guy PROTECTING them.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > Chances are the Supreme Court will say packing heat in public is up to the individual states. In other words, it will cop out.
> ...



I missed Batcat's post the first time around, I've included it here to reply to both posts.

It is a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will hold for that the 2ndA secures a _right to bear arms outside the home for self defense_.

The arguments in the briefs of the NY AG admitted that the 2ndA secures that right o carry outside the home (but also argued that NY City was allowed to be more restrictive, limiting and qualifying the right on heightened need).

I also believe SCOTUS is going to outright reject applying all tiers of scrutiny for the RKBA; it just leaves too much wiggle-room for anti-2ndA judges to craft rulings that avoid enforcing the 2ndA.

The _NYSRPA_ oral arguments and moves made by the federal appeals courts since then, tells me the Court is going to just demand the lower court abandon their "two-tier inquiry" for contested gun laws.

After _Heller_, the Circuit courts developed a self-created, SCOTUS ignoring two-step test . . . Under this process, those lower federal courts *first* decide if the challenged law burdens / implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment. If they conclude the law _does_ infringe on the RKBA, they proceed to the _*second*_ step, deciding how severe the infringement is and whether that infringement it is _really_ worth worrying about.

No surprise, that question is always answered the same; _*NO PROBLEM!*_ and the court declares the gun control law is absolutely needed for public safety. They then proceed to invent creative ways to explain why the violation of the right must be allowed and they *never* fail saying the RKBA just doesn't matter -- the tally is 50-0!

At oral argument on Nov. 3, 2021, both lawyers defending the NY law were queried by the Justices about the "two step" process used to decide the constitutionality of challenged gun control laws (including _NYSRPA_).

Understandably, the two lawyers could not defend the "_two-step inquiry_" and in fact, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the "_*text, informed by history and tradition*_" (as articulated years ago by Justice Thomas and explained by Kavanaugh in his dissent in *Heller II*) is the only proper process to apply the 2nd Amendment to challenged laws.

We see the 9th Circuit reading the tea leaves and seeing what is coming.

The losing (gun rights) party in a recent large capacity magazine (LCM) case in the 9th Circuit (_Duncan_, decided using the "two-step" on _December 22nd_) made a motion immediately after the _Duncan_ was decided, moving *to stay the enforcement of the ban on possession of hi-cap mags until they can appeal to SCOTUS;* it was _uncontested by California_ and was granted. The 9th has also suspended (held in abeyance) two pending assault weapon (AW) ban cases until _NYSRPA_ is decided and the 3rd Circuit has also held a NJ LCM ban case until after the _NYSRPA_ decision.

What we can draw from all this?  Well, the lower federal courts realize the "two-step inquiry" is dead, and _all the cases decided using the "two-step inquiry" are at best, infirm._

It is hard to comprehend this ground-shift . . . _NYSRPA_ will result in a deluge of motions for rehearings in the Circuits that have used the "two step" and those rehearings will be granted and the reversals of those decisions that sustained gun laws will be handed down in short order . . . 

Note, these rehearings and reversals / invalidations of these bans will not require any appeals or granting of cert and hearing by SCOTUS; it all happens in the Circuits that screwed the pooch originally.

These courts will forced to abandon the interest balancing / intermediate scrutiny two step and reconsider those laws ONLY applying the "*text, informed by history and tradition*" of the 2ndA, and decide those cases like they should have been done ever since _Heller_ and _McDonald_, declaring those AW and LCM bans invalid / unconstitutional.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.



What does that mean?  Is that some reference to the gun contol advocate's position that if a gun is a "weapon of war", you want to restrict it's ownership by regular ciizens?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I missed Batcat's post the first time around, I've included it here to reply to both posts.
> 
> It is a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will hold for that the 2ndA secures a _right to bear arms outside the home for self defense_.
> 
> ...



*It is a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will hold for that the 2ndA secures a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense.*
*
The arguments in the briefs of the NY AG admitted that the 2ndA secures that right o carry outside the home (but also argued that NY City was allowed to be more restrictive, limiting and qualifying the right on heightened need).
*
*I also believe SCOTUS is going to outright reject applying all tiers of scrutiny for the RKBA; it just leaves too much wiggle-room for anti-2ndA judges to craft rulings that avoid enforcing the 2ndA.

We can only hope..........soon we will find out...*


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> And yet it hasn't.  Are you arguing humanity has evolved past government always sliding to authoritarianism and brutality, and humans have abandoned the opposing force, the desire of people to live free?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And yet the peoples of western Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ disagree with you. And no, you can't lump Europe together. They are a group of disparate people with different languages, cultures, ideals and mores. Yet, when it comes to guns, they are on the same page.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Jim Jeffries?  An unfunny comedian is your go to source?
> 
> Americans own and carry guns for self defense, sport, hunting, collecting…….and to prevent our fascist democrats from implementing  their dreams of concentration camps for their enemies….


The source isn't the point. What he said is.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> The source isn't the point. What he said is.




And his point is dumb too.....

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, from rape, robbery, murder, stabbings, and beatings...according to the CDC..1.5 million times a year according to Department of Justice research......

At the same time....again,  explain this...or maybe ask your comedian to explain it....of course, I have asked you guys over and over to explain it...and you never can......

Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> And yet the peoples of western Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ disagree with you. And no, you can't lump Europe together. They are a group of disparate people with different languages, cultures, ideals and mores. Yet, when it comes to guns, they are on the same page.



In many of those nations with long histories of strict gun control, those laws were not enacted and enforced out of any interest in controlling criminals to protect regular citizens.  Those laws were created for strict political control of regular citizens.

Even Blackstone, writing of the reformations of William and Mary admitted that the law forbidding commoners from owning "an engine for killing game" had a political motivation . . .  

"the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws ."​​The thought that European political gun control could be introduced and enacted here is ludicrous; that's pretty much what the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the  Constitution and Bill of Rights was rejecting, _especially_ the British model.

.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I don't see any problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You and I will just have to disagree on having guns as being a civil right. Nothing civil about it IMO.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> ​The thought that European political gun control could be introduced and enacted here is ludicrous; that's pretty much what the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the  Constitution and Bill of Rights was rejecting, _especially_ the British model.
> 
> .


On that we agree. Ours is more of a philosophical debate as opposed to a real world situation....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> You and I will just have to disagree on having guns as being a civil right. Nothing civil about it IMO.




Yes.....you are the guys who support, rape, robbery, murder rather than allowing citizens to use guns to save themselves and their families...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> On that we agree. Ours is more of a philosophical debate as opposed to a real world situation....




And you didn't address the question...

How do you explain this?

Funny how you leftists never make the attempt....

Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And his point is dumb too.....
> 
> Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, from rape, robbery, murder, stabbings, and beatings...according to the CDC..1.5 million times a year according to Department of Justice research......
> 
> ...


I look at that and think, "just how violent is the US?"


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes.....you are the guys who support, rape, robbery, murder rather than allowing citizens to use guns to save themselves and their families...


I used to be a cop...so you are wrong. I have never been raped, robbed or murdered. I was burgled once. In 1989 when I was in the police. That is it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Lots of progressives use the phrase that it isn't absolute as cover for their efforts to violate the Second Amendment.


That’s a lie.

No firearm regulatory measure proposed by ‘progressives’ violates the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of assault weapon bans.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of UBCs.

With regard to assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions, you may accuse ‘progressives’ of advocating for bad and ineffective laws, but you may not accuse them of advocating for ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I'm an American conservative, and I remain delighted with the Heller decision.


Then you’re in the minority.

This thread is proof of the right’s contempt for _Heller_ – conservatives propagating the lie that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute’ exhibits their contempt for settled, accepted Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The militia has never been part of the US Army.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The militia can be called up into federal service. 

The Founding Fathers didn't write much about the militia. Only that it should have state appointed officers and be disciplined by Congress and could be called up by the federal government. 

The Militia was a product of its time. The National Guard as a part of the Militia has been there for 119 years and no one has attacked it for being unconstitutional. 

You say it doesn't make it so, but it is so, whether you like it or not. 


The reasons for the Second Amendment does matter. Mostly to understand it better. The right to keep arms protects the right of individuals to own weapons. It does NOT protect the right to use that gun in foreplay, playing monopoly, sticking it on a sandwich, or self defense. 

You might be able to use it for self defense along with a whole host of other things. That doesn't mean it's protect IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT. 


The Second Amendment is not about INDIVIDUAL self defense. It's about COLLECTIVE self defense. 

But again, you're right that it doesn't protect hunting. It starts with "a well regulated militia" because it's PROTECTING THE MILITIA.

It does this by protect individuals to have arms that the federal government can't ban or get their hands on.

It also does this by protecting individuals to be in the militia. It can't ban individuals being in the militia.

Because a militia only really needs two things to function. Arms and personnel to use those arms. 

It certainly does NOT need individuals carrying out self defense in their normal daily lives.

Prove to me that the founders were focusing on self defense in the US constitution prior to 1793.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Is it perfect? No. But it's a great first step.


The Constitution isn’t ‘perfect,’ nor is its case law – that’s got nothing to do with it.

The fact remains that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right, as outlined in _Heller,_ provided those limits and restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s likely the Court will in time invalidate state AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions while upholding the authority of government to regulate firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 19, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Hey guess what - I don't care.
> 
> I don't care what you CALL it.
> 
> ...


This is a lie – no one seeks to ‘ban’ guns; this is yet another example of the ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty, and demagoguery typical of the right.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> On that we agree. Ours is more of a philosophical debate as opposed to a real world situation....



It is a legal debate that is grounded in the foundational philosophy of the Constitution.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> I look at that and think, "just how violent is the US?"



Very violent.

Americans kill with hands and feet at higher rates than most of your exemplar gun control utopias do by all manner . . .


----------



## Batcat (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I missed Batcat's post the first time around, I've included it here to reply to both posts.
> 
> It is a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will hold for that the 2ndA secures a _right to bear arms outside the home for self defense_.
> 
> ...


I hope you are right.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s a lie.
> 
> No firearm regulatory measure proposed by ‘progressives’ violates the Second Amendment.



That's a lie.  Of course they do.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> With regard to assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions, you may accuse ‘progressives’ of advocating for bad and ineffective laws, but you may not accuse them of advocating for ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.



That's a lie.  Of course I can accuse them . . .

SCOTUS has held that arms of a type "_that is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense_" are protected by the 2nd Amendment.  

Those arms with the political label, "assault weapons" certainly meet that protection criteria and are of course, "_in common use at the time_" which means *any* person of *any* political persuasion should know laws restricting their possession and use by law-abiding citizens, violate the right to keep and bear arms.

The only courts that have sustained AW bans and LCM bans are LOWER federal courts that have engaged in a concerted effort to ignore _Heller_ and dismiss SCOTUS; just like they did in 1942 with _US v Miller _when they inserted the "collective right" interpretation in the federal courts to extinguish he claims of constitutional rights of US citizens.

Progressives, when it comes to guns, have done nothing but seek to violate the right to arms of US citizens; it is in their DNA.

.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Very violent.
> 
> Americans kill with hands and feet at higher rates than most of your exemplar gun control utopias do by all manner . . .


I have never claimed they are gun control utopias. I spend zero time in my country worrying about guns, who's got them and where they might be coming at me next. I don't worry about being killed or burgled or robbed. You?


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> "_in common use at the time_"
> 
> .


What is your definition of common use?


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> ​The thought that European political gun control could be introduced and enacted here is ludicrous; that's pretty much what the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the  Constitution and Bill of Rights was rejecting, _especially_ the British model.
> 
> .


Um, no they weren't. The main points had nothing to do with guns. It was wanting representation when paying taxes and also to be self-governing. Guns weren't even in the original constitution. The 2nd is an amendment.


----------



## AMart (Mar 19, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can't own modern fully auto weapons. I think the cutoff year is 1984 and newer are illegal.


Not true. They are expensive though.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Um, no they weren't. The main points had nothing to do with guns. It was wanting representation when paying taxes and also to be self-governing.



The Revolutionary War began with British attempts to seize American's arms.  You never heard of General Gage's orders?  You never heard of Paul Revere's ride? Did you never learn about the "shot heard round the world"?  That's when we shot those Brits in the face for trying to grab our guns.



Dr Grump said:


> Guns weren't even in the original constitution. The 2nd is an amendment.



You have no clue how any of this works.  Why do you engage in discussions when you are so complete ignorant of _everything_?

.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The Revolutionary War began with British attempts to seize American's arms.  You never heard of General Gage's orders?  You never heard of Paul Revere's ride? Did you never learn about the "shot heard round the world"?  That's when we shot those Brits in the face for trying to grab our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not American. I have been debating on this board with gun lovers for 16 years and on other boards before this. Trust me, I do know how it works. What I find interesting with the most ardent gun nuts is that they try and claim they are the final word on the legal, moral and "i know the spirit of how the constitution is meant to be interpreted" (and the irony is not lost on me that that interpretation has been revisited in the USSC continuously since the US became independent) of the constitution. What I do know is, that it is a lot more complicated than that. I do know that your constitution, at best, is an okay document. Not some epiphany equal to the 10 commandments and should be worshipped and adhered to. It is a flawed document written by white men, many slave owners, who were the only people who had the right to vote. It is not lost on me that these same men wanted to get out from under the yoke of colonialism but refused - initially - to give the same consideration to men who didn't own land, women, native Americans, and those who were slaves.

Meh, having peashooters was peripheral at best when it came to reasons for the American Revolution.









						American Revolution - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I hope you are right.



Like I said, on the basic question, does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to carry a gun outside the home, the NY lawyers arguing their case to SCOTUS have conceded the point.  It is no longer in dispute, it is no longer something we need SCOTUS to decide, it is just a point in law they will affirm.

The NY lawyers, believing they were helping their position, discussed four federal Circuit decisions that upheld various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses. In doing so, they conceded that multiple Circuits say the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home:


"All of these courts proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment right applies outside the home. The First Circuit explained that while this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald invalidated laws that prohibited the possession of firearms in the home, the Court’s reasoning “impl[ied] that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited to the home.”​​Brief of respondents Keith M. Corlett, et al. in opposition,​http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief in Opposition.pdf​
I see what restrictive jurisdictions (those with need qualified carry schemes) are doing, trying to enact crazy laws before SCOTUS invalidates their carry schemes.

Hawaii for instance is trying o enact a new carry law that makes the permit only last for 6 months and an applicant, every time they renew, must undergo 20+ hours of training, including live fire and the law will require one to carry a TASER and deploy it before lethal force can be used.

Other places are making new laws, not as crazy as Hawaii but all in preparation for what they know is coming.


Just as a point of info, Monday will be 138 days since oral argument in _NYSRPA v Bruen_.

_McDonald v. Chicago_ took 120 days to write the majority opinion, two concurrences, and two dissents.  _Heller_ took 100 days to write the majority opinion and two dissents.

Soon!


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> I have never claimed they are gun control utopias.



Well, you hold them up as exemplars, to be emulated for their fortitude and wisdom.



Dr Grump said:


> I spend zero time in my country worrying about guns, who's got them and where they might be coming at me next.



I don't worry about guns, I enjoy debating gun rights vs gun control simply because more than any other topic of political policy, it exposes the contempt leftists have for the Constitution and individual liberty and the duplicitousness they are willing to engage in to advance their agenda.



Dr Grump said:


> I don't worry about being killed or burgled or robbed. You?



No.  Even when I lived in Philadelphia for 35 years and worked in all areas of the city at all times of the day and night and always took the measures for my security, even unarmed ones before the state implemented their shall issue License to Carry Firearms.

I have since retired to *Trump country and are living in the peace, tranquility and tolerance of conservative people that leftists hope for but can only dream about*. The only thing I fear here is driving on a foggy night in the fall, when the deer are in the rut.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 19, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> I'm not American.



No shit.



Dr Grump said:


> I have been debating on this board with gun lovers for 16 years and on other boards before this. Trust me, I do know how it works.



No, you don't. 

Saying, "Guns weren't even in the original constitution. The 2nd is an amendment" prove you have no idea how the Constitution works.



Dr Grump said:


> What I find interesting with the most ardent gun nuts is that they try and claim they are the final word on the legal, moral and "i know the spirit of how the constitution is meant to be interpreted"



Well, debate is an exchange of persuasive argument.  I very rarely make a statement that can not be supported unequivocally in founding principles or law or SCOTUS decisions explaining law.  The biggest problem is, I want to show the proofs but they aren't one-liners; the errors in this debate are typically simple and short, the corrections are much more intensive and require a level of interest leftists never can muster.



Dr Grump said:


> (and the irony is not lost on me that that interpretation has been revisited in the USSC continuously since the US became independent) of the constitution. What I do know is, that it is a lot more complicated than that.



Yup, and when anti-gun leftists are presented with those more complicated -- *BUT CORRECT* -- rebuttals, they always choose the easy falsehoods.







.


----------



## Batcat (Mar 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Like I said, on the basic question, does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to carry a gun outside the home, the NY lawyers arguing their case to SCOTUS have conceded the point.  It is no longer in dispute, it is no longer something we need SCOTUS to decide, it is just a point in law they will affirm.
> 
> The NY lawyers, believing they were helping their position, discussed four federal Circuit decisions that upheld various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses. In doing so, they conceded that multiple Circuits say the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home:
> 
> ...


Recent events have caused me to lose a lot of faith in some branches of our government. Hopefully we can still trust SCOTUS.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> I look at that and think, "just how violent is the US?"




Cities controlled by the democrat party, where they attack the police and the democrat party policy is to release the most violent criminals, regardless of the number of felonies under their belt, are very violent....but only in tiny areas of those cities.....primarily in minority neighborhoods where the democrats really don't care for the welfare of the citizens....


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Well, you hold them up as exemplars, to be emulated for their fortitude and wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) Well as countries, the vast majority would be on my 'places to live' list well above the US.
2) Nah, it's not duplicitous to want to walk down the street minding my own business and not having to worry about some loon having a bad day opening fire on me. As long as you have the ballot box you get a say in how your country is run.
3) Other than locking my door at night and having insurance I don't do anything to ensure my security because nobody is out to get me.
4) Nice link to a partisan hack site. Not lost on me you talk about the same Trump who tried to instigate a coup, doesn't give a rats about your constitution and is a disgusting human being - all rolled into one.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> No shit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, the second wasn't in the constitution. It was an amendment. Which part is untrue. It's not an amendment?

It's not about mustering interest, it is having gone over the same arguments time and time again, ad nauseam.

Oh, what a lovely condescending, patronising cartoon. Gee, why don't people take you seriously. The difference between somebody like me and you is that I think there is an opposing point of view, you think you're right, period. And when I think of your type of thinking I think of people like Che, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Putin, Hitler.....


----------



## Abatis (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> 1) Well as countries, the vast majority would be on my 'places to live' list well above the US.



Fine with me. The feeling is mutual.



Dr Grump said:


> 2) Nah, it's not duplicitous to want to walk down the street minding my own business and not having to worry about some loon having a bad day opening fire on me.



And that right there is an example of the duplicitousness . . .  The ease at which anti-gun leftists abandon the discussion at hand and attempt to straw-man and red herring the debate with idiotic diversions; that is the very definition of your inauthenticity and mendaciousness -- all to advance the agenda.



Dr Grump said:


> As long as you have the ballot box you get a say in how your country is run.



But the fundamental rights of the citizen are not subject to any election.  My right to keep and bear arms can not be put on a ballot and voted away.



Dr Grump said:


> 3) Other than locking my door at night and having insurance I don't do anything to ensure my security because nobody is out to get me.



Those who must be out and about in high crime areas don't have the luxury of pulling the bedclothes over their heads.  In Philadelphia, crime finds you even if you are so deluded to think you are immune.  Just before Christmas last year, a sitting US Congresswoman was carjacked at gunpoint in a city park . . .









						U.S. congresswoman carjacked at gunpoint in Philadelphia park
					

Delaware state police have taken into custody five suspects after U.S. Representative Mary Gay Scanlon was robbed of her automobile at gunpoint in a Philadelphia park on Wednesday.




					www.reuters.com
				






Dr Grump said:


> 4) Nice link to a partisan hack site.



Did you look at the article?  It was well cited and statistically supported piece, explaining why conservative "_Trump supporting_" areas, are safe, clean, polite and tolerant places to live (even for people who are not Trump supporters, you knee-jerk, ad-hom, red herring throwing clod).

It is the places where leftists / Democrats are in power that are the dirty, abusive, discriminatory, dangerous and plain horrible places to live.  I know, I fled one of the worst as soon as I could.



Dr Grump said:


> Not lost on me you talk about the same Trump who tried to instigate a coup, doesn't give a rats about your constitution and is a disgusting human being - all rolled into one.



Did I "talk about Trump"; did I say anything _about_ Trump? All I said is, I now live in a area with conservative values and the majority of people voted for Trump.

Are you capable of containing your replies, only addressing / rebutting what I have actually written?


----------



## Abatis (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Ok, the second wasn't in the constitution. It was an amendment. Which part is untrue. It's not an amendment?



See, there you go again . . . I did not say your statement was untrue.  I said you have no clue how any of this works and I asked, why do you engage in discussions when you are so complete ignorant of _everything_?

While your statement is factually true; the import you place on it is fundamentally wrong.  The end conclusion you draw from that import, _that the right to arms depends upon constitutional recognition_, is profoundly incorrect.  

*I have given you the truth, I have presented the foundational principles to you and quoted the Supreme Court's affirmations and enforcement of those principles* and yet you push-on, deciding to just dismiss the Supreme Court's rulings as mere "opinions" and then you argue that oppositional opinions, with similar weight, are just as numerous.  

You have proven again and again that you will not even acknowledge anything that  challenges your beliefs and you will refuse to engage in any discussion of those uncomfortable facts . . .  And yet, you expect me to recognize the veracity of your drivel and swallow your ignorant gruel without any hesitation.  



Dr Grump said:


> It's not about mustering interest, it is having gone over the same arguments time and time again, ad nauseam.



Your positions are emotional constructs, not logical, educated positions.  You present them with great conviction but all that shows is how emotionally invested you are in them.  

You have never attempted to actually defend your statements with anything beyond your ill-formed opinions and biases and when presented with argument fatal to your viewpoints, you dissemble and divert and descend into a circle-jerk of logical fallacy or just simply dismiss the relevance of the proofs I provide (like you hilariously do with the Supreme Court).



Dr Grump said:


> Oh, what a lovely condescending, patronising cartoon. Gee, why don't people take you seriously.



It is a succinct statement of how you lemming-like leftist ignoramuses conduct yourselves in a discussion . . . 



Dr Grump said:


> The difference between somebody like me and you is that I think there is an opposing point of view, you think you're right, period.



No, the difference between you and me is, I know you are wrong but I believe that if presented with the correct information and proofs, you will see the error of your ways and change your mind.  

You and all leftists believe it does not matter if those who disagree with you are wrong . . .  You are unwilling to make the intellectual investment to actually debate them to try to *prove* you are right and they are wrong.

You believe their opposition to the statist, leftist, neo-Marxist agenda is evidence enough to condemn them as evil and subhuman, which allows you to dismiss them as competent voices to even discuss the policies you support.

And like an actor hitting their mark, you close your idiotic post with. . .



Dr Grump said:


> And when I think of your type of thinking I think of people like Che, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Putin, Hitler.....



That there is called *confession by projection*.  

It is _you_ who aligns with them and looks with envy their ease crushing any desire in their people for self-determination through their rights-crushing authoritarian practices and you love the ultimate freedom those despots enjoyed after all internal opposition was exterminated. That is the utopia I denounce and you pine for.

I'm the one arguing for self determination, for rights (exceptions of government power) claimed, possessed and exercised without permission of government.  What stupidity for you to assign the policies of those despots to me when it is you who tacitly embrace the doctrine of people only having the "rights" their rulers wish to give them . . .   *Your entire argument is centered on that theme*. 

When one has _*that*_ as a foundational philosophy, it is *you *who are only a small nudge away from the inhumanity of those devils you mention.

I'm sure whatever shithole you hail from, eagerly welcomes you as a resident, the loyal, unquestioning, subservient subject you are.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> See, there you go again . . . I did not say your statement was untrue.  I said you have no clue how any of this works and I asked, why do you engage in discussions when you are so complete ignorant of _everything_?
> 
> While your statement is factually true; the import you place on it is fundamentally wrong.  The end conclusion you draw from that import, _that the right to arms depends upon constitutional recognition_, is profoundly incorrect.
> 
> ...




This.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Fine with me. The feeling is mutual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) touche
2) Yeah. Duplicitous List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
3) That is where I see it differently. Remember, I'm talking philosophically, not US law. I see it as a privilege, not a right. Just like driving a car.
4) Yep, as I said the US is a violent place. It is in a death spiral due to the amount of firearms you have there (IMO)
5) For a start it is Briebart  - you couldn't get a more partisan hack site if you tried. The stats are skewed in so many ways i don't even know where to start but I'll give you two examples off the bat. It says that where the writer lives there were 2.9 hate crimes per 100,000 people while in Portland there were 5.75 per 100,000. For a start that number is almost in the margin of error, but more importantly he doesn't give context. ie, there could be 50 black people, 30 Hispanics and 20 other people per 100,000 people living in his area (he doesn't say, so I don't know). In Seattle there might be 20,000 people of various races per 100,000. That would mean hate crimes are much less prevalent per head of population than where writer lives. Ditto with his list of worst cities. You need data that shows per head of population. I mean he cites the biggest cities in the US. Of course they are going to have the most crime. Duh. As study after study has shown, crime is directly related to poverty. You take out all the crime in low socio economic parts of cities and the stats will be similar to your rural Utopias. But, right-wing loons don't want to know about that. They want everybody to look after themselves. It's all about me, me, me. Fuck everybody else. Well, unless you talk about women's bodies. Then they want the final word.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Your positions are emotional constructs, not logical, educated positions.  You present them with great conviction but all that shows is how emotionally invested you are in them.
> 
> You have never attempted to actually defend your statements with anything beyond your ill-formed opinions and biases and when presented with argument fatal to your viewpoints, you dissemble and divert and descend into a circle-jerk of logical fallacy or just simply dismiss the relevance of the proofs I provide (like you hilariously do with the Supreme Court).


Hey, I have said time and time again mine is a philosophical argument. I'm not even arguing about the USSC or your second -although that HAS to come into the argument if I am talking to a US citizen. My plank is this - do I think a country is more civilised without it being awash with guns and people walking around with the ability to have a gun strapped to their waste (CCW)? Yes I do. Do I think a country awash with guns is a terrible place to live? Yes I do. Do I think owning a gun in a civilised society is a privilege not a right? Absolutely. Remember, when we started this debate you cited instances well before the US became a country. Just because something was the norm 1400 years ago, and was a right then, doesn't mean it should be a right now. Ie, slavery. Now, you may like living in a country awash with firearms citing you want to protect your family, or from a tyrannical govt. If you were in Libya, or the Congo, your argument would be sound. In the US? PPffftt. Time and time again, I see these Youtube auditors and firearms owners strutting - and they are strutting - like big men, tough guys. That is reason most love being armed. They love the power it presents. Deny it all you like. And that is exactly what Jim Jeffries was saying his routine. Just be honest about it. You talk to any conservative American, and they talk with fondness and and air of almost 'what life used to be' where they could walk around cock of the walk with their peashooters by their side. Me? I just say, 'grow the fuck up'.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> I'm not even arguing about the USSC or your second


Neither are conservatives.

For conservatives it’s the aspirational/political second amendment, having nothing to do with the Constitution, Second Amendment, or the law.

As a fact of law, the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute’ – and President Biden is correct.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> 1) touche
> 2) Yeah. Duplicitous List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
> 3) That is where I see it differently. Remember, I'm talking philosophically, not US law. I see it as a privilege, not a right. Just like driving a car.
> 4) Yep, as I said the US is a violent place. It is in a death spiral due to the amount of firearms you have there (IMO)
> 5) For a start it is Briebart  - you couldn't get a more partisan hack site if you tried. The stats are skewed in so many ways i don't even know where to start but I'll give you two examples off the bat. It says that where the writer lives there were 2.9 hate crimes per 100,000 people while in Portland there were 5.75 per 100,000. For a start that number is almost in the margin of error, but more importantly he doesn't give context. ie, there could be 50 black people, 30 Hispanics and 20 other people per 100,000 people living in his area (he doesn't say, so I don't know). In Seattle there might be 20,000 people of various races per 100,000. That would mean hate crimes are much less prevalent per head of population than where writer lives. Ditto with his list of worst cities. You need data that shows per head of population. I mean he cites the biggest cities in the US. Of course they are going to have the most crime. Duh. As study after study has shown, crime is directly related to poverty. You take out all the crime in low socio economic parts of cities and the stats will be similar to your rural Utopias. But, right-wing loons don't want to know about that. They want everybody to look after themselves. It's all about me, me, me. Fuck everybody else. Well, unless you talk about women's bodies. Then they want the final word.




There are over 330 million people in the U.S.......how many of those committed mass public shootings in the U.S.....?

6.....

Out of over 330 million Americans.....

How many killed?

73....

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people every year.

Deer kill 200 people a year.

Ladders kill 300 people a year.

Bathtubs kill 350 people a year.

Cars kill over 39,000 people a year.....

Using the rarest of rare events to push gun control is stupid and moronic...but you know you can scare uninformed Americans with those words..."Mass Public shooting."

How many guns are there in the U.S?

600 million guns.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, beatings and stabbings....and stopping mass public shootings......

So.......I think we will keep our guns.....since the Ukrainians are currently learning the really hard lesson as to why you don't give up your guns in the first place....

And the countries you point to?  

They disarmed their people in the 1920s and 30s...then murdered 15 million of them when the socialists took control.....

Again...we will keep our guns to protect us from leftists like you.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Hey, I have said time and time again mine is a philosophical argument. I'm not even arguing about the USSC or your second -although that HAS to come into the argument if I am talking to a US citizen. My plank is this - do I think a country is more civilised without it being awash with guns and people walking around with the ability to have a gun strapped to their waste (CCW)? Yes I do. Do I think a country awash with guns is a terrible place to live? Yes I do. Do I think owning a gun in a civilised society is a privilege not a right? Absolutely. Remember, when we started this debate you cited instances well before the US became a country. Just because something was the norm 1400 years ago, and was a right then, doesn't mean it should be a right now. Ie, slavery. Now, you may like living in a country awash with firearms citing you want to protect your family, or from a tyrannical govt. If you were in Libya, or the Congo, your argument would be sound. In the US? PPffftt. Time and time again, I see these Youtube auditors and firearms owners strutting - and they are strutting - like big men, tough guys. That is reason most love being armed. They love the power it presents. Deny it all you like. And that is exactly what Jim Jeffries was saying his routine. Just be honest about it. You talk to any conservative American, and they talk with fondness and and air of almost 'what life used to be' where they could walk around cock of the walk with their peashooters by their side. Me? I just say, 'grow the fuck up'.




The civilized societies you love?

They disarmed their people in the 1920s and 30s....they then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children...

You European types really have nothing to teach Americans as far as arms control goes....we saw what you did after you took away your guns...we see what Russia is doing to Ukraine......

You have nothing to teach us...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> 1) touche
> 2) Yeah. Duplicitous List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
> 3) That is where I see it differently. Remember, I'm talking philosophically, not US law. I see it as a privilege, not a right. Just like driving a car.
> 4) Yep, as I said the US is a violent place. It is in a death spiral due to the amount of firearms you have there (IMO)
> 5) For a start it is Briebart  - you couldn't get a more partisan hack site if you tried. The stats are skewed in so many ways i don't even know where to start but I'll give you two examples off the bat. It says that where the writer lives there were 2.9 hate crimes per 100,000 people while in Portland there were 5.75 per 100,000. For a start that number is almost in the margin of error, but more importantly he doesn't give context. ie, there could be 50 black people, 30 Hispanics and 20 other people per 100,000 people living in his area (he doesn't say, so I don't know). In Seattle there might be 20,000 people of various races per 100,000. That would mean hate crimes are much less prevalent per head of population than where writer lives. Ditto with his list of worst cities. You need data that shows per head of population. I mean he cites the biggest cities in the US. Of course they are going to have the most crime. Duh. As study after study has shown, crime is directly related to poverty. You take out all the crime in low socio economic parts of cities and the stats will be similar to your rural Utopias. But, right-wing loons don't want to know about that. They want everybody to look after themselves. It's all about me, me, me. Fuck everybody else. Well, unless you talk about women's bodies. Then they want the final word.




No..... Fatherless homes create poverty.........poverty creates crime, then crime takes over and solidifies generational poverty........


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The civilized societies you love?
> 
> They disarmed their people in the 1920s and 30s....they then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children...
> 
> ...


We're going back 100 years. Western Europe has moved on. So should you.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No..... Fatherless homes create poverty.........poverty creates crime, then crime takes over and solidifies generational poverty........


ie, black families right? You don't have a clue do you...(not a question, thus no question mark).


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> But the declaratory clause has no legal operation to mandate or compel anything.


I read the Second Amendment's declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary, as a mandate to compel the government to always have a well regulated militia.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> You and I will just have to disagree on having guns as being a civil right. Nothing civil about it IMO.


The legal history is quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a longstanding civil liberty.




Dr Grump said:


> What I find interesting with the most ardent gun nuts is that they try and claim they are the final word on the legal, moral and "i know the spirit of how the constitution is meant to be interpreted" (and the irony is not lost on me that that interpretation has been revisited in the USSC continuously since the US became independent) of the constitution. What I do know is, that it is a lot more complicated than that.


There may be parts of the Constitution that have complexities.

There may be parts of the Constitution that have gray areas where several different rulings could be legitimate and the courts have to choose one.

But there are also parts of the Constitution where the facts are clear.  And people who claim that the facts are not clear in those cases are being disingenuous.  It is perfectly reasonable for people to complain that their rights are being violated when they are in fact being violated.




Dr Grump said:


> My plank is this - do I think a country is more civilised without it being awash with guns and people walking around with the ability to have a gun strapped to their waste (CCW)? Yes I do. Do I think a country awash with guns is a terrible place to live? Yes I do. Do I think owning a gun in a civilised society is a privilege not a right? Absolutely.


I reject your civilization and choose freedom instead.




Dr Grump said:


> Remember, when we started this debate you cited instances well before the US became a country. Just because something was the norm 1400 years ago, and was a right then, doesn't mean it should be a right now. Ie, slavery.


I reject the notion that freedom is something only for our ancestors.

Freedom today and freedom forever!




Dr Grump said:


> Now, you may like living in a country awash with firearms citing you want to protect your family, or from a tyrannical govt. If you were in Libya, or the Congo, your argument would be sound. In the US? PPffftt. Time and time again, I see these Youtube auditors and firearms owners strutting - and they are strutting - like big men, tough guys. That is reason most love being armed. They love the power it presents. Deny it all you like. And that is exactly what Jim Jeffries was saying his routine. Just be honest about it. You talk to any conservative American, and they talk with fondness and and air of almost 'what life used to be' where they could walk around cock of the walk with their peashooters by their side.


Liking guns is more than enough reason for having guns.




Dr Grump said:


> Me? I just say, 'grow the fuck up'.


Liking guns is not a sign of immaturity.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s a lie.
> No firearm regulatory measure proposed by ‘progressives’ violates the Second Amendment.
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of assault weapon bans.
> With regard to assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions, you may accuse ‘progressives’ of advocating for bad and ineffective laws, but you may not accuse them of advocating for ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.


A violation of the Constitution is a violation even if the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that it is a violation.  So I can indeed accuse progressives of trying to violate people's civil liberties.

A couple of nitpicks:

Untrue statements are not necessary lies.  Malicious intent is required before an untrue statement becomes a lie.  An honest mistake does not make something a lie, and neither does honest disagreement about something.

Assault weapons were all but banned some 88 years ago.  Progressives should not be allowed to get away with mislabeling a gun as an assault weapon when it is not.  Laws against pistol grips should be referred to as laws against pistol grips.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie – no one seeks to ‘ban’ guns; this is yet another example of the ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty, and demagoguery typical of the right.


That is incorrect.  There are people out there who do want to ban guns.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The militia can be called up into federal service.


But only for three limited purposes: upholding the law, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.

None of those limited purposes includes service outside US borders.




frigidweirdo said:


> The National Guard as a part of the Militia has been there for 119 years and no one has attacked it for being unconstitutional.


The National Guard is not part of the militia.  They are part of a standing army.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the National Guard.  They just are not the militia.




frigidweirdo said:


> You say it doesn't make it so, but it is so, whether you like it or not.


That is incorrect.  The Framers intended the militia to make a standing army as unnecessary as possible.  To say that a standing army counts as the militia goes against their clear intent.

Also, militiamen do not serve outside US borders, and are allowed to take their weapons home with them.




frigidweirdo said:


> The right to keep arms protects the right of individuals to own weapons. It does NOT protect the right to use that gun in foreplay, playing monopoly, sticking it on a sandwich, or self defense.
> You might be able to use it for self defense along with a whole host of other things. That doesn't mean it's protect IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.


The right to own a gun is more than enough.  Anyone who owns a gun has the right to use that gun to defend their home.




frigidweirdo said:


> The Second Amendment is not about INDIVIDUAL self defense. It's about COLLECTIVE self defense.


Are you aware that you are making an argument for the general public to own weapons like grenades and machine guns?

What sorts of weapons do you think are used in collective self defense?




frigidweirdo said:


> Prove to me that the founders were focusing on self defense in the US constitution prior to 1793.


Well, they created the Ninth Amendment.  That shows that they wanted all rights to be protected.

They knew very well that the right to self defense existed and would therefore be included in anything that covers all rights.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I reject your civilization and choose freedom instead.
> 
> Liking guns is more than enough reason for having guns.
> 
> Liking guns is not a sign of immaturity.



1) I have freedom. More than you. I'm not the one so scared about my society I need to have guns to protect myself. I call that serfdom.
2) Not it is not. 
3) In the context of the vast majority of MEN wanting them because they think it makes them more manly? Absolutely it is immature. There is a reason most Western countries have rejected that culture.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> But only for three limited purposes: upholding the law, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.
> 
> None of those limited purposes includes service outside US borders.
> 
> ...



And "upholding the law" is a rather LARGE area. 

I agree, the militia should not be used outside of the US, but it is. Just because it is used like that, doesn't mean it isn't the militia. Essentially they get around it by calling it up into federal service and then making it a part of the US reserve. 

It's like saying that because they don't always respect the right to freedom of speech, that freedom of speech no longer exists.

Maybe a person who owns a gun, protected by the US second amendment, has a right to defend themselves with that gun, not protected by the US second amendment.

The point here is the meaning of the second amendment. Self defense almost certainly exists, it just isn't protected by the second amendment.

We know this, because we have massive amounts of evidence that show this.

It doesn't matter whether you think I'm making an argument for the ownership of machine guns and the like or not. The reality is that this area of the argument is SUBJECTIVE. Agreement is going to be hard to come by.

Why? Because the 2A protects the right to own "arms". It does NOT protect the right to own ALL guns. The 2A is essentially a LIMIT on the Federal Govt. If you can get a hand gun, you have "arms". If the federal govt doesn't stop the sale of handguns but bans machine guns, have they stopped you from owning "arms"? No. They have not. You still have arms.

Which is where you argument because weak, but again, subjective.

Yes, they created the 9th and the right to self defense is far, far, far more likely to be in the 9th than the 2nd.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> 1) I have freedom. More than you.


No you don't.  Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.




Dr Grump said:


> I'm not the one so scared about my society I need to have guns to protect myself.


No one over here is scared either.

This thing about "need" is serf speak.  Free people have guns because we choose to have them.  Need is irrelevant.




Dr Grump said:


> 2) Not it is not.


Yes it is.  If a free person chooses to have guns, that is all that matters.  Free people do not have to provide justification.

It is only serfs who have to provide justification before they are allowed to have guns.




Dr Grump said:


> 3) In the context of the vast majority of MEN wanting them because they think it makes them more manly? Absolutely it is immature.


That is not why people choose to have guns.  That is the bigoted stereotype of a freedom hater.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And "upholding the law" is a rather LARGE area.


It only applies where US law exists (which means within US borders).




frigidweirdo said:


> I agree, the militia should not be used outside of the US, but it is. Just because it is used like that, doesn't mean it isn't the militia. Essentially they get around it by calling it up into federal service and then making it a part of the US reserve.


Making the National Guard a standing army means that they are not the militia.




frigidweirdo said:


> It doesn't matter whether you think I'm making an argument for the ownership of machine guns and the like or not. The reality is that this area of the argument is SUBJECTIVE.


There is nothing subjective about it.  Collective defense includes repelling foreign invasions.  That means a level of weaponry that would enable people to repel a foreign invasion.

If you only allow a level of firepower that is nowhere near sufficient for collective defense, then you are violating the right to keep and bear arms.




frigidweirdo said:


> Why? Because the 2A protects the right to own "arms". It does NOT protect the right to own ALL guns. The 2A is essentially a LIMIT on the Federal Govt. If you can get a hand gun, you have "arms". If the federal govt doesn't stop the sale of handguns but bans machine guns, have they stopped you from owning "arms"? No. They have not. You still have arms.


That is incorrect.  Collective defense means enough firepower to repel a foreign invasion.

That means grenades and machine guns.  Handguns alone are not going to repel a foreign invasion.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It only applies where US law exists (which means within US borders).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The National Guard is not a standing army. The people in the National Guard are mostly people with other jobs. Officers can be appointed by the states, this is how it's done, if I'm not wrong. 

The Second Amendment needs to be seen from the right angle. As I said, it prevents the US federal government from stopping individuals being able to own "arms". It doesn't really mention what types of arms.

The reality is the militia was designed to have people with their own weaponry that would be every day weaponry for hunting, what normal people would have. Not cannon or other such weaponry used in high tech warfare of the day. So, from both points there I think you're wrong.

Collective defense means people getting together to defend themselves. Take a look at the Ukraine. People did not have all the weaponry they needed, but they still got it from somewhere. This is the reality of modern warfare. Also with the National Guard, individuals do not need F-16s, the National Guard provides this.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The National Guard is not a standing army.


That is incorrect.  The National Guard are part of the US Army.




frigidweirdo said:


> The Second Amendment needs to be seen from the right angle. As I said, it prevents the US federal government from stopping individuals being able to own "arms". It doesn't really mention what types of arms.


It doesn't have to mention it.  Collective defense includes repelling foreign invasions.  That means firepower appropriate for repelling foreign invasions.




frigidweirdo said:


> The reality is the militia was designed to have people with their own weaponry that would be every day weaponry for hunting, what normal people would have. Not cannon or other such weaponry used in high tech warfare of the day. So, from both points there I think you're wrong.


I'm not wrong.  What people had back then was modern infantry weaponry.  Hunting was decidedly not part of the right to keep and bear arms.

If you want to exclude weapons that are too large and expensive to be owned and operated by common individuals, that is one thing, but limiting the right so that it covers only "individual" infantry weapons still leaves full-auto assault rifles and things like grenades and bazookas.




frigidweirdo said:


> Collective defense means people getting together to defend themselves. Take a look at the Ukraine. People did not have all the weaponry they needed, but they still got it from somewhere.


If they had had the Second Amendment, they would not have to get the weapons from somewhere.  They would have the right to provide their own weapons.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> No you don't.  Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) Says who? I am more than happy to go through many, many scenarios with you where I am absolutely more free than you are. I was born in NZ, now live in Australia. US isn't even in the top 10.





__





						Freedom Index by Country 2022
					





					worldpopulationreview.com
				




2) Meh, I have the need to rape and pillage. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it.
3) Yeah, they do. If you 'need' to walk down a street with an AR15 strapped to your side, then go for it. Join other great nations where this happens, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, <insert third-world shithole here>
4) BS. I watch the auditors. I see NRA types interviewed. I see the likes of you on messageboards like this. It's a stereotype for a reason.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> 1) Says who?


Says the historical fact that keeping and bearing arms is the right of free people.




Dr Grump said:


> I am more than happy to go through many, many scenarios with you where I am absolutely more free than you are. I was born in NZ, now live in Australia.


You aren't even remotely free.  If you were free you would not keep going on and on about "need" and "justification".




Dr Grump said:


> 2) Meh, I have the need to rape and pillage. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it.


You are thinking like a serf.  This "need" nonsense does not apply to free people.




Dr Grump said:


> 3) Yeah, they do.


No we don't.  We free people do what we want without justifying ourselves.  And it doesn't matter whether or not anyone thinks we "need" something.




Dr Grump said:


> If you 'need' to walk down a street with an AR15 strapped to your side, then go for it. Join other great nations where this happens, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, <insert third-world shithole here>


Every time you talk about "need" you show that you are not free.

If I walk down the street with an AR15, it will not because of any nonsense about "need".

It will because I choose to do it.  And as a free person, I will not have to justify my choice.




Dr Grump said:


> 4) BS. I watch the auditors. I see NRA types interviewed. I see the likes of you on messageboards like this. It's a stereotype for a reason.


The reason why it's a stereotype is because people who oppose gun rights have small penises.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  The National Guard are part of the US Army.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The National Guard has duel status. 

It's like saying someone can't be in the National Guard because they have a job in Walmart. As if the two aren't compatible.

Cannon was modern weaponry, did they talk about people owning cannon?

The thing is, the way the 2A is written means weaponry of certain types can be excluded AS LONG AS the feds don't prevent people from owning arms. 

Well, they do have the right to provide their own weapons. These people would be infantry, not artillery, not anything else.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Says the historical fact that keeping and bearing arms is the right of free people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I note you didn't mention the link I provided.
LOL..re small penises. Am I the guy walking around with an extension of such strapped to my side? Your NEED to arm yourself just reinforces how scared you are (which is definitely a sign of lack of freedom) of your fellow citizens. 
What historical 'fact' about bearing arms? 
Gee, all the other free countries - who are way up the top of the freedom index - don't feel the NEED to be armed to the hilt like conservative Americans. Why is that? Oh, that's right, they've gone beyond the school boy fantasies of being Wyatt Earp, or maybe in your case William Bonney, and have grown up. Maybe, one day in the faaaaarrrr future, gun loving Yanks will too. I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The National Guard has duel status.
> It's like saying someone can't be in the National Guard because they have a job in Walmart. As if the two aren't compatible.


The two are absolutely not compatible.  The Framers intended the militia and the standing army to be two entirely different things.




frigidweirdo said:


> Cannon was modern weaponry, did they talk about people owning cannon?


Canon were too large and expensive for common individuals to buy, and too large and complex for individuals to operate.

As I said before, if you want to exclude expensive and complex weapons on that basis, fine.

But that still leaves "individual" infantry weapons like grenades, bazookas, and full-auto rifles.




frigidweirdo said:


> The thing is, the way the 2A is written means weaponry of certain types can be excluded AS LONG AS the feds don't prevent people from owning arms.


The way it is written means the inclusion of modern infantry weapons that are appropriate for repelling a foreign invasion.




frigidweirdo said:


> Well, they do have the right to provide their own weapons. These people would be infantry, not artillery, not anything else.


Infantry includes grenades, bazookas, and full-auto rifles.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The two are absolutely not compatible.  The Framers intended the militia and the standing army to be two entirely different things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The founders intended lots of things, and one of the things they intended was ADAPTABILITY of the political process. Hence why there are amendments and a lot of things are written quite vaguely. 

Still doesn't matter. The reality is the National Guard is a part of the Militia, whether you like it or not.

Cannons were too large and expensive and people didn't need them to hunt, and the leaders didn't want the people with cannons anyway.

And it doesn't matter what you think is infantry weaponry or not. The reality, again, is that the Second Amendment only PREVENTS the federal govt from doing things, and one of those things is preventing individuals from having arms. Now, can you get arms in the US today without buying a hand grenade? Yes.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> LOL..re small penises. Am I the guy walking around with an extension of such strapped to my side?


The only extension of a small penis here is your reliance on bigoted stereotypes.




Dr Grump said:


> Your NEED to arm yourself just reinforces how scared you are (which is definitely a sign of lack of freedom) of your fellow citizens.


Your endless talk about "need" just proves that you can't even comprehend what freedom is.




Dr Grump said:


> What historical 'fact' about bearing arms?


Free people have always had the right to keep and bear arms.




Dr Grump said:


> Gee, all the other free countries - who are way up the top of the freedom index - don't feel the NEED to be armed to the hilt like conservative Americans.


More of your serf talk.  These other countries are not free and they never will be,




Dr Grump said:


> Why is that? Oh, that's right, they've gone beyond the school boy fantasies of being Wyatt Earp, or maybe in your case William Bonney, and have grown up.


More of your small-penis bigotry.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The founders intended lots of things, and one of the things they intended was ADAPTABILITY of the political process. Hence why there are amendments and a lot of things are written quite vaguely.


Nothing in the Constitution was written vaguely.

Yes, the Constitution can be amended.  Feel free to try to amend it.




frigidweirdo said:


> Still doesn't matter. The reality is the National Guard is a part of the Militia, whether you like it or not.


That is incorrect.  The National Guard are not the militia.




frigidweirdo said:


> Cannons were too large and expensive and people didn't need them to hunt, and the leaders didn't want the people with cannons anyway.


Hunting has nothing to do with anything here.  Did you forget your claim that the Second Amendment is about collective defense?

None of the Framers had any objections to people owning cannons.




frigidweirdo said:


> And it doesn't matter what you think is infantry weaponry or not.


It matters what is an infantry weapon or not.

As it happens, I accurately listed examples of infantry weapons.




frigidweirdo said:


> The reality, again, is that the Second Amendment only PREVENTS the federal govt from doing things, and one of those things is preventing individuals from having arms.


That is incorrect.  A Second Amendment that is specifically focused on collective defense, specifically prevents outlawing the sorts of arms that are used for collective defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> Now, can you get arms in the US today without buying a hand grenade? Yes.


That is incorrect.  Being armed for collective defense requires hand grenades and full-auto weapons.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 21, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Nothing in the Constitution was written vaguely.
> 
> Yes, the Constitution can be amended.  Feel free to try to amend it.
> 
> ...



Nothing was written vaguely huh?

"arms", not vague? 

Hunting has lots to do with it. Mostly because people had guns because they used them to HUNT. 

Well, the Founding Fathers probably didn't bother talking about cannons because it wasn't an issue. They wanted individuals to have GUNS because they felt that with guns they could get what they wanted, seeing how they won the revolutionary war with people just having guns, and other stuff, like cannons, being provided elsewhere. 

No, you're wrong. The Second Amendment does NOT prevent the feds from banning certain types of weapons. Not even the NRA thinks the nukes and SAMs should be in the hands of normal people. 

So, if you don't have a hand grenade, you won't be able to fight?


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Nothing was written vaguely huh?


Correct.




frigidweirdo said:


> "arms", not vague?


Correct.




frigidweirdo said:


> Hunting has lots to do with it. Mostly because people had guns because they used them to HUNT.


That is incorrect.  Hunting has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and certainly has nothing to do with a Second Amendment that is focused on collective defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> No, you're wrong. The Second Amendment does NOT prevent the feds from banning certain types of weapons. Not even the NRA thinks the nukes and SAMs should be in the hands of normal people.


I'm not wrong.  A Second Amendment that is focused on collective defense, prevents the government from restricting the sort of weapons that are used for collective defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> Not even the NRA thinks the nukes and SAMs should be in the hands of normal people.


You are the one who proposed that the Second Amendment was strictly about collective defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> So, if you don't have a hand grenade, you won't be able to fight?


I'm sure soldiers can fight with their bare hands.

The Second Amendment is there to prevent our collective defense from being forced to use substandard weapons.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 21, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, you're making a lot of claims and nothing to back them up with.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, you're making a lot of claims and nothing to back them up with.


They are backed up with logic.  If the Second Amendment is about collective defense, then it is about collective defense.

By the way, you needn't worry about nukes and SAMs.  They are closer to cannons than they are to individual weapons.  Stinger missiles may be held by a single person, but they are normally operated by a two-man crew.  They are also extremely expensive, nothing that an average person can afford.

Hand grenades, on the other hand, are cheap and are operated by a single person.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 21, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> They are backed up with logic.  If the Second Amendment is about collective defense, then it is about collective defense.
> 
> By the way, you needn't worry about nukes and SAMs.  They are closer to cannons than they are to individual weapons.  Stinger missiles may be held by a single person, but they are normally operated by a two-man crew.  They are also extremely expensive, nothing that an average person can afford.
> 
> Hand grenades, on the other hand, are cheap and are operated by a single person.



No, you're not using that much logic. You're not trying to start at the beginning and work from there, trying to understand why the founding fathers put things in the Constitution or didn't. 

Or trying to understand their mentality from the past.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 21, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I read the Second Amendment's declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary, as a mandate to compel the government to always have a well regulated militia.



I gave you a quite comprehensive reply why your belief is wrong.  The declaratory clause has no legal operation to mandate or compel anything; as SCOTUS has said repeatedly, the 2ndA has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

The only constitutional authority to mandate / compel / direct *any* militia action, federal, state and the citizen, comes from the militia clauses in the body of the Constitution (Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16).

From that enumerated grant of power the Militia Act of 1792 was enacted, and that law was the full expression by Congress of the powers conferred to Congress by the Constitution, none of which emanate from the 2nd Amendment . . .  And that law was rescinded in 1903, extinguishing the militia powers of the states and relieving militia duty impressment on the citizens.

.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> We're going back 100 years. Western Europe has moved on. So should you.




1930s were 100 years ago?   And you want to ignore 15 million murdered?

You don't think the socialist left wouldn't do this again if given half the chance?

This is why we don't trust you asshats.....you have no understanding of human history or human nature........


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> 1930s were 100 years ago?   And you want to ignore 15 million murdered?
> 
> You don't think the socialist left wouldn't do this again if given half the chance?
> 
> This is why we don't trust you asshats.....you have no understanding of human history or human nature........


Jim Crowe was only 60 years ago. You still want to wallow in those laws?


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 21, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I read the Second Amendment's declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary, as a mandate to compel the government to always have a well regulated militia.


I love it. Two arrogant pro-gunners who are dismissive and condescending towards others on this board who are not opposed to certain restrictions on firearms, and think they are the final word on the second, can't agree. Made my day. Thought you were both 100 per cent right in your views? You can't even agree among yourselves. This is aimed at you too Abatis


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Nothing was written vaguely huh?
> 
> "arms", not vague?
> 
> ...



What is it with you asshats and the stupid nuclear weapon comparison?

They can’t ban rifles……nukes are not personal arms you moron……SAMs are not rifles…..you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Jim Crowe was only 60 years ago. You still want to wallow in those laws?



You idiots are trying to segregate society again..,,,,,

Governments take guns away from people then murder 15 million of them……that is a lesson an intelligent person would never forget……..and you forgot it…….


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 21, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I gave you a quite comprehensive reply why your belief is wrong.


The existence of a mainstream theory that differs from my novel theory doesn't prove me wrong though.

Perhaps it is that mainstream theory that is wrong.




Dr Grump said:


> I love it. Two arrogant pro-gunners who are dismissive and condescending towards others on this board who are not opposed to certain restrictions on firearms, and think they are the final word on the second, can't agree. Made my day. Thought you were both 100 per cent right in your views? You can't even agree among yourselves. This is aimed at you too Abatis


While I guess I do think that I am right on this, note that I am proposing something novel that contradicts everything that has gone before.  It is not unreasonable that there will be people who don't agree with my theory.

My proposal of a novel theory is quite different from a situation where progressives propose something that clearly and obviously violates the Constitution.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, you're not using that much logic.


I'm using enough.

If the Second Amendment is focused on protecting collective defense, then it protects the right to have those weapons that are best suited for collective defense.

Only letting people have minor weapons that are not of much use for collective defense violates your interpretation of the Second Amendment.




frigidweirdo said:


> You're not trying to start at the beginning and work from there, trying to understand why the founding fathers put things in the Constitution or didn't.
> Or trying to understand their mentality from the past.


I did that many years ago.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You idiots are trying to segregate society again..,,,,,
> 
> Governments take guns away from people then murder 15 million of them……that is a lesson an intelligent person would never forget……..and you forgot it…….


Yeah, let's compare 1930s Germany/USSR to 21st century USA.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Mar 21, 2022)

Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute​
Until the DementiacRats need it to serve their criminal agenda's.  Then it's awesome and absolute!


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2022)

Dr Grump said:


> Yeah, let's compare 1930s Germany/USSR to 21st century USA.




Germany in the 1920s was a modern nation, with courts, universities, the rule of law.......in 20 years they went from a normal society to murdering 15 million people...

Do you really think that the people of Germany in the 1920s  ever thought they would be murdering 15 million innocent men, women and children?

Right now, China is a slave state, and it committing genocide, Russia just invaded a country for the ego of putin..........and you have morons from the democrat party praising both of those countries......and calling for Chinese Flu vaccine resistors to be imprisoned.....

Your lack of understanding of human nature and human history is exactly how the 1930s happened....


----------

