# When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives



## Stryder50 (Oct 23, 2021)

Employee who killed gunman likely saved lives, police say​...
SUPERIOR, Neb. (AP) — An employee who returned fire after a gunman killed two people at a Nebraska grain elevator likely prevented more deaths, a Nebraska State Patrol official said Friday.

The employee, who was not named, retrieved a weapon and shot Max Hoskinson, 61, after Hoskinson began shooting at the Agrex Elevator in Superior, Nebraska, on Thursday. Hoskinson, of Superior, was pronounced dead at a hospital.

 Authorities said Hoskinson had been fired earlier Thursday and returned that afternoon with a gun and began shooting in an office area.
...


			Employee who killed gunman likely saved lives, police say


----------



## Pete7469 (Oct 23, 2021)

*That's how it's supposed to work.*


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 23, 2021)

Well since the other guy had a gun also then it can also be said the 2nd amendment also cost a couple of lives and even the shooter's life


----------



## JGalt (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Well since the other guy had a gun also then it can also be said the 2nd amendment also cost a couple of lives and even the shooter's life



The 2A isn't about murdering people. The shithead could have very well killed more before he was stopped.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Well since the other guy had a gun also then it can also be said the 2nd amendment also cost a couple of lives and even the shooter's life


the 2nd A has nothing to do with killing innocent people,,
try reading it sometime,,


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 23, 2021)

JGalt said:


> The 2A isn't about murdering people. The shithead could have very well killed more before he was stopped.


of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero.  I am assuming they both got their guns legally. 

yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning

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.”


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Oct 23, 2021)

JGalt said:


> The 2A isn't about murdering people. The shithead could have very well killed more before he was stopped.




The reason the lunatic was armed in the first place was the Second Amendment.

It's a wash, IMO


----------



## Gunluvver2 (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero.  I am assuming they both got their guns legally.
> 
> yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning
> 
> 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.”


FYI the Second Amendment is about "regulating" a militia.  Who will "regulate" the militia?  That power is given to the "people" and it should not be "infringed".


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero.  I am assuming they both got their guns legally.
> 
> yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning
> 
> 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.”




I guess you guys never get tired of that dumb argument.........you only see "militia" and can't see "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  The Right to keep and bear arms is the independent clause in that sentence....the militia part is the dependent clause....

You have nothing...


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The reason the lunatic was armed in the first place was the Second Amendment.
> 
> It's a wash, IMO




And?   People abuse Rights all the time.......that doesn't mean you end the Right...you fucking doofus.   It means you punish the people who abuse the Rights......and leave everyone else alone...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero.  I am assuming they both got their guns legally.
> 
> yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning
> 
> A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


The shooter got a gun. A- it was illegal brought across the southern border. B-Your government agency ATF allowed the sale of the weapon to the murderer, thus failing once again, to protect, but instead uses this to try to disarm the rest of US.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 23, 2021)

Gunluvver2 said:


> FYI the Second Amendment is about "regulating" a militia.  Who will "regulate" the militia?  That power is given to the "people" and it should not be "infringed".



Militia -   (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be *called on to provide military service supplementary* to the regular armed forces.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero.  I am assuming they both got their guns legally.
> 
> yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning
> 
> 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.”



Nobody knows if the perpetrator bought the gun legally or not, or if he was even eligible to posses a firearm.
You can be 110% sure the the shotgun was legitimate and legal, in the business where it was used to stop the shooter.

The "militia" referred to in the 2A was not a governmental entity. It was the *people*. And "well regulated" by the linguistics of that time did not mean "controlled by or operating under the auspices of the government." The term "well regulated" referred to the property of something being in proper working order.

That militia of armed citizens is also necessary to the security of a free State, as the Second Amendment states. Free states are not only threatened by outside sources of tyranny, but domestic tyranny as well: Criminals, robbers, thieves, or murderers. And like the amendment reads, the right of armed citizens to protect their security from such tyranny shall not be infringed.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Militia -   (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be *called on to provide military service supplementary* to the regular armed forces.



That was defined by the supreme court, and is is entered in the U.S. Military Code. Not the Constitution.

The US Constitution does provide for a Navy, provides for calling forth the militia to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and provides for organizing, arming, and training the militia.

Sadly, the government has so far neglected to arm me, so I took it upon myself.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 23, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The reason the lunatic was armed in the first place was the Second Amendment.
> 
> It's a wash, IMO



Right. So you also believe all those black drug dealers, robbers, carjackers, and murderers in Chicago got their guns because of the Second Amendment, right? The NRA probably helped to, eh?


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Well since the other guy had a gun also then it can also be said the 2nd amendment also cost a couple of lives and even the shooter's life





True.  Howwver bad people always seem to be able to get guns.  Violent gun crimes are skyrocketing throughout Europe and the UK even though they have strict gun control.

The mass invasion of "refugees" from various third world countries are the cause.

It ain't the tool, it's the people.

At least here in most of the USA you are allowed to shoot back.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> True.  Howwver bad people always seem to be able to get guns.  Violent gun crimes are skyrocketing throughout Europe and the UK even though they have strict gun control.
> 
> The mass invasion of "refugees" from various third world countries are the cause.
> 
> ...


And that is what pisses off the Progressives elites.  With our ability to shoot back, the Dems have to burn cities to the ground just to let off steam...


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

JGalt said:


> Right. So you also believe all those black drug dealers, robbers, carjackers, and murderers in Chicago got their guns because of the Second Amendment, right? The NRA probably helped to, eh?


The NRA certainly supports individual sales where they can buy all the guns they want without even giving their name, and certainly not a background check.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The NRA certainly supports individual sales where they can buy all the guns they want without even giving their name, and certainly not a background check.







Factually untrue.  Color me not shocked that you lie about the NRA's position.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Factually untrue.  Color me not shocked that you lie about the NRA's position.


Please point out the untrue part,


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Please point out the untrue part,






Everything you posted is a lie.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Everything you posted is a lie.


i have the prog slave on ignore, because he always did lie.  I just cant keep my honor listening to all the lies the left says.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Everything you posted is a lie.


The NRA spent 1.6 million to prevent background checks being required for individual sales.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The NRA certainly supports individual sales where they can buy all the guns they want without even giving their name, and certainly not a background check.



Tough shit, babe. I bought 12 guns this year at garage sales. Not a single on e of them asked my name or asked me to fill out a piece of paper.

Good lucking changing that.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 23, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> i have the prog slave on ignore, because he always did lie.  I just cant keep my honor listening to all the lies the left says.



I had him/her/it on ignore, but I just had to unignore him/her/it so I could respond.

I also used all-inclusive pronouns so I wouldn't offend him/her/it..


----------



## Pete7469 (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Well since the other guy had a gun also then it can also be said the 2nd amendment also cost a couple of lives and even the shooter's life


*Get a retro-active abortion you fucking vacuous piece of shit. The 2nd Amendment had NOTHING to do with any deaths. It's a right for people to take advantage of so that they're not victimized by pathetic diseases like you.


.*


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The NRA spent 1.6 million to prevent background checks being required for individual sales.






Yes, because the wording was fucked up.  It required FAMILY members to get a background check if a father gave a gun to a son.  That is simply bullshit.  

Very few people I know would have a problem with a background check that worked this way, you make a call to a government entity, the call is free, you give the entity the information of the person buying the gun, the entity says whether it is OK for that person to have a gun.  No registration of the type of firearm.

You do that, and the law would pass.  Make it even better, if a private person does that, they are PROTECTED from any civil litigation if the buyer uses the gun to commit a crime.  

Then you would have almost everyone willingly doing it.

NO REGISTRATION is the key.


----------



## Pete7469 (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yes, because the wording was fucked up.  It required FAMILY members to get a background check if a father gave a gun to a son.  That is simply bullshit.
> 
> Very few people I know would have a problem with a background check that worked this way, you make a call to a government entity, the call is free, you give the entity the information of the person buying the gun, the entity says whether it is OK for that person to have a gun.  No registration of the type of firearm.
> 
> ...


*Bed wetting leftists are not reasonable adults.*

*You know that though.*


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

That is great!

For every 30 criminal homicides and 60 suicides, there is *one justifiable homicide*.  Sometimes fentanyl can save lives.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

Never forget:


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The NRA spent 1.6 million to prevent background checks being required for individual sales.


They are guilty of hundreds of thousands deaths.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> That is great!
> 
> For every 30 criminal homicides and 60 suicides, there is *one justifiable homicide*.  Sometimes fentanyl can save lives.







Which is a bullshit number because you intentionally don't count the defensive use of a gun unless the victim shoots their assailant.  The vast majority of the time just showing you have the gun, PREVENTS the crime.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> They are guilty of hundreds of thousands deaths.






You are more responsible because you demand people be disarmed.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> And that is what pisses off the Progressives elites.  With our ability to shoot back, the Dems have to burn cities to the ground just to let off steam...




I believe that the fact that guns in the suburbs are a big thing, it kept blm and antifa, democrat party terrorists, from going into the suburbs in 2020....and that coverage of the Missouri couple kept people safe.....blm  and antifa realized that the people in the suburbs had guns and can shoot back....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The NRA certainly supports individual sales where they can buy all the guns they want without even giving their name, and certainly not a background check.




Wow.....you have gone from being just lazy and dishonest to being outright stupid........


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yes, because the wording was fucked up.  It required FAMILY members to get a background check if a father gave a gun to a son.  That is simply bullshit.
> 
> Very few people I know would have a problem with a background check that worked this way, you make a call to a government entity, the call is free, you give the entity the information of the person buying the gun, the entity says whether it is OK for that person to have a gun.  No registration of the type of firearm.
> 
> ...


So you got nothing on any part of my statement you said was a lie.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Which is a bullshit number because you intentionally don't count the defensive use of a gun unless the victim shoots their assailant.  The vast majority of the time just showing you have the gun, PREVENTS the crime.


Guns were used in self-defense only in 1.3% of violent crimes.  Here.

Most people understand that it is unwise to enrage a criminal by threatening them and escalating violence.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So you got nothing on any part of my statement you said was a lie.








Yeah, you didn't bother to give the reason why the NRA refused to back that legislation.  They are publicly in support of background checks that have no registration component.  DUUUUR


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns were used in self-defense only in 1.3% of violent crimes.  Here.
> 
> Most people understand that it is unwise to enrage a criminal by threatening them and escalating violence.






Fuck criminals.  If they attack me or mine, they die.  Assholes, like you, protect criminals so they harm hundreds of people before they are caught.  And, once again, your stats are bullshit.  Proven false long, long ago.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Never forget:




Never forget the actual truth.....


600 million guns in private hands......over 21.25 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



American use those legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...



Gun deaths...the truth....



2019...



Gun murder...10,235



Gun accidents...486



Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.





Gun suicides... 23,491...





Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.



Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





 that makes for _at least_ 176,000 lives saved—



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 _trillion_ per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yes, because the wording was fucked up.  It required FAMILY members to get a background check if a father gave a gun to a son.  That is simply bullshit.
> 
> Very few people I know would have a problem with a background check that worked this way, you make a call to a government entity, the call is free, you give the entity the information of the person buying the gun, the entity says whether it is OK for that person to have a gun.  No registration of the type of firearm.
> 
> ...




Ooooh......ooooh....ask bulldog if he supports that system......a system that is free, does not require gun registration, and allows anyone to do the background check....likely with a free phone app...

Ask him/her/it, and see what they say..........


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wow.....you have gone from being just lazy and dishonest to being outright stupid........


See #20


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Please point out the untrue part,
> View attachment 555498




Not a link to the story......please provide a link so that we can show you exactly what the NRA did instead of the spin from the rabidly anti-gun CNBC......

What was the expansion?

What was the reason for objecting to this expansion?

Did the expansion require family members to do background checks on family members?

Did the background checks include letting a friend shoot a gun at a range?

This is the problem with background checks...

1) you want them just so you can then demand gun registration...which you need to ban and confiscate guns...

2).....one type of expansion Bill that we will not accept...



3)
Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
*If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.*

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

*The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.
-----*
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

*HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----*

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

3)   More.....

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

*“Universal” Background Checks*
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.


When you actually include detail to what you claim...then you will be an honest participant in this discussion..until then, you are nothing more than a vile, anti-gun extremist....


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Fuck criminals.  If they attack me or mine, they die.


Real Life is different from Action Movies.  In Real Life confronting a violent criminal is dangerous.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, you didn't bother to give the reason why the NRA refused to back that legislation.  They are publicly in support of background checks that have no registration component.  DUUUUR


As I've always said, background checks currently have no registration component. No reason why they should.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 23, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Employee who killed gunman likely saved lives, police say​...
> SUPERIOR, Neb. (AP) — An employee who returned fire after a gunman killed two people at a Nebraska grain elevator likely prevented more deaths, a Nebraska State Patrol official said Friday.
> 
> The employee, who was not named, retrieved a weapon and shot Max Hoskinson, 61, after Hoskinson began shooting at the Agrex Elevator in Superior, Nebraska, on Thursday. Hoskinson, of Superior, was pronounced dead at a hospital.
> ...



Except the Second Amendment made the gunman in the first place.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

Only about 1.3% of crimes are met with gun self-defense.  

For every justifiable homicide there are 30 criminal homicides and 60 criminal suicides.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Real Life is different from Action Movies.  In Real Life confronting a violent criminal is dangerous.





Indeed it is, you should experience the real world instead of your fantasy life.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Real Life is different from Action Movies.  In Real Life confronting a violent criminal is dangerous.




Yep.......being the victim of a violent criminal with no means to defend yourself is even more dangerous...since you are completely at their mercy if they decide to rape, torture and murder you..............without a gun....they have control over you....

But not these women...

Tell us...is it better to you that the following women used guns to save their lives...or is it better for you that they are raped, tortured and murdered?

Please be brave and answer the questions...

Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

*The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face. 

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.*

There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

*Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.*

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

*What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered. *

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


*Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.*

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save yours too.
===============

Waking up to an armed intruder in your house would be any home owner’s worst nightmare. If you’re a single mother with two young kids in the house, finding a man wielding a machete in your bedroom closet immediately kicks you into “momma bear” mode.

That’s what happened to a California woman who woke up to the sound of a man rummaging through her walk-in closet. The thief — Ocean Burger (his name, not a restaurant) — was armed with a number of knives and a machete when the un-named woman grabbed a handgun and confronted him.

From ksbw.com . . .


_[Investigators] say Burger ignored orders to leave and when the homeowner fired several warning shots he allegedly advanced towards her, that’s when the mother fired at the accused burglar hitting him in the leg. And California law may be on her side._

Warning shots are never a good idea and could even put you in legal jeopardy in many jurisdictions. In this case, they not only wasted perfectly good (and expensive) ammunition, but probably led Burger to believe she wasn’t serious about actually shooting him.

After advancing on the woman, the round in his leg apparently convinced Burger that he was wrong.

The good news is California actually has a castle doctrine law on the books. The woman had no duty to retreat and was legally justified in using deadly force to defend herself and her children.

_“There is a presumption that favors the homeowner they’re presumed that the person is in imminent fear of either death or great bodily injury,” said Ellen Campos, assistant district attorney for San Benito county. …_


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Except the Second Amendment made the gunman in the first place.







Nope.  Tools are simply tools.  They are no better or worse than the PERSON that uses them.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Indeed it is, you should experience the real world instead of your fantasy life.


Most people spend a lot of time watching Action Movies.  All of us have seen thousands of villains killed in self defense.

But in Real Life, guns are used for Criminal Homicide and Criminal Suicide.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Only about 1.3% of crimes are met with gun self-defense.
> 
> For every justifiable homicide there are 30 criminal homicides and 60 criminal suicides.




Number of times a year civilians use their legal guns to stop rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies, and murders?

1.2 million according to the Centers for Disease Control.

1.5 million according to the Department of Justice.

1.67 million according to the 2020 Firearm Survey.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most people spend a lot of time watching Action Movies.  All of us have seen thousands of villains killed in self defense.
> 
> But in Real Life, guns are used for Criminal Homicide and Criminal Suicide.




Number of times a year civilians use their legal guns to stop rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies, and murders?

1.2 million according to the Centers for Disease Control.

1.5 million according to the Department of Justice.

1.67 million according to the 2020 Firearm Survey.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Number of times a year civilians use their legal guns to stop rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies, and murders?
> 
> 1.2 million according to the Centers for Disease Control.
> 
> ...


There are not that many severe crimes each year in USA.  These numbers seem vastly exaggerated.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, you didn't bother to give the reason why the NRA refused to back that legislation.  They are publicly in support of background checks that have no registration component.  DUUUUR


NRA spent 1.6 million fighting any background checks for individuals. If I am wrong, then point to any background check bill or proposal they support concerning individual sales.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> As I've always said, background checks currently have no registration component. No reason why they should.




Universal Background Checks would require gun registration....you can't tell if a background check was actually done without knowing who owns the gun and who the gun is transferred to...

So you can play the game of denying you want gun registration...but the sole purpose of universal background checks is to later demand gun registration.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> There are not that many severe crimes each year in USA.  These numbers seem vastly exaggerated.




Tell that to the 18 studies that researched them....


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Fuck criminals.  If they attack me or mine, they die.  Assholes, like you, protect criminals so they harm hundreds of people before they are caught.  And, once again, your stats are bullshit.  Proven false long, long ago.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Tell that to the 18 studies that researched them....


The numbers are very uncertain.  Here.



> The report _Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence_external icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> NRA spent 1.6 million fighting any background checks for individuals. If I am wrong, then point to any background check bill or proposal they support concerning individual sales.




Again......you ignore what they were against...and why......you are a dishonest hack...

For example.......

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
*If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.*

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

*The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.*
*-----*
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

*HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.**
-----*

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

*Sell your game to biden voters....they are stupid enough to believe you...*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> The numbers are very uncertain.  Here.




A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> The numbers are very uncertain.  Here.



You didn't read your own link.......

*Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.*


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Not a link to the story......please provide a link so that we can show you exactly what the NRA did instead of the spin from the rabidly anti-gun CNBC......
> 
> What was the expansion?
> 
> ...











						NRA spent $1.6 million lobbying against background check expansion laws in months leading up to latest mass shootings
					

Calls for tougher background checks and gun control in general have increased yet again in the wake of three mass shootings in California, Texas and Ohio that have left more than 30 people dead.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## Batcat (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero.  I am assuming they both got their guns legally.
> 
> yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning
> 
> A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


The Supreme Court has ruled the Militia angle isn’t as important as you think it is.









						NRA-ILA | <I>McDonald v. Chicago:</I> NRA's Argument Prevails as Supreme Court Applies Second Amendment Nationwide
					

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States, in McDonald v. City of Chicago—a case challenging handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois—ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense nationwide.




					www.nraila.org
				




_On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States, in McDonald v. City of Chicago—a case challenging handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois—ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense nationwide. The Court declared, "We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." The decision reverses the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the bans, and requires that court to reconsider the McDonald case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The handgun bans remain in place, for the time being.

The Court's majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas concurring in whole or in part.* These five Justices also constituted the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, private, individually-held right to keep and bear arms, without regard to a person's relationship to a militia, and that the District of Columbia's bans on handguns and on keeping firearms assembled within the home were unconstitutional.* Dissenting in McDonald were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, all of whom dissented in Heller, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, recently appointed to the Court by President Barack Obama…._emphasis added

***snip***

_The Court further explained:_


> _Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Explaining that "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" in the home, we found that this right applies to handguns because they are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted "to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense." Heller makes it clear that this right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.". . . . The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights._


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Ooooh......ooooh....ask bulldog if he supports that system......a system that is free, does not require gun registration, and allows anyone to do the background check....likely with a free phone app...
> 
> Ask him/her/it, and see what they say..........


Family members should be expected know if the receiver of the gun is allowed to have one, so of course I would support a system like that. What makes you think I wouldn't?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> NRA spent $1.6 million lobbying against background check expansion laws in months leading up to latest mass shootings
> 
> 
> Calls for tougher background checks and gun control in general have increased yet again in the wake of three mass shootings in California, Texas and Ohio that have left more than 30 people dead.
> ...




And the internet answers the question....

Here....from your linked story.......

*H.R. 8, a bipartisan proposal that passed the Democratic-controlled House in February and has yet to be taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate.


Notice.....your story didn't give any details of what was in the Bill....it simply said the NRA was against Background Checks......a lie by miles of omission...*

I have the details of HR8.........and why we opposed it...........again...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.


*If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.*

*Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.*

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

*The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.*
*-----*
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

*HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.**
-----*

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

*The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way.*

 If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

*Since you and the other anti-gun extremists hide your true intentions at every turn....you are the reason we do not trust anti-gun extremists...*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Of course I would support a system like that. What makes you think I wouldn't?




Because of your dishonesty......


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Because of your dishonesty......


Oh my. A batshit crazy gun nut called me dishonest. How will I ever be able to go on now?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Oh my. A batshit crazy gun nut called me dishonest. How will I ever be able to go on now?




And you confirm just what I said...thanks.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you confirm just what I said...thanks.


You're too goofy to take yes for an answer. You're just another goofy gun nut.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You're too goofy to take yes for an answer. You're just another goofy gun nut.




And again...your dishonesty, and lameness on display...

You can't defend your positions honestly, and so you devolve into those posts....


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And again...your dishonesty, and lameness on display...
> 
> You can't defend your positions honestly, and so you devolve into those posts....


Sure thing BooBoo.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Employee who killed gunman likely saved lives, police say​...
> SUPERIOR, Neb. (AP) — An employee who returned fire after a gunman killed two people at a Nebraska grain elevator likely prevented more deaths, a Nebraska State Patrol official said Friday.
> 
> The employee, who was not named, retrieved a weapon and shot Max Hoskinson, 61, after Hoskinson began shooting at the Agrex Elevator in Superior, Nebraska, on Thursday. Hoskinson, of Superior, was pronounced dead at a hospital.
> ...


This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.


----------



## JGalt (Oct 23, 2021)

westwall said:


> Which is a bullshit number because you intentionally don't count the defensive use of a gun unless the victim shoots their assailant.  The vast majority of the time just showing you have the gun, PREVENTS the crime.



1.5 million yearly self-defense cases. Rarely is anyone actually shot. The mere presence of a gun usually deters the attacker.

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives | GOA


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero.  I am assuming they both got their guns legally.
> 
> yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning
> 
> 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.”


where does it say its about forming a militia??


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns were used in self-defense only in 1.3% of violent crimes.


Hence the idiocy of using ‘self-defense’ as ‘justification’ to possess firearms.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You didn't read your own link.......
> 
> *Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.*


Given how few justifiable homicides are, true figure is probably closer to 60,000.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> where does it say its about forming a militia??


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.









						U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
					

The original text of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.




					constitution.congress.gov
				







Batcat said:


> The Supreme Court has ruled the Militia angle isn’t as important as you think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well I am just referring to how some  likes to quote the 2nd amendment.  Yes, the supreme court has taken up the issue but it is the government that regulates who can have a gun and who cannot have a gun. It is the government that set the rules.  

It is not the 2nd amendment. 

The government allows individual owners to have guns. It set rules for who can legally own a gun. It also set rules for who cannot legally own a gun.  I do not have a problem with that as it is the law. 

I am just tired of the 2nd amendment argument being used to justify gun ownership. 

It really is a LIBERAL interpretation of the 2nd amendment and when the argument can be made that it is legal to own a gun based on the laws that are on the book which  specifically clarifies it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


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


the government has stolen that power,,

the 2nd doesnt need interpreted since its written in simple english even a moron can read,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the government has stolen that power,,
> 
> the 2nd doesnt need interpreted since its written in simple english even a moron can read,,


That's the problem. Lots of morons read it, but are too stupid to know what it says.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's the problem. Lots of morons read it, but are too stupid to know what it says.


youre right,,
" the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
 is such a simple statement


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the government has stolen that power,,
> 
> the 2nd doesnt need interpreted since its written in simple english even a moron can read,,


Our government doesn't steal power from anyone. Our elected representatives pass laws and the supreme court interprets them, as our constitution requires.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Our government doesn't steal power from anyone. Our elected representatives pass laws and the supreme court interprets them, as our constitution requires.


are you saying they never get it wrong or dont overstep their authority??

god I hope not,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> youre right,,
> " the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
> is such a simple statement


regulation is not infringement. There are lots of reasons why some lose their right to have guns. You don't understand that?


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> regulation is not infringement. There are lots of reasons why some lose their right to have guns. You don't understand that?


if that reg stops me from keeping and bearing it is,,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> are you saying they never get it wrong or dont overstep their authority??
> 
> god I hope not,,


I'm saying the constitution makes it their call to make. If you don't like it, vote for people who will  change the laws. How long have you opposed our constitution?


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Our government doesn't steal power from anyone. Our elected representatives pass laws and the supreme court interprets them, as our constitution requires.


Which is how my state's governor issued edicts to shut down private businesses as initiatial response to Covid 18+ months ago, 

... refused to allow our Legislature to meet in special session to deal with the pandemic and have public input on how to deal with the pandemic,

...and has also issued mandates forcing state and private sector employees to be vaccinated if they wish to remain employed.

All an exercise of power not granted in our State's Constitution to the Executive branch.

Insert sarcasm emoji here.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> if that reg stops me from keeping and bearing it is,,,


Then don't break a law that will require your loss of right to bear arms.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm saying the constitution makes it their call to make. If you don't like it, vote for people who will  change the laws. How long have you opposed our constitution?


you forgot a link,,

as for mine the last for words in the 10th A make it clear its the peoples right and authority,,

the 2nd A isnt a law dumbass,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Which is how my state's governor issued edicts to shut down private businesses as initiatial response to Covid 18+ months ago,
> 
> ... refused to allow our Legislature to meet in special session to deal with the pandemic and have public input on how to deal with the pandemic,
> 
> ...


This thread is about the 2ndammendment dumb ass. Quit whining about the vaccine. Grow up and get the shot, you big baby.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> you forgot a link,,
> 
> as for mine the last for words in the 10th A make it clear its the peoples right and authority,,
> 
> the 2nd A isnt a law dumbass,,


No it isn't. The constitution allows us to make laws concerning the 2nd as well as all the other amendments, and the supreme court interprets them.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No it isn't. The constitution allows us to make laws concerning the 2nd as well as all the other amendments, and the supreme court interprets them.


you forgot your link,,
I'm sure it was an oversight on your part,, I'll wait,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> you forgot a link,,
> 
> as for mine the last for words in the 10th A make it clear its the peoples right and authority,,
> 
> the 2nd A isnt a law dumbass,,


OK here you go





						The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
					

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.




					www.archives.gov


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> OK here you go
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if you took time to read it you will see in the 10th A it says the people and since the 2nd A says specifically  the people the authority lies with the PEOPLE as per the 9th A,,

you just proved yourself wrong because you choose to be ignorant,, but you are free to point out something specific I might have missed,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> if you took time to read it you will see in the 10th A it says the people and since the 2nd A says specifically  the people the authority lies with the PEOPLE as per the 9th A,,
> 
> you just proved yourself wrong because you choose to be ignorant,, but you are free to point out something specific I might have missed,,


Got it. You don't think the supreme court interprets our laws.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the government has stolen that power,,
> 
> the 2nd doesnt need interpreted since its written in simple english even a moron can read,,



Wow the government stole that power. 

Then please interpret what well regulated militia means and keep in mind that when they wrote the constitution there was no well formed US military.  IF you had a gun you were more than welcome to fight.  So  a well armed militia was necessary if the country was to defend itself and wage a war.  Thus it is a specific reference and not a general one


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Got it. You don't think the supreme court interprets our laws.


rights are not laws dumbass,,,

why are you ignoring my proof??

the 2nd A is specific as to the RIGHT OF PEOPLE and as you can read in the 9-10th A's the government state or fed has no say and the PEOPLE have the authority,,


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 23, 2021)

Returning to the thread topic here ...
... seems much of the discord on the subject results from a lack of historical knowledge and perspective on some issues. One would be the nature of language usage from about 230+ years ago.  A second comes from lack of knowledge regards military tactics and methods from 230+ years ago.

A couple quick notes on language and terms will help.
1) "Arms" need not be limited to firearms.  Spears, pikes, lances, halberds, swords, bow-n-arrow, crossbows, slings, etc. would also be included here.  Hence the sharpened sabre hanging on my wall is covered.  Since some colonial militias also had cannons, those also are covered.

2) Muskets were the principle type of firearm of that era and there was a prescribed method, or drill, on how a body(formation) of musket armed men would operate in a combat/battle situation.

We'll use the example of a small town militia of say @ 30 men. They would march toward the battlefield in three columns of 10 men each and once where they were to deploy, they would move to left or right and form as three lines of ten across.  Usually they would be about an arm's length apart, and each line a step or two behind the frontline.

To engage, their leader would order;
"Present Arms"
"Aim"
"Fire!"
Once the first/front line has fired, they would then move "through the ranks" - the space between individuals in the lines behind them, to form a new line in the rear where they would reload their muskets.

The second line would then fire when ordered and do a similar move to the rear to reload.

And then the third line would fire when ordered and also move to the rear to reload.

This way the formation is always presenting a portion of their strength ready to fire and engage, covering those whom are reloading.

If well trained in the Drill (well regulated), they might also be capable of succeeding lines taking a step or two forward before firing in order to remain on that piece of ground rather than gradually moving rearward.

The well trained ~ know their drills ~ "well-regulated" militia unit would also likely have one or more leaders - officers and sergeants.

Bottom line here means the community's militia unit is trained in drill and proper maneuver as used on the battlefields of the 17-18-19th centuries versus just being an unorganized armed mob.

3) Since England kept few troops/army in the colonies until the decades prior to 1775, it had been the responsibility of the colonies to provide for their own defense, often against hostile natives, hence having a militia had been the custom for generations.
...
The colonists had been forming militias since the very beginnings of Colonial settlement for the purpose of defense against Indian attacks. These forces also saw action in the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 when they fought alongside British regulars. Under the laws of each New England colony, all towns were obligated to form militia companies composed of all males 16 years of age and older (there were exemptions for some categories) and to ensure that the members were properly armed. The Massachusetts militias were formally under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but militia companies throughout New England elected their own officers.[13] Gage effectively dissolved the provincial government under the terms of the Massachusetts Government Act, and these existing connections were employed by the colonists under the Massachusetts Provincial Congress for the purpose of resistance to the military threat from Britain.
...








						Battles of Lexington and Concord - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Wow the government stole that power.
> 
> Then please interpret what well regulated militia means and keep in mind that when they wrote the constitution there was no well formed US military.  IF you had a gun you were more than welcome to fight.  So  a well armed militia was necessary if the country was to defend itself and wage a war.  Thus it is a specific reference and not a general one


well regulated at the time meant well supplied and since a militia is a civilian army it means THE PEOPLE can/SHOULD have military grade arms,,,

any other stupid questions you would like answered??


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 23, 2021)

Pete7469 said:


> *Get a retro-active abortion you fucking vacuous piece of shit. The 2nd Amendment had NOTHING to do with any deaths. It's a right for people to take advantage of so that they're not victimized by pathetic diseases like you.
> 
> 
> .*


Yes and with your sane post , then I can rest easy that a gun owner as yourself has some self control.

your posting on a thread entitled the 2nd amendment saves lives. please wake up.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> This thread is about the 2ndammendment dumb ass. Quit whining about the vaccine. Grow up and get the shot, you big baby.


I've already got the covid and got over it you ninny.
Reread you post #82 above where you claim our guv'mint doesn't steal power and try to gain reading comprehension that I just gave an example of where they have.
Thanks for your input fascist nazi.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> As I've always said, background checks currently have no registration component. No reason why they should.





They all do.  There you go lying again.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> View attachment 555571






I'm not tough at all.  But I have the ability to defend myself.  At 75 years of age my only option is a gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's the problem. Lots of morons read it, but are too stupid to know what it says.



You were looking in the mirror when you posted that….


----------



## Batcat (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well we have another gun rights case coming before the Supreme Court. The ruling will be interesting to say the least.









						Case before Supreme Court could topple gun restrictions
					

The stakes in one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history are high.




					www.upi.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the government has stolen that power,,
> 
> the 2nd doesnt need interpreted since its written in simple english even a moron can read,,


The only thing moronic is the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment isn’t subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The only thing moronic is the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment isn’t subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.


nothing to interpret,, its clear as to the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE and since the 9-10th A are clear as to the people,,
well its pretty clear its the peoples right and authority,,

now I have pointed to 3 things in the constitution that make it clear its the people can you show me anything that says different??

otherwise your premise is a lie


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> It is the government that set the rules.
> 
> It is not the 2nd amendment.


Not exactly.

Government is at liberty to regulate firearms pursuant to Second Amendment jurisprudence; government may not regulate firearms in violation of that case law.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 23, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Well we have another gun rights case coming before the Supreme Court. The ruling will be interesting to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Go buy a bullet proof vest then.....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Got it. You don't think the supreme court interprets our laws.


Which is why it’s pointless to discuss the Second Amendment with conservatives – another example of the right’s contempt for the rule of law.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Which is why it’s pointless to discuss the Second Amendment with conservatives – another example of the right’s contempt for the rule of law.


your just mad I used the text of the constitution and you cant refute it,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> Government is at liberty to regulate firearms pursuant to Second Amendment jurisprudence; government may not regulate firearms in violation of that case law.


case law doesnt apply to the constitution as stated in the constitution, only an amendment can change it,,

so once again your premise is a lie,,


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 23, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Well we have another gun rights case coming before the Supreme Court. The ruling will be interesting to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








						New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The case is about whether guns are protected outside of homes.

The reality is, they're not really. 

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a weapons. (Keep arms). This doesn't regulate what you can do with the gun beyond being able to obtain then (buy and sell). 

It also protects the right to be in the militia (bear arms). Beyond this it has no scope.


----------



## Batcat (Oct 23, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Go buy a bullet proof vest then.....


Why? I live in Florida. Over 2,000,000 residents have concealed weapons permits and it is legal to have a loaded firearm in your car if it is securely encased (e.g. in a glove box). 

Almost everybody I know is armed and has a firearm with them either legally concealed legally or in their car when they leave their house.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> rights are not laws dumbass,,,
> 
> why are you ignoring my proof??
> 
> the 2nd A is specific as to the RIGHT OF PEOPLE and as you can read in the 9-10th A's the government state or fed has no say and the PEOPLE have the authority,,


Nonsense.

Measures are enacted by government in accordance with Constitutional case law; that case law instructs government as to what measures are valid and what measures are not, what limits and restrictions on our rights are lawful and what limits and restrictions are not.

With regard to the Second Amendment, government may enact laws requiring a background check, consistent with the Second Amendment.

Government may not enact laws prohibiting the possession of a handgun, in violation of the Second Amendment.

That these simple, fundamental facts of governance must be explained at all on a political discussion forum is ridiculous.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WTF???
keep and bear have nothing to do with the militia or it would say that,,

you mother fuckers amaze me with the shit you come up with,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Measures are enacted by government in accordance with Constitutional case law; that case law instructs government as to what measures are valid and what measures are not, what limits and restrictions on our rights are lawful and what limits and restrictions are not.
> 
> ...


I noticed you skipped over providing any proof like I did,,,
it can only mean your premise is a lie,,


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> rights are not laws dumbass,,,
> 
> why are you ignoring my proof??
> 
> the 2nd A is specific as to the RIGHT OF PEOPLE and as you can read in the 9-10th A's the government state or fed has no say and the PEOPLE have the authority,,



Oh, this is precious. This is one of those posts you want to put up on the wall to show people when you want to make them laugh.

Rights came from the Magna Carta when King John was messing things up. The rights weren't for all people, but for those with power. It was a way of taking power away from the monarch and giving it to the lords of the country. 

Rights have changed, but they're still laws. They just happen to be higher laws than other laws. They need much more consensus to be changed, and they can be changed. 

The 2A is the "right of the people".... yes, but who enforces this right? Who enforces any law? The courts, the police, the armed forces, the people (if they can be bothered). They're the same, except that to change a Constitutional Right you need a huge majority of states, and the federal government, rather than a simple majority of Congress.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> regulation is not infringement.


Correct.

As long as government acts in accordance with applicable case law, no rights are ‘infringed.’


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 23, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Oh, this is precious. This is one of those posts you want to put up on the wall to show people when you want to make them laugh.
> 
> Rights came from the Magna Carta when King John was messing things up. The rights weren't for all people, but for those with power. It was a way of taking power away from the monarch and giving it to the lords of the country.
> 
> ...


rights dont need enforced they can only be violated,,,

you mother fuckers are amazing,, I dont know how youre still alive,,


----------



## Batcat (Oct 24, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So we will see how the Supreme Court rules. It may well leave the right to carry outside the home up to the individual states.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 24, 2021)

Batcat said:


> So we will see how the Supreme Court rules. It may well leave the right to carry outside the home up to the individual states.



I'd think that's how the Court would do it. The 2A says nothing about carrying arms. The only way it's applicable is if it's involved in buying or selling these weapons. Therefore it is a state issue.


----------



## Pete7469 (Oct 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wow.....you have gone from being just lazy and dishonest to being outright stupid........


*I disagree...*

BULLDOG * has always been a babbling Left Syndrome Imbecile.*


----------



## Pete7469 (Oct 24, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> rights dont need enforced they can only be violated,,,
> 
> you mother fuckers are amazing,, I dont know how youre still alive,,


*I can explain it for you.*
*
For generations we have been so focused on safety that we have created a place that Weapons Grade Stupid fucktards like Fridgiddipshit can proliferate and thrive in. If it wasn't for child resistant lids on things like Drano or Tylenol they would have died as children like nature intended. In pre-historic times, they would wander away from the village chasing a butterfy only to be played with and eventually eaten by some tiger cubs.

That's how it's supposed to work. Stupid people are protected now though. When you buy fish bait at a sporting goods store they have to put the words "Not For Human Consumption" on the lids to keep liberals from choking on a fish hook. These people used to die when they put an extension cord on a radio so that they could listen to music in the shower or blow dry their hair. GFI Plugs keep these idiots alive.
*
*We have reversed evolution by allowing imbeciles to evade natural selection. That's why leftist pieces of shit having abortions is something I would never interfere with.*


.


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 24, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Never forget:


now break all that down into where it took place.  what cities? what policies run those cities? gun free zones?  

simpletons just parrot talking points.  people who are really interested in what's going on always dig deeper.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 24, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> now break all that down into where it took place.  what cities? what policies run those cities? gun free zones?
> 
> simpletons just parrot talking points.  people who are really interested in what's going on always dig deeper.


Most of them were suicide victims/perpetrators.  Very sad.


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 24, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most of them were suicide victims/perpetrators.  Very sad.


sad indeed.

they would have done that whether it was with a gun,  or some other means.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 24, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> sad indeed.
> 
> they would have done that whether it was with a gun,  or some other means.


No.  Without guns most attempts fail.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 24, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> I'd think that's how the Court would do it. The 2A says nothing about carrying arms. The only way it's applicable is if it's involved in buying or selling these weapons. Therefore it is a state issue.




Really?

*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.*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 24, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> No.  Without guns most attempts fail.




Except in Japan, and South Korea, the countries with extreme gun control but higher suicide rates than the U.S....


----------



## westwall (Oct 24, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> No.  Without guns most attempts fail.





No, in Japan they hang themselves, and more die by suicide in Japan than anywhere else.

Someone intent on suicide will always be successful.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Oct 24, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Employee who killed gunman likely saved lives, police say​...
> SUPERIOR, Neb. (AP) — An employee who returned fire after a gunman killed two people at a Nebraska grain elevator likely prevented more deaths, a Nebraska State Patrol official said Friday.
> 
> The employee, who was not named, retrieved a weapon and shot Max Hoskinson, 61, after Hoskinson began shooting at the Agrex Elevator in Superior, Nebraska, on Thursday. Hoskinson, of Superior, was pronounced dead at a hospital.
> ...


I must say, the thread title is an oxymoron


----------



## Captain Caveman (Oct 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Except in Japan, and South Korea, the countries with extreme gun control but higher suicide rates than the U.S....


Yes, because of their culture. They're brought up to respect their country, so if they fail, say bankruptcy, they feel they've let their country down and thus commit suicide. Nothing to do with having or not having guns, only thick ***** would think otherwise.

That's why you think there's a connection, because you are the forum thick ****.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Oct 24, 2021)

Listen westwall  and 2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.

So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...

You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.


----------



## westwall (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Listen westwall  and 2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.
> 
> So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...
> 
> You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.






Look at who commits the vast majority of those crimes.

Chicago has 800 murders, and 150,000 KNOWN gang bangers.

Think there might be a connection?

Add in a DA who refuses to file charges against gang bangers and you have a city that has basically said shoot whoever you want to so long as you keep it out of the ruling class areas.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, because of their culture. They're brought up to respect their country, so if they fail, say bankruptcy, they feel they've let their country down and thus commit suicide. Nothing to do with having or not having guns, only thick ***** would think otherwise.
> 
> That's why you think there's a connection, because you are the forum thick ****.



Dipshit….it was the that idiot making that case, not me you moron.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Listen westwall  and 2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.
> 
> So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...
> 
> You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.



You are a moron……


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Listen westwall  and 2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.
> 
> So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...
> 
> You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.


From about 40 posts back on this "shit threads";
...
... seems much of the discord on the subject results from a lack of historical knowledge and perspective on some issues. One would be the nature of language usage from about 230+ years ago.  A second comes from lack of knowledge regards military tactics and methods from 230+ years ago.

A couple quick notes on language and terms will help.
1) "Arms" need not be limited to firearms.  Spears, pikes, lances, halberds, swords, bow-n-arrow, crossbows, slings, etc. would also be included here.  Hence the sharpened sabre hanging on my wall is covered.  Since some colonial militias also had cannons, those also are covered.

2) Muskets were the principle type of firearm of that era and there was a prescribed method, or drill, on how a body(formation) of musket armed men would operate in a combat/battle situation.

We'll use the example of a small town militia of say @ 30 men. They would march toward the battlefield in three columns of 10 men each and once where they were to deploy, they would move to left or right and form as three lines of ten across.  Usually they would be about an arm's length apart, and each line a step or two behind the frontline.

To engage, their leader would order;
"Present Arms"
"Aim"
"Fire!"
Once the first/front line has fired, they would then move "through the ranks" - the space between individuals in the lines behind them, to form a new line in the rear where they would reload their muskets.

The second line would then fire when ordered and do a similar move to the rear to reload.

And then the third line would fire when ordered and also move to the rear to reload.

This way the formation is always presenting a portion of their strength ready to fire and engage, covering those whom are reloading.

If well trained in the Drill (well regulated), they might also be capable of succeeding lines taking a step or two forward before firing in order to remain on that piece of ground rather than gradually moving rearward.

The well trained ~ know their drills ~ "well-regulated" militia unit would also likely have one or more leaders - officers and sergeants.

Bottom line here means the community's militia unit is trained in drill and proper maneuver as used on the battlefields of the 17-18-19th centuries versus just being an unorganized armed mob.

3) Since England kept few troops/army in the colonies until the decades prior to 1775, it had been the responsibility of the colonies to provide for their own defense, often against hostile natives, hence having a militia had been the custom for generations.
...
The colonists had been forming militias since the very beginnings of Colonial settlement for the purpose of defense against Indian attacks. These forces also saw action in the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 when they fought alongside British regulars. Under the laws of each New England colony, all towns were obligated to form militia companies composed of all males 16 years of age and older (there were exemptions for some categories) and to ensure that the members were properly armed. The Massachusetts militias were formally under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but militia companies throughout New England elected their own officers.[13] Gage effectively dissolved the provincial government under the terms of the Massachusetts Government Act, and these existing connections were employed by the colonists under the Massachusetts Provincial Congress for the purpose of resistance to the military threat from Britain.
...









                        Battles of Lexington and Concord - Wikipedia                    ​ 







                                                                en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 24, 2021)

westwall said:


> No, in Japan they hang themselves, and more die by suicide in Japan than anywhere else.
> 
> Someone intent on suicide will always be successful.


Sadly, Japanese culture does not view suicide as a sin.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Except in Japan, and South Korea, the countries with extreme gun control but higher suicide rates than the U.S....


In these cultures, suicide is not considered a sin.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 24, 2021)

Batcat said:


> It may well leave the right to carry outside the home up to the individual states.


Unlikely.

Both Thomas and Barrett have complained about the Second Amendment being a ‘second-class right.’

They’ll perceive the may-issue provision as a _de facto_ ban on concealed carry and they’ll have no problem finding the votes to invalidate the New York law.

The notion of a ‘second-class’ right is ridiculous of course, the Second Amendment right is not being ‘treated differently’ than other rights.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 24, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> In these cultures, suicide is not considered a sin.



So?   The reason they commit suicide isnt the issue….. you say guns cause suicide


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unlikely.
> 
> Both Thomas and Barrett have complained about the Second Amendment being a ‘second-class right.’
> 
> ...


 You are such a liar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 24, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The 2A says nothing about carrying arms.


Actually it does:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”






						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 24, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The case is about whether guns are protected outside of homes.


Not exactly.

The Court will review the constitutionality of may-issue provisions in state conceal carry laws, where although an applicant has met the statutory requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit, the permit will not be issued unless the applicant can document a compelling reason to justify carrying a concealed firearm.

Consequently, the great majority of New York residents cannot obtain a carry permit, although they would be otherwise eligible in other states and jurisdictions.

The Court may rule narrowly addressing only the may-issue provisions, or expand its review to consider the question of carrying firearms outside of the home.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Oct 24, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are a moron……


You are the biggest prick on this board with guns. The shit you talk is tremendous. You may think you're pro gun, but the pro gunners cringe when you open your mouth.


----------



## westwall (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> You are the biggest prick on this board with guns. The shit you talk is tremendous. You may think you're pro gun, but the pro gunners cringe when you open your mouth.






On the contrary.  He backs up what he says with real facts.  Unlike the anti gun loons.

Never be so arrogant as to assume you speak for us.

You don't.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Oct 24, 2021)

westwall said:


> On the contrary.  He backs up what he says with real facts.  Unlike the anti gun loons.
> 
> Never be so arrogant as to assume you speak for us.
> 
> You don't.


Are you his lacky?

Believe you me, he talks shite. He may have some knowledge 'within' America, but completely thick as fuck outside


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> You are the biggest prick on this board with guns. The shit you talk is tremendous. You may think you're pro gun, but the pro gunners cringe when you



Wow…….now I have to go and have a good cry…..


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Are you his lacky?
> 
> Believe you me, he talks shite. He may have some knowledge 'within' America, but completely thick as fuck outside



Oh…….you dont understand human history or human nature…..and even though Europe murdered 12 million, Russia over 25, China 70 million…..you want to tell me I dont understand where these countries are going with gun crime……you really are
Funny


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Are you his lacky?
> 
> Believe you me, he talks shite. He may have some knowledge 'within' America, but completely thick as fuck outside


ive only read maybe a half a dozen of his posts.

he seems very informed on the 2nd A and so far it looks like he expresses that knowledge very intelligently.

Just the kind of person I want debating uninformed people about my 2nd A right!!!!!


----------



## Batcat (Oct 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unlikely.
> 
> Both Thomas and Barrett have complained about the Second Amendment being a ‘second-class right.’
> 
> ...


“May issue” allows discrimination and favoritism to contaminate the process. 

In New York City Donald Trump and Sean Hannity have concealed carry permits. I would have never been able to obtain one If I lived there. In Florida we all can have a concealed weapons permit if we meet the reasonable qualifications and the cost of the license is affordable. 

Some areas requires a person to have a “valid” reason to carry a handgun. That of course ignores the fact that while rare a person can be randomly attacked by someone who intends to severely injure or kill them.

Overall “shall issue” concealed carry is far superior to “may issue.” It’s fair and treats all applicants the same. You don’t have to be white, friends of the local sheriff or constable or be a member of one political party. 





__





						Supreme Court Will Take Up Challenge To NY's Concealed Carry Gun Laws - Gothamist
					

Gothamist is a non-profit local newsroom, powered by WNYC.




					gothamist.com


----------



## westwall (Oct 24, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Are you his lacky?
> 
> Believe you me, he talks shite. He may have some knowledge 'within' America, but completely thick as fuck outside





Lacky?  Not hardly, but I am a constitutional fundamentalist.  He uses good sources.  Anti American hacks lie.

That's the difference.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually it does:
> 
> “Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
> 
> ...



No, it actually doesn't. 

The Supreme Court ignored reality in order to give right wingers what they wanted. 

In the whole of the talk about the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court failed to talk about what the Founding Fathers in the House said during the debates on the future Second Amendment.

Partly because the DC side didn't do a good job and were pushing some nonsense, but also because it's rather an inconvenient document for the Heller side and for the right.

Here's an example of their ability to twist and squirm to make it look like they're not being biased:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

This is a nonsense statement. Just because it CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES.

So they said:

"When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation."

Yes, and no. What kind of "confrontation"?

Then they wrote this:

"We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

Then this:

"From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia."

And this:

"The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” *8* It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."

Let's take a look at these:

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

So, clearly not bearing arms for purposes other than "defence of the state". However, this does fall outside of an "organized military unit". So as long as you're defending your state, you're allowed to "bear arms".

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

Ah, the defence of "themselves". Does this mean an individual has the right to defend themself? Or does it mean "the people" can defend "the people"? Is it collective defense or individual defense? This isn't clear. Which is a problem for us interpreting this now.

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

Ah, the people have the right to bear arms for the "common defence". This seems to push "defence of themselves" more towards "common defence" than it does "individual defence".

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

If all these other clauses provided individual defense rights, why did Mississippi change this and say "defence of himself"? Seems to show that "themselves" and "himself" mean two very different things.

When we look at the original versions of the Second Amendment it becomes clearer.

June 8th 1789, the House proposed this version with this clause at the end:

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Compelled to render military service in person.

17th August 1789 they proposed: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Seems pretty clear that they thought "render military service" and "bear arms" to be synonymous.

They switched back and forth with these two terms before deciding to drop the clause because they felt the government could decide who was religiously scrupulous and then prevent people from being in the militia. (they said nothing about being worried the US govt would prevent people being able to defend their individual self or hunt, for example).



			Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
		


It's also pretty clear that the Founding Fathers mean "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty" here:

Mr Gerry said:

" Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

The reality is that the Supreme Court wanted to try and ignore History, and push for something they actually wanted.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> The Court will review the constitutionality of may-issue provisions in state conceal carry laws, where although an applicant has met the statutory requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit, the permit will not be issued unless the applicant can document a compelling reason to justify carrying a concealed firearm.
> 
> ...



Well, there are specifics to this case, but it covers something that isn't in the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 24, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, it actually doesn't.
> 
> The Supreme Court ignored reality in order to give right wingers what they wanted.
> 
> ...


The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

Consequently, the Second Amendment does say something about the carrying of firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 24, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, there are specifics to this case, but it covers something that isn't in the Second Amendment.


It was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court; to interpret the Founding Document and establish its meaning.

That certain words or phrases aren’t in the text of the Constitution doesn’t mean the concepts and principles they engender are beyond the authority of the courts to review.

The right to privacy, the right to marry, and the right to decide whether to have a child or not are all protected liberties safeguarded by the Constitution – that the words ‘privacy’ or ‘marriage’ might not be present in no manner undermines the courts’ authority to invalidate laws and measures which seek to violate the right to privacy or the right to marry.

As Justice Kennedy explained in _Lawrence_:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Likewise, the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive, finite understanding of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, although the word ‘individual’ is nowhere to be found in the text of the Amendment.

The same is true concerning the carrying of firearms; indeed, the courts have already heard cases challenging prohibitions on carrying firearms. In 2013 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois could not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by refusing to issue permits to do so.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> Consequently, the Second Amendment does say something about the carrying of firearms.



The issue is that Supreme Court interpretations can, and have been, changed over time. 

The Second Amendment says nothing about carrying arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals "right to keep and bear arms" is protected. They've said a few things about what they think the "right to keep and bear arms" is, but really what they've said is not something that will stand up to strong scrutiny.

In Heller they said: "(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), nor _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

This is basically upholding Presser, which said: "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."*

So, the individual view of the Second Amendment, that an individual can "bear arms", still means that an individual cannot meet other men and "associate together as a military organization, or to drill or parade with arms in cities". It's simply not protected.

Now, if there is a clear cut "you can carry arms because the Second Amendment says so", it's not in Heller.

Heller also said "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

"such as self-defense *within the home*"

They also said: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

And: "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."

This does NOT come across, to me, as the Supreme Court saying that there is a right to carry in the Second Amendment. 

You quoted one thing. I didn't take the time to find that quote, but the part that says "this is what the Supreme Court holds" talks about a right to self defense IN THE HOME (more than once), not outside of the home.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court; to interpret the Founding Document and establish its meaning.
> 
> That certain words or phrases aren’t in the text of the Constitution doesn’t mean the concepts and principles they engender are beyond the authority of the courts to review.
> 
> ...



I understand the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could, if they chose, decide that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep "bear arms" if they choose. As ridiculous as it sounds, the Supreme Court has been ridiculous in the past. 

The reality is that Heller doesn't say what you think it says. You take one quote from a whole body of text, and ignore the main part of what they said.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 25, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, it actually doesn't.
> 
> The Supreme Court ignored reality in order to give right wingers what they wanted.
> 
> ...




You guys.....do you ever hurt yourselves with the mental gymnastics you have to go through to distort and lie about "Keep and Bear" arms....?

Even you beloved Saint Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagrees with you...

*At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute,

JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
		

*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 25, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> I understand the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could, if they chose, decide that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep "bear arms" if they choose. As ridiculous as it sounds, the Supreme Court has been ridiculous in the past.
> 
> The reality is that Heller doesn't say what you think it says. You take one quote from a whole body of text, and ignore the main part of what they said.




*The reality is that Heller doesn't say what you think it says. You take one quote from a whole body of text, and ignore the main part of what they said.*

*this is called "Projection,"*

*In its malignant forms, it is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing untold interpersonal damage.[2]*

*





						Psychological projection - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*
*You guys see Abortion in the Constitution, where it is not mentioned once............and ignore the plain language of "Keep and Bear...."

You truly are insane...*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 25, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The issue is that Supreme Court interpretations can, and have been, changed over time.
> 
> The Second Amendment says nothing about carrying arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals "right to keep and bear arms" is protected. They've said a few things about what they think the "right to keep and bear arms" is, but really what they've said is not something that will stand up to strong scrutiny.
> 
> ...




You truly are insane....

*The Second Amendment says nothing about carrying arms.*


*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.*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court; to interpret the Founding Document and establish its meaning.
> 
> That certain words or phrases aren’t in the text of the Constitution doesn’t mean the concepts and principles they engender are beyond the authority of the courts to review.
> 
> ...



And your insanity continues....

although the word ‘individual’ is nowhere to be found in the text of the Amendment.
==========


*1. Operative Clause.



 a. “Right of the People.” *



The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). *All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5*

-----------

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

----

*The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.*

--------

Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

-----

*But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. *See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “

---

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” *We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.*



------

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. *The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.*

---

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

----

*(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.*

----

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court; to interpret the Founding Document and establish its meaning.
> 
> That certain words or phrases aren’t in the text of the Constitution doesn’t mean the concepts and principles they engender are beyond the authority of the courts to review.
> 
> ...




Did you not read your own quote from the nutjob Kennedy......that clearly refutes your entire premise?

*In 2013 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois could not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by refusing to issue permits to do so.*


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> Government is at liberty to regulate firearms pursuant to Second Amendment jurisprudence; government may not regulate firearms in violation of that case law.


 Yet why do some states allow concealed weapons while others do not as an example of the many different gun laws in place and can easily be changed at any time.

It is clear that case law decisions are interpreted differently by each state. It is even interpreted differently by what political party is in power or in general how people feel about the issue. 

well you can say the 2nd amendment is the basis but it has to be interpreted. Thus if a judgment ruling is unfavorable, they will eventually bring the case before the court again when they fell that they can get a favorable ruling. 

because of the different ruling it is clear the 2nd amendment is not the defining issue. 

There are many different rulings on the issue. The issue of public safety can weigh heavily on any interpretation.  

History and tradition can play a factor. OF course the interpretation of the 2nd amendment can play a factor. 

So in my opinion the 2nd amendment is not the defining factor. It is really to vague. 

Militia is well defined


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 25, 2021)

Theres not a damn thing vague about "shall not be infringed".

you can't get anymore specific than that.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 25, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> So in my opinion the 2nd amendment is not the defining factor. It is really to vague.
> 
> Militia is well defined



If you look at it properly, it's actually clear what it is.

An individual has a right to own weapons, so the US government can't call people up to the militia and then take their weapons off them.

And, an individual has the right to be in the militia, so the US government can't stop them being in the militia. 

This is all designed to protect the militia as stated in the first part of the amendment.

Nothing about carrying guns, hunting, self defense (on an individual level). Quite clear.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 25, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Yet why do some states allow concealed weapons while others do not as an example of the many different gun laws in place and can easily be changed at any time.
> 
> It is clear that case law decisions are interpreted differently by each state. It is even interpreted differently by what political party is in power or in general how people feel about the issue.
> 
> ...


the only interpretation of the 2nd A need is the "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" and the 9-10th A's where it says THE PEOPLE HAVE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY,,


----------



## westwall (Oct 25, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> If you look at it properly, it's actually clear what it is.
> 
> An individual has a right to own weapons, so the US government can't call people up to the militia and then take their weapons off them.
> 
> ...






"Keep, and BEAR arms"

Pretty simple.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's the problem. Lots of morons read it, but are too stupid to know what it says.



And morons like you are living proof that in our current "enlightened" nation, the Federalist's arguments against adding a bill of rights, and warnings of the dangers to liberty if one was added, were absolutely correct.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Our government doesn't steal power from anyone. Our elected representatives pass laws and the supreme court interprets them, as our constitution requires.



Your supid, collectivist ideas about what the Constitution is, what it does and what the Bill of Rights is and what it does, guarantees that the primary product of government is usurpation.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> regulation is not infringement. There are lots of reasons why some lose their right to have guns. You don't understand that?



As long as regulations is confined to the legitimate powers of government.  The government's power to regulate the militia is not the power to command and dictate to citizens who are not enrolled in the militia.

Your basic misunderstanding and ignorance of such things is the foundation for all the BS you spout.




BULLDOG said:


> I'm saying the constitution makes it their call to make. If you don't like it, vote for people who will  change the laws. How long have you opposed our constitution?



The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers and government only possesses the specific powers "We the People" granted to it in the Constitution.  All those powers and interests that are NOT included in the Constitution are retained by the people, either to be conferred to the states for the sates to perform the duties the people assign to them, OR . . .   those retained powers are reserved as rights of the people, exceptions of powers never granted.

"We the People" do not posses "rights' because the the Bill of Rights says we have them, or that government gives them to us, or that government allows us to exercise them . . .   "We the People" possess rights because "We the People" never granted to government any power to have any interest in, for example, the personal arms of the private citizen.  



BULLDOG said:


> No it isn't. The constitution allows us to make laws concerning the 2nd as well as all the other amendments, and the supreme court interprets them.



Absolute unmitigated bullshit.  The federal government only has the express powers enumerated in the body of the Constitution.  

If you want to hear what the Supreme Court says on the subject?  Here ya go:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​​This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​​The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​​_MARBURY v. MADISON_, *5 U.S. 137* (1803)​


.


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> As long as regulations is confined to the legitimate powers of government.  The government's power to regulate the militia is not the power to command and dictate to citizens who are not enrolled in the militia.
> 
> Your basic misunderstanding and ignorance of such things is the foundation for all the BS you spout.
> 
> ...


very nice sir.

That spanking is a thing of beauty!!!!!!!!


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Then please interpret what well regulated militia means . . .



A "well regulated militia" is a descriptive term that is an acknowledgement of a militia company's high degree of skill and readiness in military exercise.  It really describes a principle, an aspirational goal of opitimal perfection in operational order and condition to be attained and maintained by a military force.  For a particular militia unit to ever be described as "well regulated" is an accolade, a compliment on their expertness in military exercise and practice (see *Federalist 29*).

The term has *NOTHING* to do with regulations or any government body being authorized to write or enforce regulations.  

That is especially true for the term's use in the 2nd Amendment.  This is not to say that no regulations for the militia can be writen and enforced, it just means that such authority and action does not (can not) flow from the 2nd Amendment.

As a legal point, in actual action and application, the 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or held to inform upon any aspect of militia organization, training, control or deployment.  The entirety of government authority over the militia is contained in the body of the Constitution, Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16 (Congress) and Art II, § 2, cl 1 (President).

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The only thing moronic is the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment isn’t subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.



What's there to "interpret"?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the fully retained, fundamental right to arms of the people.

No aspect of the right to arms of the people was _*ever*_ conferred to the care and control of government (including SCOTUS) through the Constitution. The Constitution did grant the federal government a narrow power to dictate certain duties related to the citizen and the arm chosen by the citizen to fulfill his obligation to enroll and serve in the militia and only for that term of service. Once the citizen was deactivated, discharged or aged out, Congressional militia power over him and his militia arm evaporated.

*BUT,* since Congress federalized the state militias and evaporated both state militia powers and the citizen's militia obligation, all power Congress possessed over the citizen and his arms has also evaporated.

There were _never_ *ANY* powers for Congress to claim over citizens *who are not enrolled in the militia*, under any interpretation of the constitutional authority of regulating the militia . . . The Canon of _expressio unius est exclusio alterius_ -- "the express mention of one thing excludes all others", absolutely demands it and SCOTUS certainly enforced it (see the cases where disputes over militia powers were decided).

The problem for you and other statists is, the entirety of modern (20th Century) Congressional power over the citizen and his arms has been usurped under either the power to tax (NFA-34) or the commerce clause (NFA-38 & GCA-68 and the hydra of federal gun laws that have grown from those Acts), but was defended outside the courts by claiming Congress' power to regulate the militia.

Even in the heyday of the various 'collective right" perversions (1942 - 2008), when gun laws were challenged, they were claimed to be authorized under Congress' power to regulate the militia, but defended with arguments focused on the tax power or the commerce clause.

Please explain (and defend) that and how that allows SCOTUS to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment into creating what never was . . .  All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> Government is at liberty to regulate firearms pursuant to Second Amendment jurisprudence; government may not regulate firearms in violation of that case law.



But that "case law" was was polluted and perverted by the "militia right" and "state's right" mutations, inserted in the federal courts in 1942 by *lower* federal courts purposefully ignoring and dismissing what SCOTUS demanded in _Miller_.

SCOTUS has never endorsed any variation of any "collective right" interpretation and the Court finally re-righted the constitutional ship in _Heller_, by invaliding _US v Tot _and _Cases v US_ and all the illegitimate progeny of those two travesties.

.


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> What's there to "interpret"?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the fully retained, fundamental right to arms of the people.
> 
> ...


in short (correct me if I'm wrong)

The 2nd places NO LIMITS AT ALL on the people.  Only the government!!!!!!


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> in short (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> The 2nd places NO LIMITS AT ALL on the people.  Only the government!!!!!!


the government is required to protect the rights of the people,,


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, too bad for you but the dingbat NY AG conceded that a right to bear arms does exist outside the home, but inexplicably, only OUTSIDE NY CITY.  

I thought this case was going to be a disaster for the pro-gun rights side but AG Letitia James gave it new life.

If you're feeling froggy, there's *a thread on this case over in the 2nd Amendment subforum*, I've posted my take on it quite a lot (in a thread that's only 10 posts).


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> It also protects the right to be in the militia (bear arms). Beyond this it has no scope.



There is no right to "be in the militia" protected by the 2nd Amendment. 

Defining who is obligated to serve and who is allowed to enroll and is allowed to serve is entirely a power of Congress.  The organized militia is an entity and structure that is entirely a product of the Constitution and is entirely dependent upon the Constitution and the duly enacted laws by Congress (Militia Act of 1792).  A militia comprised of citizens may only be called up, organized, trained and deployed following the process and rules set-out in the Constitution.

Since the ratification of the Constitution there was not and never has been, a right for private citizens to form themselves into militia nor assemble armed and drill and parade with arms without a law of the state or Congress authorizing that action (See _Presser v Illinois_).

As an aside, states like Massachusetts with abolitionist goals wanted to enact state laws saying Blacks could be enrolled in their state's militias and were soundly rebuffed.  The Militia Act only allowed the "free able-bodied white male citizen" of the state to enroll and serve.

Even after the 14th Amendment, the way southern states justified their racist, discriminatory laws disarming _*US CITIZENS*_ who were Black, any right to keep and bear arms, was to associate their state's recognition of a right to arms with militia eligibility.  Of course the 2nd Amendment and protecting Black's right to arms, while being a significant impetus for the 14th Amendment, was not incorporated under the 14th Amendment so the 2nd had no effect on those state laws.  But federal militia *law* was the "law of the land" so Blacks remained disarmed in those states.



.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Measures are enacted by government in accordance with Constitutional case law; that case law instructs government as to what measures are valid and what measures are not, what limits and restrictions on our rights are lawful and what limits and restrictions are not.
> 
> ...



What's ridiculous is your conceptualization of what rights are and what the constitutional justification of laws is.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, it actually doesn't.
> 
> The Supreme Court ignored reality in order to give right wingers what they wanted.
> 
> ...



That's a long post and you do quote and cite your sources but your primary and ultimately fatal flaw, (especially when you are discussing state provisions), is the mindset that the right to arms flows / emanates from those words and that the only way to discern what the right "is" is to "interpret" the words chosen to secure the right.

Especially for the state constitutions, the very structure of those constitutions prohibit any thought that the provision recognizing and securing the right to arms, is granting or creating or establishing the right, thus the right depends on a particular "interpretation" of those words.

The simple fact that state constitutions call out the rights of the citizens first, before a single power is conferred to government should inform you of the hierarchy of rights > powers.  That many states formally call-out those rights declared in Article I as excepted out of the powers granted in subsequent Articles and those rights shall forever remain inviolate, should inform you of the original, fundamental nature of rights and the subordinate, derivitive nature of government powers.

That so many of you goofballs then invent "interpretations" for the federal 2nd Amendment that essentially mean the states ratified an amendment that surrendered to the feds all discretion and power to declare who are the state's federally approved and protected arms bearers . . .  it just to stupid and legally incoherent to even contemplate.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, there are specifics to this case, but it covers something that isn't in the Second Amendment.



Well, if the right secured by the 2ndA is a right to bear (carry) a gun for self defense in public in case of confrontation (as _Cruikshank_ and _Presser_ recognized and _Heller_ has said) and the 2ndA is now incorporated against the states, then the states will be forced to recognize that right and any state or city's arbitrary and discriminatory criteria to exercise the right will be invalidated.

I do predict the power to set the manner of carry will remain in the state's domain.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Well, if the right secured by the 2ndA is a right to bear (carry) a gun for self defense in public in case of confrontation (as _Cruikshank_ and _Presser_ recognized and _Heller_ has said) and the 2ndA is now incorporated against the states, then the states will be forced to recognize that right and any state or city's arbitrary and discriminatory criteria to exercise the right will be invalidated.
> 
> I do predict the power to set the manner of carry will remain in the state's domain.


states dont have authority to decide that,,


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Yet why do some states allow concealed weapons while others do not as an example of the many different gun laws in place and can easily be changed at any time.
> 
> It is clear that case law decisions are interpreted differently by each state. It is even interpreted differently by what political party is in power or in general how people feel about the issue.
> 
> ...


All states allow for concealed carry.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 26, 2021)

westwall said:


> I'm not tough at all.  But I have the ability to defend myself.  At 75 years of age my only option is a gun.


This is why firearms are sometimes known as equalizers ~ they allow the smaller, weaker, less powerful person to not be physically bullied or assaulted without consequence.

At 71 years of age, I'm no longer as fast, agile, strong, or up to kung-fuing thugs as I might have been in my youth, my 20s-30s, especially if there is more than one.  Also, over the years I've noticed that once a person is down on the ground, these thugs that would attack/assault a citizen then engage in the kicking and head stomping which can often result in serious lifelong injury and/or death.

Bottom-line is that any threat of assault/attack, or any initiated assault and/or attack has a high potential to be attempted murder, or life-long disability, or actual murder.

Therefore, I'm inclined to usually conceal carry a pistol when in public since one never knows when a threat potential might appear.  I'm also inclined to shoot at first initiation of an assault/attack if display/brandishing the pistol is not discouragement enough.

While some of you sound willing to be victims of violence, and that is your Right, I decline that option and will defend myself and those with me when possible.


----------



## westwall (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All states allow for concealed carry.




Untrue.  You should have said, if you are rich,  all states allow for concealed carry.

It's a far more accurate statement.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> What's ridiculous is your conceptualization of what rights are and what the constitutional justification of laws is.


This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.


----------



## westwall (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.





You can't even use the proper logical fallacy, begone pseudo intellectual...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

westwall said:


> Untrue.  You should have said, if you are rich,  all states allow for concealed carry.
> 
> It's a far more accurate statement.


Wrong. 

All states allow for concealed carry. 

That you subjectively perceive some laws to be 'unfair' doesn't change that fact


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> All states allow for concealed carry.
> 
> That you subjectively perceive some laws to be 'unfair' doesn't change that fact


your premise is a lie,,


----------



## westwall (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> All states allow for concealed carry.
> 
> That you subjectively perceive some laws to be 'unfair' doesn't change that fact






The practical rule though is this, as a regular normal guy I couldn't even obtain an application for a CCW when I lived in the Bay Area.  

Sean Penn, and every other rich person who wanted one, on the other hand, had no problem getting one.

So no, you ignore how the elite prevent regular folks from getting permits.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 26, 2021)

Handy color-coded map for reference with this one;
...

State-by-State Concealed Carry Permit Laws​
All 50 states and DC allow the concealed carry of firearms. 30 states and DC require permits and have may-issue or shall-issue permit laws, 19 states have constitutional carry laws but will also issue permits upon request, and Vermont has constitutional carry but does not issue permits.
...








						State-by-State Concealed Carry Permit Laws - ProCon.org
					

Not all states permit open carry. View a map of the US which outlines which states currently permit open carry, those that may, and those that don't.




					concealedguns.procon.org
				



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Complete 50 State Guide to Concealed Carry Laws​








						The Complete 50 State Guide to Concealed Carry Laws
					

People considering concealed carrying for the first time need to learn how to do so legally when the laws pertaining to concealed carry vary from state to state.




					aliengearholsters.com
				



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
States That Allow Concealed Carry | American Concealed​








						States That Allow Concealed Carry
					

With more and more people deciding to purchase guns to protect themselves, one of the most asked questions is about which states allow concealed carry and which states allow open carry. Open carry refers to having a gun on you, but in plain sight. It must be in a holster and it must be visible […]



					americanconcealed.com
				



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
USCCA Concealed Carry Reciprocity Map & U.S. Gun Laws | USCCA​








						USCCA Concealed Carry Reciprocity Map & U.S. Gun Laws | USCCA
					

Learn about state gun laws & concealed carry permits using our interactive concealed carry reciprocity map. Find firearms laws & CCW travel restrictions.




					www.usconcealedcarry.com


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> in short (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> The 2nd places NO LIMITS AT ALL on the people.  Only the government!!!!!!



Correct and the 2ndA doesn't create any new or different prohibitions on government than already exist from the absolute silence in the Constitution granting government any power to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.  IOW,the 2ndA does not expand upon what the government was already forbidden to do.

This fundamental constitutional principle is the primary argument of the Federalists against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution; they thought it absurd and dangerous to declare that something shall not be done, when no power was ever granted to government to act upon that interest.

 See *Federalist 84* (paragraph breaks added):

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?​​Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.​​They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."​​​.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> states dont have authority to decide that,,



Why not? Where has the federal government ever claimed or established any authority to dictate to any entity over the manner of carry?

The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions.  Looking at that history, I can not envision any review of law or practice that would permit SCOTUS to hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize that right . . .  But, dictating as to the actual *manner* of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

Of course states that currently have discriminatory "may issue" policies will choose concealed carry as the manner of carriage, so, while it may not be a direct "win" by decision, the right to carry concealed will be a win that is "backed in" to.

.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 26, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> in short (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> The 2nd places NO LIMITS AT ALL on the people.  Only the government!!!!!!


Actually, the intent of the Constitution, and how it was written @230+ years ago, was to place limits in all areas of what a central/Federal government could do.  The USA Constitution was written to constrain and limit guv'mint, not to empower and/or enlarge it.

Note the context of the time, what the 13 Colonies had endured from England which resulted in a War for Independence.

Unfortunately, barely was the ink dry so to speak and regressive factions of our Nation began looking for ways to "work around" in giving government more power and authority.

The ideological and political divide within our nation, from it's founding to present, have been these two factions.  
One wants to limit and constrain Government, 
the other wants to further empower and enable Government


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Why not? Where has the federal government ever claimed or established any authority to dictate to any entity over the manner of carry?
> 
> The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions.  Looking at that history, I can not envision any review of law or practice that would permit SCOTUS to hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...


the 2nd is clear " the right of the poeple, and if you read the 9-10th a it says the people,,

so its the people that have that authority,, no one else,,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> What's ridiculous is your conceptualization of what rights are and what the constitutional justification of laws is.


He's a known liar, so...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> your premise is a lie,,


He's a known liar.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the 2nd is clear " the right of the poeple, and if you read the 9-10th a it says the people,,
> 
> so its the people that have that authority,, no one else,,



When you come across a _*federal*_ law that conditions or forbids concealed carry, you have an argument in pocket.

For this instance, SCOTUS is reviewing a law from NY, a state that has no RKBA provision in its state constitution and SCOTUS is trying to establish how to apply the 2nd Amendment to the NY law, when the 2nd Amendment had zero effect on state laws until 2010 (_McDonald v Chicago_).

You are trying to crib together a rule to apply the Constitution that never was and never will be. 

The application and enforcement of the 2nd Amendment is in its infancy, mostly because the jurisprudence of the 2nd went off the rails between 1942 and 2008.  The Court itself admits in _Heller_, the full scope and contours of the right to arms has not been examined by the Court and applied to federal laws, what you are saying is the unequivocal rule for this state law, is premature.

A question for you; for the time *before 2010*, did the states posses a power to dictate the conditions and manner of gun carry in public, in accordance with the rights recognized in its state constitution?

If no, please explain how that power was prohibited to the states by the federal Constitution (according to the 10th Amendment) and/or how that one aspect of state law was in theory and practice, immune to 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine -- that the 2nd Amendment *did* bind state action when all courts said it did not (until 2010).

For me, the question of whether a state possesses such absolute authority _after 2010_, is an open one, which is why SCOTUS took the NY concealed carry case.

.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> When you come across a _*federal*_ law that conditions or forbids concealed carry, you have an argument in pocket.
> 
> For this instance, SCOTUS is reviewing a law from NY, a state that has no RKBA provision in its state constitution and SCOTUS is trying to establish how to apply the 2nd Amendment to the NY law, when the 2nd Amendment had zero effect on state laws until 2010 (_McDonald v Chicago_).
> 
> ...


the 2nd is specific as to whos right it is,, and if you read the 9-10th you will see specifics as to who is in control of that right,,

THE PEOPLE,,

CASE CLOSED,,


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the 2nd is specific as to whos right it is,, and if you read the 9-10th you will see specifics as to who is in control of that right,,
> 
> THE PEOPLE,,
> 
> CASE CLOSED,,



None of which applied to state governments.  Those declarations are made as to the relationship of "the people" (and the states) to the powers of the federal government.

This NY case is examining state law.

How the federal 2nd Amendment applies, when it never was intended to, or held to apply until 2010, is what will be determined.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> None of which applied to state governments.  Those declarations are made as to the relationship of "the people" (and the states) to the powers of the federal government.
> 
> This NY case is examining state law.
> 
> How the federal 2nd Amendment applies, when it never was intended to, or held to apply until 2010, is what will be determined.


not according to the 9-10th amendments,,

anything else is a usurpation of the constitution,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And morons like you are living proof that in our current "enlightened" nation, the Federalist's arguments against adding a bill of rights, and warnings of the dangers to liberty if one was added, were absolutely correct.


So now you are against the bill of rights. How trumpian of you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So now you are against the bill of rights. How trumpian of you.


can you explain that?? I dont see him saying that,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> can you explain that?? I dont see him saying that,,


He said the federalist argued against the bill of rights, and they were right to do so. Seems obvious to me.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> He said the federalist argued against the bill of rights, and they were right to do so. Seems obvious to me.


well considering youre a liar and an idiot nothing that seems obvious to you means shit,,

I assume you running away the other day means you are now clear on the 2nd and know only the people decide and not the state or feds,,


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So now you are against the bill of rights. How trumpian of you.



Just when I thought you couldn't have your head up your ass any further . . . 

You show what an overachiever you are.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> well considering youre a liar and an idiot nothing that seems obvious to you means shit,,
> 
> I assume you running away the other day means you are now clear on the 2nd and know only the people decide and not the state or feds,,


You assume so much that just isn't so. Perhaps you don't have real life that takes precedence over a silly internet discussion board, but some of us do. So how long have you claimed to be one of those batshit crazy sovereign citizens who doesn't believe in state or federal laws?


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Just when I thought you couldn't have your head up your ass any further . . .
> 
> You show what an overachiever you are.


no doubt he can see his tonsils!!


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> He said the federalist argued against the bill of rights, and they were right to do so. Seems obvious to me.



And?

You are so clueless.

That the Federalists 'lost' the debate over adding a bill of rights doesn't mean their arguments were wrong. 

Their warnings, their fears, their predictions of the dangers to liberty from people designing to usurp, (like you), misconstructing the words of the provisions and inventing powers where none were ever conferred, have all been proven correct.

How does it feel to be the embodiment, the awful culmination, the horrible fulfillment of the Federalist's warnings?

.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You assume so much that just isn't so. Perhaps you don't have real life that takes precedence over a silly internet discussion board, but some of us do. So how long have you claimed to be one of those batshit crazy sovereign citizens who doesn't believe in state or federal laws?


how am I a sovereign people when I am defending the constitution as written??

youre the radical thats changing the clear meaning of it to make a flawed point,, thats why you ran away because you couldnt argue with facts,,


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, it actually doesn't.
> 
> The Supreme Court ignored reality in order to give right wingers what they wanted.
> 
> ...


And you’re entitled to your opinion as to the meaning of the Amendment.

As a fact of law, however, the collective right argument was rejected in favor of the individual right.

And as that right is unconnected with militia service, the individual right concerns the carrying of firearms by citizens – in or outside of the home.

That the Supreme Court got it ‘wrong’ isn’t a valid argument; that the _Heller_ Court was trying to appease conservatives is likewise not a valid argument.

In time that may change with a future Court overturning _Heller/McDonald_.

Until that time _Heller/McDonald_ is current Second Amendment jurisprudence; it is what the Second Amendment means, as determined by the Supreme Court.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> "such as self-defense *within the home*"


*“Such as”*

As in, one among others, one example of others – in this case the right to carry outside of the home as well as inside the home.

We know that the right to carry outside of the home is in the Second Amendment because the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a case from Illinois concerning that right in 2013 – an appellate court would not have reviewed such a law if carrying outside of the home was not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

We know that the right to carry outside of the home is in the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the carrying of firearms outside of the home this Term – again, the Court would not have decided to do so if the issue was outside of the purview of the Second Amendment.

The right to carry outside of the home is in fact in the Second Amendment, as determined by the _Heller_ Court.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> I understand the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could, if they chose, decide that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep "bear arms" if they choose. As ridiculous as it sounds, the Supreme Court has been ridiculous in the past.
> 
> The reality is that Heller doesn't say what you think it says. You take one quote from a whole body of text, and ignore the main part of what they said.


What I think is irrelevant – it has nothing to do with what I think.

It is a settled, accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

The right to self-defense.

And the right to carry a firearm both in the home and outside.

My citation from _Heller_ was one of many in the decision documenting the right to carry a firearm.

Your argument is with Scalia and the four other justices who voted with him – not me.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All states allow for concealed carry.


yes you are correct  that all states allow for concealed carry but *most (and not all states)* do require a permit and certain buildings and locations are designated as  strictly forbidden to carry a concealed weapon. If they require a permit it does mean that they can deny that permit with regard for concealed carry.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Yet why do some states allow concealed weapons while others do not


They don’t – all the states allow for the concealed carry of firearms.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> A "well regulated militia" is a descriptive term that is an acknowledgement of a militia company's high degree of skill and readiness in military exercise.  It really describes a principle, an aspirational goal of opitimal perfection in operational order and condition to be attained and maintained by a military force.  For a particular militia unit to ever be described as "well regulated" is an accolade, a compliment on their expertness in military exercise and practice (see *Federalist 29*).
> 
> The term has *NOTHING* to do with regulations or any government body being authorized to write or enforce regulations.
> 
> ...


You still would have to take the time period into consideration when the word was used in the 2nd amendment. 

Militia when used over 200 years ago by a  new nation that had no military forces does have a specific meaning in that time frame. 

if you expect war with England and have no military then if the nation is to survive. They need to come up with  people who have guns and willing to fight. 

The militia is an outgrowth of an English common law institution. The word itself dates back to 1590. Originally, the word simply meant *soldiers in the service of the state*. By the mid-17th Century, however, it had taken on connotations of a civilian military force.

thus both meaning apply to a military force. 

Still apply that to todays standard when the US as a country has a fully armed military.  Militia in todays world would only still apply to state military, , state guard, state militia, or state military reserve.  They exist but when called to duty they do not bring there own guns as it is expected that the state will supply them with weapons.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> It is clear that case law decisions are interpreted differently by each state.


Incorrect.

The states don’t ‘interpret’ the Second Amendment, the courts do.

The states are at liberty to enact firearm regulatory measures provided those measures are consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The reason why firearm laws differ from state to state is because some states enact only a few measures, others none at all.

But the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘compel’ the states to have all the same firearm regulatory measures.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> So in my opinion the 2nd amendment is not the defining factor. It is really to vague.


In your opinion, not as a fact of law.

And the Second Amendment is not ‘vague’ – to understand its meaning and scope one needs only to read _Heller/McDonald_.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> yes you are correct  that all states allow for concealed carry but *most (and not all states)* do require a permit and certain buildings and locations are designated as  strictly forbidden to carry a concealed weapon. If they require a permit it does mean that they can deny that permit with regard for concealed carry.


And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.

Of course, prohibited persons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm at all, rendering a carry permit moot.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

westwall said:


> The practical rule though is this, as a regular normal guy I couldn't even obtain an application for a CCW when I lived in the Bay Area.
> 
> Sean Penn, and every other rich person who wanted one, on the other hand, had no problem getting one.
> 
> So no, you ignore how the elite prevent regular folks from getting permits.


“Illinois adopted a law on Tuesday allowing residents to carry concealed guns, becoming the *last state in the nation *to permit some form of possession of guns in public.”









						Illinois is last state to allow concealed carry of guns
					

Illinois adopted a law on Tuesday allowing residents to carry concealed guns, becoming the last state in the nation to permit some form of possession of guns in public.




					www.reuters.com
				




Last state in the nation – meaning as of 2013 *all 50 states* in the nation allow for concealed carry.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And?
> 
> You are so clueless.
> 
> ...


You are the one who is saying the constitution is wrong. As I said --- typical trumpster.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> not according to the 9-10th amendments,,
> 
> anything else is a usurpation of the constitution,,


Wrong.

It’s the 14th Amendment, substantive due process, and incorporation doctrine – applying provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.

In 2010 the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions (see _McDonald v. Chicago_).


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> how am I a sovereign people when I am defending the constitution as written??
> 
> youre the radical thats changing the clear meaning of it to make a flawed point,, thats why you ran away because you couldnt argue with facts,,


You're the one that said you don't accept the authority of the state or federal governments.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> how am I a sovereign people when I am defending the constitution as written??
> 
> youre the radical thats changing the clear meaning of it to make a flawed point,, thats why you ran away because you couldnt argue with facts,,


You’re the one devoid of facts.

And the fact is that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What you’re defending is willful ignorance – a childish temper-tantrum because you don’t like how the Constitution is interpreted by the courts; so you take your Constitutional ball and run home.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You're the one that said you don't accept the authority of the state or federal governments.


...or the Supreme Court, for that matter.


----------



## westwall (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.
> 
> Of course, prohibited persons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm at all, rendering a carry permit moot.






Incorrect.  I lived in Contra Costa County at the time and went to Martinez to talk to the deputy in charge of the permit process.  He wouldn't even give me an application to fill out.
I wasn't rich enough, or connected enough, to warrant one.  There's a difference between what the legislation says, and how it is actually enforced.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You are the one who is saying the constitution is wrong. As I said --- typical trumpster.



And you are a typical leftist, incapable of understanding the argument so you twist and pervert it into something that your small mind can understand and then you call it names.

IOW, you operate on nothing but logical fallacies.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And you are a typical leftist, incapable of understanding the argument so you twist and pervert it into something that your small mind can understand and then you call it names.
> 
> IOW, you operate on nothing but logical fallacies.


I'll bet a dollar that you had to look up how to spell "logical fallacies".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.


^^^^
This is a lie.
A person otherwise legally able to own a gun can be denied a permit to carry a gun - someting you agree he has a right to do -  because he does not demonstrate some unspecified and subjective "good reason" for one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Last state in the nation – meaning as of 2013 *all 50 states* in the nation allow for concealed carry.


Now, tell us the rest of the story.
Or, perpetuate your lie of omission
Your choice.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.
> 
> Of course, prohibited persons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm at all, rendering a carry permit moot.


Also it is still  prohibited in certain buildings even if you have a permit to carry.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In your opinion, not as a fact of law.
> 
> And the Second Amendment is not ‘vague’ – to understand its meaning and scope one needs only to read _Heller/McDonald_.



 Except in its earliest ruling on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms. According to the highest court in the land, the Second Amendment only protected the states’ right to maintain a militia, not an individual’s right to possess firearms.



United States v. Cruikshank (1875)​
The Supreme Court overruled the convictions of Cruikshank and other White League members, arguing that the First and Second Amendments apply only to the federal government, not state or local governments nor individual citizens.

Presser v. Illinois (1886)​the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and so the states were free to regulate or ban private militias and guns in any way they chose.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)​
yeah you guys finally win won and the current argument is now in the books.  So within the last 15 years they changed there position from what was held for over 100 years. 

Still assault rifles and weapons are still off the table and no 2nd amendment rights with these types of weapons. The issues are still state decided with these types of weapons.

okay it just goes back to my original argument that the state decides and the 2nd amendment is vague as the court has flip flop on it from the beginning to the current time frame.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In your opinion, not as a fact of law.
> 
> And the Second Amendment is not ‘vague’ – to understand its meaning and scope one needs only to read _Heller/McDonald_.



Yet that was in 2008 and 2010 when the court changed it position. Yet if the court can change a previous ruling then it begs the question that the amendment is vague and people will have different opinions based on what?  How they interpret it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It’s the 14th Amendment, substantive due process, and incorporation doctrine – applying provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.
> 
> In 2010 the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions (see _McDonald v. Chicago_).


not according to the text and original intent of the constitution,,

so your premise is a lie,,

any court decision is treason and those involved should be tried and killed,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You're the one that said you don't accept the authority of the state or federal governments.


in accordance with the text of the constitution on the 2nd A where it clearly put that right and authority in the hands of the people,,


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Well, too bad for you but the dingbat NY AG conceded that a right to bear arms does exist outside the home, but inexplicably, only OUTSIDE NY CITY.
> 
> I thought this case was going to be a disaster for the pro-gun rights side but AG Letitia James gave it new life.
> 
> If you're feeling froggy, there's *a thread on this case over in the 2nd Amendment subforum*, I've posted my take on it quite a lot (in a thread that's only 10 posts).



Well, if it's only outside the home OUTSIDE of NY city, it's not a right at all.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> That's a long post and you do quote and cite your sources but your primary and ultimately fatal flaw, (especially when you are discussing state provisions), is the mindset that the right to arms flows / emanates from those words and that the only way to discern what the right "is" is to "interpret" the words chosen to secure the right.
> 
> Especially for the state constitutions, the very structure of those constitutions prohibit any thought that the provision recognizing and securing the right to arms, is granting or creating or establishing the right, thus the right depends on a particular "interpretation" of those words.
> 
> ...


Well, for me this is an intellectual activity. All I can work with is what is there, and I try not to ignore anything, and come to a logical conclusion.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 26, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Well, if the right secured by the 2ndA is a right to bear (carry) a gun for self defense in public in case of confrontation (as _Cruikshank_ and _Presser_ recognized and _Heller_ has said) and the 2ndA is now incorporated against the states, then the states will be forced to recognize that right and any state or city's arbitrary and discriminatory criteria to exercise the right will be invalidated.
> 
> I do predict the power to set the manner of carry will remain in the state's domain.



Cruikshank and Presser said there's a right to carry a gun for self defense in public? 

I don't think so.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And you’re entitled to your opinion as to the meaning of the Amendment.
> 
> As a fact of law, however, the collective right argument was rejected in favor of the individual right.
> 
> ...



We're not talking about the collective rights argument. I don't agree it exists, you don't agree it exists, the Supreme Court does and never has. 

The reality is that everything you've said isn't in response to what I wrote. 

It's like you think I'm saying one thing, because it's the usual argument you have with people who disagree with you. But it's not, because you're arguing things I'm not saying.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *“Such as”*
> 
> As in, one among others, one example of others – in this case the right to carry outside of the home as well as inside the home.
> 
> ...



Except they didn't say this.

No, you don't know the 2nd Amendment protects the supposed right to carry outside of the home. You're saying a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals would never, ever do anything that was wrong?

I mean, the Supreme Court did something that was wrong. *Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)*

Worst decision ever by the Supreme Court, said African Americans couldn't be American Citizens. Yeah.... er... well... if the Supreme Court can do Dred Scott, then the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals can be wrong.

And no, Heller doesn't protect any right to carry outside the home. If it did, the Supreme Court wouldn't be accepting this new case.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What I think is irrelevant – it has nothing to do with what I think.
> 
> It is a settled, accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.
> 
> ...



Actually, what you think has everything to do with it. Why? Because I'm talking with you. Not with anyone else.

"It is a settled, accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service."

Not sure what you want to say here.  

You come up with the individual right, I agree. The "right to possess" is the right to KEEP arms, the right to OWN arms. I thought we were talking about the right to BEAR ARMS. 

"The right to self-defense." So, the right to own a weapon is the right to self defense? Or the right to bear arms is the right to self defense? You'd better get it clear in your head which one, first.

Look, if you don't want to discuss the Supreme Court case, if you want to simply say "the Supreme Court says so", then this conversation is over. If you want to discuss this issue, then carry on, but without the whining about how it's not about what you think.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In your opinion, not as a fact of law.
> 
> And the Second Amendment is not ‘vague’ – to understand its meaning and scope one needs only to read _Heller/McDonald_.



Right.... read those cases, and don't read what the Founding Fathers had to say on the matter.... because what the Founding Fathers had to say is rather inconvenient for you.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It’s the 14th Amendment, substantive due process, and incorporation doctrine – applying provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.
> 
> In 2010 the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions (see _McDonald v. Chicago_).




in a 5 to 4 decision. Alito states that Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.

Yet how can that be the central component as it clearly about raising an army for defense of the nation. Which was the primary issue in a country that wanted to succeed from the British who were going to come.   How difficult would it be to say to protect wants private property. 

Thus the 3 previous court rulers which were done close to the same time in period had a different prospective of the issue. 

Yet in the 20th century the "British are not coming"  So the 5/4 majority based it decision on protecting individuals home and what the states can't do.  It is a broad interpretation and apply modern day issues with some they wrote in the 17/18th century. 

Especially when you need to quote the 14th amendment to back up the 2nd amendment as if it can't stand alone as proof of your decisions. 

The minority blast this with 

The question we should be answering in this case is whether the Constitution “guarantees individuals a fundamental right,” enforceable against the States, “to possess a functional, personal firearm, including a handgun, within the home.”

yet the majority say no the state cannot do that and base it on the 14th amendment. But hey the case was not about the 14th amendment. 

 and he clearly states that the petitioner never mentions the 14th amendment in their case.   It like the judges just make stuff up to support their decisions. Judges using modern times to interpret what they meant 2 centuries ago. 

Well I going to sum it up with who needs gun ownership more - the 17th and 18th century person or the 21st century person.

When they drafted the 2nd amendment. They were using muskets and flintlock pistols.  They could hold a single round at a time.   Gentlemen settle their differences with a duo at 10 paces.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 27, 2021)

Abatis said:


> There is no right to "be in the militia" protected by the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Defining who is obligated to serve and who is allowed to enroll and is allowed to serve is entirely a power of Congress.  The organized militia is an entity and structure that is entirely a product of the Constitution and is entirely dependent upon the Constitution and the duly enacted laws by Congress (Militia Act of 1792).  A militia comprised of citizens may only be called up, organized, trained and deployed following the process and rules set-out in the Constitution.
> 
> ...



Again……. Thanks for the posts,  please keep posting.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 27, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> They don’t – all the states allow for the concealed carry of firearms.



And the southern democrats allowed blacks to vote…..they just had to take a literacy test and pay a poll tax…….and those practices were seen for what they were, unconstitutional infringements on a basic Right.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 27, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.
> 
> Of course, prohibited persons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm at all, rendering a carry permit moot.



That is a lie and you know it.  Democrats in New York and other democrat party controlled cities deny the Right because they state you have no “need” to carry and you were unable to prove a need….so you are wrong.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 27, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Yet that was in 2008 and 2010 when the court changed it position. Yet if the court can change a previous ruling then it begs the question that the amendment is vague and people will have different opinions based on what?  How they interpret it.



Its not vague….people like you pretend it is vague to attack the Right.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 27, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Except they didn't say this.
> 
> No, you don't know the 2nd Amendment protects the supposed right to carry outside of the home. You're saying a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals would never, ever do anything that was wrong?
> 
> ...



Dipshit….in Dress the judge said one of the reasons they couldnt allow citizenship to free blacks is they would be able to own and carry guns…..


----------



## Abatis (Oct 27, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> You still would have to take the time period into consideration when the word was used in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Militia when used over 200 years ago by a  new nation that had no military forces does have a specific meaning in that time frame.



But the 2nd Amendment is not about the militia; the 2ndA has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization, training or control (I'm talking about the cases where the Court decided disputes over militia operation and control).

The declaratory clause is just a statement of principle, nothing more; it 'means something' but it is legally inert, it has no legal operation.  The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a 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).



Kilroy2 said:


> Still apply that to todays standard when the US as a country has a fully armed military.  Militia in todays world would only still apply to state military, , state guard, state militia, or state military reserve.



But Congress and the President, the national entities the state militias were designed to counterbalance, destroyed the state militias and absorbed state militia powers into the federal power system.

The people, the citizens, who possess the right to keep and bear arms, who because of that general ownership of arms _allowed_ the formation of a militia, have never relinquished their duty and their role in this dynamic, even though the government extinguished the organized militia.

In *Federalist 46*, Madison speaks at length of this dynamic, this tension between the national vs. the state governments who enjoyed the support of the armed citizenry.  The allegiances of the armed citizens was not to the national government, it was their state's sovereignty and autonomy and the protection of their personal rights from all government intrusion:


"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."​​​Breaking those numbers down, Madison denotes:

1) a national standing army being 1% of the total population, a 30K force derived from a 3M population. 
2) the general militia being 25% of the population; 750K male citizens capable of bearing arms and working in concert who are *not *in the standing army.
3) a 500K subset within the 750K general militia that comprise 17% of the population; comprised of "citizens with arms in their hands . . . fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted" by the states.

The fundamental principle and proposition Madison is explaining is that the largest standing army that can be maintained, is "opposed" by armed citizens by a ratio of 17 armed citizens for each soldier.

Today, the "standing army" numbers *2.25M active duty and reserve forces* and the percentage of "citizens with arms in their hands" has expanded to 25% of the population, to approx. 80,000,000 . . . 

This gives us a "Madison ratio" of 35 armed citizens opposing each "soldier" in today's national "standing army".




Kilroy2 said:


> They exist but when called to duty they do not bring there own guns as it is expected that the state will supply them with weapons.



Which further differentiates today's standing army from any militia spoken of by the founders / framers and certainly the one established by the Constitution.  Today's "militia" is organized and directed under clause 12, not clauses 15 & 16.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 27, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Except in its earliest ruling on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms. According to the highest court in the land, the Second Amendment only protected the states’ right to maintain a militia, not an individual’s right to possess firearms.



Actually, _Cruikshank_ says the opposite.  The Supreme Court in _Cruikshank_ recognizes the right to bear arms, for the purpose of self defense, in public, as being being possessed and exercised by those two former slaves, then citizens at the heart of the case. Have you ever read the case?



Kilroy2 said:


> United States v. Cruikshank (1875)
> 
> The Supreme Court overruled the convictions of Cruikshank and other White League members, arguing that the First and Second Amendments apply only to the federal government, not state or local governments nor individual citizens.



Do you think that statement supports your belief above that _Cruikshank_ "held" that, "_that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms_" and that "_according to the highest court in the land, the Second Amendment only protected the states’ right to maintain a militia, not an individual’s right to possess firearms_?

Is that what you get from the statement that the 2nd Amendment only applied "to the federal government, not state or local governments *nor individual citizens*"?  Is that what your take is?



Kilroy2 said:


> Presser v. Illinois (1886)
> the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and so the states were free to regulate or ban private militias and guns in any way they chose.



Well, if you believe Presser establishes that "_state's were free to regulate and ban  . . . guns in any way they chose_", it's obvious you never read the case . . .  

Actually, _Presser_ says the exact opposite, _Presser_ says states are absolutely forbidden to disarm their citizens because the citizens comprise a shared defensive resource that the federal government relies on.  The _Presser_ Court impresses a federal enforcement of the citizen's federal right to keep and bear arms without any reference to or reliance on, the 2nd Amendment.  

The Court is enforcing an unavoidable principle that is an outcome of the Constitution's promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government.  The Court unequivocally states it is a foundational principle of the nation that the armed citizens are the reserve military force of both the nation and the states and even laying the 2nd Amendment out of view, the states can not disarm their citizens because the nation might need those citizens and their guns to defend the nation.



Kilroy2 said:


> McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
> 
> yeah you guys finally win won and the current argument is now in the books.  So within the last 15 years they changed there position from what was held for over 100 years.
> 
> ...



The only thing more fantastical than your claims about the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment would be you claiming to have seen Obama riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a double ended dildo . . . 

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 27, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Cruikshank and Presser said there's a right to carry a gun for self defense in public?
> 
> I don't think so.



I didn't claim the Court _said_, I said the Court "recognized".

The facts of _Cruikshank_ and how the Court integrated those facts in its explanations of the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, shows the Court recognizes that the right -allegedly- violated by Cruikshank, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment. 

The Court states that the right described in the indictment, that of "_bearing arms for a lawful purpose_" is "_not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is *IT* in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that *IT* shall not be infringed;_ . . . "

Now, does the 2nd Amendment in fact, expressly say that 'the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose, shall not be infringed?

NO.

The Court obviously recognizes that -- this amorphous, constitutionally undefined "right of bearing arms for lawful purpose", as exercised by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, that in action was carrying guns for self defense, in public, is the, "*IT*" that the 2nd Amendment declares shall not be infringed, thus is legally interchangeable with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

In _Presser_ the Court removed all doubt on this point.

In the _Presser_ opinion,  Justice Woods removed the _Cruikshank_ case specific language (quoting the indictment of Cruikshank _et al_) and inserted the familiar words from the 2nd Amendment.

Woods characterized that bold rewording of _Cruikshank_ in _Presser_ thus:


"_the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that 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. . . ._ "​

That seamless melding is interesting and important. Chief Justice Waite was part of the _Presser_ unanimous decision. Had Wood's statement been a mischaracterization of C.J. Waite's (and the _Cruikshank_ Court's) sentiments on the right of bearing arms in public for self defense by those Freemen being synonymous with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, C.J. Waite would have no doubt protested.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 27, 2021)

westwall said:


> Incorrect.  I lived in Contra Costa County at the time and went to Martinez to talk to the deputy in charge of the permit process.  He wouldn't even give me an application to fill out.
> I wasn't rich enough, or connected enough, to warrant one.  There's a difference between what the legislation says, and how it is actually enforced.


Impossible to get one in NYC. Took me a year to get a home permit.


Of course, Democrat gun laws only target law-abiding citizens, and make us sitting ducks for Democrat constituents.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That is a lie and you know it.  Democrats in New York and other democrat party controlled cities deny the Right because they state you have no “need” to carry and you were unable to prove a need….so you are wrong.





"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 27, 2021)

PoliticalChic said:


> "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."



If you are lucky…….


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 27, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Actually, _Cruikshank_ says the opposite.  The Supreme Court in _Cruikshank_ recognizes the right to bear arms, for the purpose of self defense, in public, as being being possessed and exercised by those two former slaves, then citizens at the heart of the case. Have you ever read the case?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually it said that the 2nd amendment applied to the federal government specifically for raising an army and does not infer any rights for gun ownership. It is left to the states to decide.  States can regulate gun control but they could not ban guns outright.  Thus the importance is that the 2nd amendment does not give citizens a blank check and the state can regulate gun control.  This is different interpretation that those in 20th century ruling where the court in a 5 to 4 decision  that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms which overrides states legislative control for its residents.   

The Supreme Court overruled the convictions of Cruikshank and other White League members, *arguing that the First and Second Amendments apply only to the federal government*, *not state or local governments nor individual citizens. The Court wrote that the "Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."*

In legalese, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an "unincorporated" right, and only Congress was barred from restricting the Second Amendment, not states or individuals. *Although states could restrict citizens' gun rights, they couldn't outlaw guns altogether*. Doing so would deprive the United States of its "well regulated militia."










						FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
					

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since




					caselaw.findlaw.com
				





The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.

*The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National;

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. *Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.

The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. *The right was not created by the amendment;* neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. *The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.*

my question did you read it.


----------



## westwall (Oct 27, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Actually it said that the 2nd amendment applied to the federal government specifically for raising an army and does not infer any rights for gun ownership. It is left to the states to decide.  States can regulate gun control but they could not ban guns outright.  Thus the importance is that the 2nd amendment does not give citizens a blank check and the state can regulate gun control.  This is different interpretation that those in 20th century ruling where the court in a 5 to 4 decision  that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms which overrides states legislative control for its residents.
> 
> The Supreme Court overruled the convictions of Cruikshank and other White League members, *arguing that the First and Second Amendments apply only to the federal government*, *not state or local governments nor individual citizens. The Court wrote that the "Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."*
> 
> ...






The Bill of Rights deals SPECIFICALLY with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.  It takes a pretty dishonest person to claim that the 2nd is a GOVERNMENT right when it is government that already has all of the power.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 27, 2021)

westwall said:


> The Bill of Rights deals SPECIFICALLY with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.  It takes a pretty dishonest person to claim that the 2nd is a GOVERNMENT right when it is government that already has all of the power.



Supreme court ruling 

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' *This is not a right granted by the Constitution.* Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. *The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.* *This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes,* to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.

ruling 100 years later of what the constitution means by those a lot closer understanding to what the people who wrote it meant.   









						FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
					

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since




					caselaw.findlaw.com
				




nowadays the republicans look for the federal government to tell them what they can and cannot do.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 27, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I didn't claim the Court _said_, I said the Court "recognized".
> 
> The facts of _Cruikshank_ and how the Court integrated those facts in its explanations of the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, shows the Court recognizes that the right -allegedly- violated by Cruikshank, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> ...



Sounds like trickery of some kind, to not say something, but to "recognize".....

If they didn't say something, then it's not there. It's quite simple. Just because some dude writing an article says that they must have recognized something because it's convenient for their argument.....

So, I guess we agree that neither Presser nor Cruikshank actually said any of this stuff then. Solves that problem easily.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 28, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Sounds like trickery of some kind, to not say something, but to "recognize".....



Understanding the operation of the pronoun "it" as representing an inanimate thing or concept previously mentioned and understood to be present in the immediate context, is not trickery.

Understanding the operation of synonyms is not trickery.  



frigidweirdo said:


> If they didn't say something, then it's not there. It's quite simple.



But the Court _*did*_ say what I quoted.  

Your only possible disagreement is that I am over-reading the term "bearing arms for lawful purpose" as being synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

Your problem is the Court did say the right of "_bearing arms for a lawful purpose_" is "_not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is *IT* in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that *IT* shall not be infringed;_ . . . " 

Your task, should you accept it, is demonstrating how "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is *not* the IT that is not granted by the Constitution, nor the IT that exists without any dependency on the Constitution, or the IT that the Second Amendment declares that shall not be infringed . . . 

I don't see how you can honestly think my belief, that "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment, is trickery.  Really you just sound like a partisan contrarian.




frigidweirdo said:


> Just because some dude writing an article  . . .



What dude?  What article?  Whenever I quote a source that is not of my own mind and hand I always use quotation marks.



frigidweirdo said:


> So, I guess we agree that neither Presser nor Cruikshank actually said any of this stuff then. Solves that problem easily.



Well, why your think your copy and paste proves anyhing is beyond me.  Every word of what you quoted, opposes, rebuts or just destroys your arguments. 

It's kinda funny really . . .


----------



## Abatis (Oct 28, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Actually it said that the 2nd amendment applied to the federal government specifically for raising an army and does not infer any rights for gun ownership. It is left to the states to decide.



Well, that's just goofy.  "It said" without room for the confusion you suffer from that since the right isn't granted by the Amendment, the right can't be argued to be conditioned by words that the right in no manner depends upon to exist.  "It said" that the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government.

How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action?

The rest of the post gets no better, it is a jumble of BS.

You copy and paste but again, it doesn't seem that you have read it.

I was going to try to make some sense of your gibberish but it just isn't worth it.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 28, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Well, that's just goofy.  "It said" without room for the confusion you suffer from that since the right isn't granted by the Amendment, the right can't be argued to be conditioned by words that the right in no manner depends upon to exist.  "It said" that the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government.
> 
> How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action?
> 
> ...


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. 

your interpretation  
 "  the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government."

at the bottom level it can be interpreted in that way.  (is the bowl half full or half empty) yet it doesn't restrict the powers of the federal government but says what it can do.  In fact it says that they can provide for the security of a free state by regulating the militia.  Where is the restriction you talk about?

(How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action? )

yet it says "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State", 

how does that restrict or bind government action. when it is necessary. How do you defend a free state with a well regulated militia?

Trying to make sense of something does require the basic ability to understand something. Yet you seemed to be challenged in that area.  My suggestion, continue reading comic books were as at  least you can look at the pictures even if you can't read the words.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> 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.
> 
> your interpretation
> "  the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government."
> ...





The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do to the individual, and one final option.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 28, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Understanding the operation of the pronoun "it" as representing an inanimate thing or concept previously mentioned and understood to be present in the immediate context, is not trickery.
> 
> Understanding the operation of synonyms is not trickery.
> 
> ...



"Bearing arms for lawful purposes" is easy to show what it means.



			Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
		


"Bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty". It's quite clear from the founding fathers that this is the case.

_"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""_

There's more where that came from too. 

"bearing arms for lawful purposes" is double speak. It tells right wingers one thing, but attempts to stick to the Constitution by saying something completely different.

You read "carry arms around as you like as long as you're not murdering people" and those who know what this actually mean see "you can be in the militia".

What dude? The dude you quotes, Woods, by the looks of things.

"Well, why your think your copy and paste proves anyhing is beyond me. Every word of what you quoted, opposes, rebuts or just destroys your arguments."

You wrote this. I'm confused about what you mean. What "copy and paste"? I've gone back through the thread and I don't see any "copy and paste" of mine.

In the Presser case, the Supreme Court said that states can limit people from carrying guns.

_"Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States."_

State legislatures can stop people drilling, parading unless they're in THE militia as stated in the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8.

_"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."_

Drilling or associating together as "military organizations" is not protected by the Second Amendment.

_"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."_

Essentially. The US govt cannot stop people from keeping and bearing arms. Walking around with a gun for your own business is NOT keeping and bearing arms. 

In Cruikshank they merely stated the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Beyond that it doesn't say much at all. 

So I'm struggling to see how you're using these two cases to help your argument. Because quite frankly, they don't. Presser says that walking around with guns doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and Cruikshank says the Second Amendment doesn't concern the states.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 28, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> 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.
> 
> your interpretation
> "  the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government."



Not "my" interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Supreme Court.



Kilroy2 said:


> at the bottom level it can be interpreted in that way.  (is the bowl half full or half empty) yet it doesn't restrict the powers of the federal government but says what it can do.  In fact it says that they can provide for the security of a free state by regulating the militia.  Where is the restriction you talk about?



The 2nd Amendment is comprised of two clauses, a dependent, declaratory clause that is legally inactive / inert and an independent, restrictive clause that is operational.



Kilroy2 said:


> (How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action? )
> 
> yet it says "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State",
> 
> how does that restrict or bind government action. when it is necessary. How do you defend a free state with a well regulated militia?



The declaratory clause doesn't do anything but speak to a (then) universally known, understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a 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). 



Kilroy2 said:


> Trying to make sense of something does require the basic ability to understand something.



True.  And part of _that_ is understanding how this one thing fits into the larger entity. You are reading the 2nd Amendment in a vacuum, applying all manner of outside influences and effects that are driven by your leftist / communitarian / statist politics that is at its core, hostile to regular citizens possessing arms, especially militarily useful arms. 

That baggage you put on it demands the 2nd Amendment be something it isn't and to violate the framework of rights theory the Constitution is founded upon. . . .  To transform from a prohibition on government action to an empowering article, commanding government do what is actually forbidden.

That is why you are so confused.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 28, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> "Bearing arms for lawful purposes" is easy to show what it means.



Well, for that use in _Cruikshank_ we know *exactly *what it means.

It meant Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, were armed in public for self defense against roving White mobs who were intent on overthrowing an election where Black candidates won offices.  The White League disarmed, kidnapped and lynched Nelson and Tillman and terrorized and murdered at least 80 other Black citizens.

Here's how the *liberal* Constitution Accountability Center tells the story:


"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, according to historian Eric Foner.  On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government.  Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape.  Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South.​​The federal prosecution of the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre went all the way to the Supreme Court, which resulted in one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, _United States v. Cruikshank_.   In _Cruikshank_, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment did not allow the federal government to prosecute individuals for violating the fundamental rights of others—including the First Amendment right to assemble and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—even in states that were ignoring racial violence and intimidation. Thanks to _Cruikshank’s_ blatant misreading of the 14th Amendment – ratified eight years earlier and explicitly dedicated to providing federal protection for the privileges and immunities of all Americans – southern state governments systematically turned a blind eye towards the violence, intimidation, and disfranchisement of blacks throughout the South. . . . "​​




						Remembering the Colfax Massacre | Constitutional Accountability Center
					

By Xan White, Research & Special Projects Associate, Constitutional Accountability Center   Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell recently declared April Confederate History Month without condemning—or even acknowledging—the institution of slavery, until an immediate national outcry led him to...




					www.theusconstitution.org
				




Do you realize the side you are arguing for?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 28, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Well, for that use in _Cruikshank_ we know *exactly *what it means.
> 
> It meant Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, were armed in public for self defense against roving White mobs who were intent on overthrowing an election where Black candidates won offices.  The White League disarmed, kidnapped and lynched Nelson and Tillman and terrorized and murdered at least 80 other Black citizens.
> 
> ...



The Cruikshank case dealt with one thing. Whether the Second Amendment applied to the states or not.

That's it.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 28, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> "Bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty". It's quite clear from the founding fathers that this is the case.
> 
> _"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_



Do you realize this works against your position?  It's right there, you quoted it.

The framers rejected this conscientious objector language for two reasons.  First is the one you quote, because it could be used to empower government to make a blanket statement, declare all people religiously scrupulous and remove the right to arms of all, even those who were not claiming this dispensation.  

The framers did not want _*any*_ language in a provision securing a right that could be later misconstructed into a power to restrict the right, and that included including language that pertained to militia eligibility and organization.  The 2nd Amendment does not speak in any manner to militia regulation, the authorization for establishing militia regulation and command is entirely contained in the body of the Constitution; Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16 (Congress) and Art II, §2, cl. 1 (President) and nowhere else.

The 2ndA has never been inspected to inform or held to direct, maintain or protect any militia interests (rights or powers) whatsoever. There have been many cases decided by SCOTUS that have been focused on disputes and conflicts and issues of militia operations -- *and the 2nd Amendment was mentioned only once in 201 years*, in a dissent, and only to say the 2nd Amendment offered no guidance.

You are conjuring an action and effect for the 2nd Amendment that has never existed and has never been seen where it would actually mean and do something (deciding militia issues and disputes).  

Your theory was invented for one purpose, as an alternate collectivist theory to the individual right model of the 2nd Amendment, and *that* is the only place it is brought out and waved around . . .  It's like a clove of garlic pulled from one's coat to repel a vampire; as soon as the monster is gone, you quickly put it away, lest its horrible stench offend.



frigidweirdo said:


> What dude? The dude you quotes, Woods, by the looks of things.



Jesus H. Christ riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn, its a Supreme Court opinion, not an "article" written by "some dude" . . .



frigidweirdo said:


> I'm confused about what you mean. What "copy and paste"? I've gone back through the thread and I don't see any "copy and paste" of mine.



I mixed you up with kilroy, he posted big blocks from the cases.  Sorry.




frigidweirdo said:


> In the Presser case, the Supreme Court said that states can limit people from carrying guns.



_Presser_ was only concerned with private citizens acing as paramilitary organizations and their claim that the 2nd Amendment protected that action.  Presser said nothing about the general possession and carriage of arms as individuals for lawful personal reasons like self-defense.



frigidweirdo said:


> _"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."_
> 
> Drilling or associating together as "military organizations" is not protected by the Second Amendment.



Correct.  Because of _Presser_, I'm one of the few gun rights supporters who argue there is no right for private citizens to organize themselves as militia.  Not that they _can't _do it, just that there is no immunity to be claimed from laws forbidding the practice, if a state chooses to enforce them.



frigidweirdo said:


> Walking around with a gun for your own business is NOT keeping and bearing arms.



SCOTUS wasn't making any determinations in law as to the federally recognized and enforced "right to keep and bear arms" other than the right was not infringed by the Illinois state law barring armed musters / marches by private citizens.  

You can't argue that _Presser_ held, "walking around with a gun for your own business is NOT keeping and bearing arms."  In 1886, the Court had no interest in the 2nd Amendment's interplay with state laws restricting citizen possession and carry of arms for personal purposes.  It just wasn't any part of the Court's determinations.  In many states, under the laws of the state made in pursuance to their state constitution and the right to arms in their state constitution, they certainly was a right to walk around with a gun for your own business.

In states like New York and Maryland and California and New Jersey, states that have no right to arms provision in ther state constitutions, their legislatures just did what they wanted and in some instances, banned guns and carrying them for personal purposes, even self defense.

.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 28, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Do you realize this works against your position?  It's right there, you quoted it.
> 
> The framers rejected this conscientious objector language for two reasons.  First is the one you quote, because it could be used to empower government to make a blanket statement, declare all people religiously scrupulous and remove the right to arms of all, even those who were not claiming this dispensation.
> 
> ...



It doesn't go against my position. The issue here is that you haven't yet delved deeply enough into all of this to find that out yet.

So, we'll go a bit deeper.

What is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Well, the first half of the amendment makes this clear, and the Founding Fathers also made it clear. There's no mention of self defense or of hunting. They were concerned with protecting the Militia as stated in the Constitution (as opposed to random militias).

The question here is how do you protect the militia from the Federal government?

1) You prevent the federal government stopping people being in the militia. Pretty obvious, if a militia has no personnel, it's not a militia.

2) You protect the source of arms to the militia. No guns, no militia.

Right there you have 1) the right to bear arms and 2) the right to keep arms. Two different rights designed to protect the militia.

We know this to be the case. We can see this in Supreme Court decisions, we can see this in laws made, we can see this in debates by the Founding Fathers, we can see this in state RKBA clauses of the time. Everywhere.

For example, the Dick Act of 1902/1903. They made the "unorganized militia". Why? Why would you make a militia that is POINTLESS?

Well, it wasn't pointless. It was designed to get around the right to bear arms. If everyone had the right to be in the militia and you made the National Guard and people were like "I want to be in the militia, you have to let me in" then the National Guard wouldn't be so professional, would it?

So they made the professional militia and then they made an unprofessional militia so if you did turn around and say "I want to be in the militia", they could say "you're in the 'unorganized militia', deal with it."

If we take the Heller case. They said:

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Okay, the important part here is that the 2A is unconnected with service in the militia. If you had to be in the militia to be in the militia, then it would be pointless, wouldn't it? They could prevent you from being in the militia easily. The same with the right to keep arms. If you had to be in the militia to keep arms, then they'd just stop everyone being in the militia and ban guns.

To protect the militia, you need to have that disconnection. So they can't call you up into the militia and take your arms, so they can't ban you being in the militia. You have that right to be in the militia, or be the source of militia weaponry no matter what.

"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

It's individual. Yes, it has to be individual. How can a collective get a right?

"The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms."

Again, individual.

"None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), nor _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), refutes the individual-rights interpretation. _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Again, individual.

They only speak of it being individual rather than collective for the most part. Mostly because DC claimed it was collective. Nothing in Heller disputes what I've said.

"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."

So, there isn't an unlimited right to keep a weapon. They use the term "carry" here. Not "bear".

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

They talk about self defense IN THE HOME. Not carrying weapons outside for self defense. People have a right to own a gun. Therefore in their own home they can do whatever they want with it, within the law. Congress cannot make a law that stops them using their gun INSIDE.

But get outside and the 2A does NOT protect them unless it involves buying and selling.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 29, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Do you realize this works against your position?  It's right there, you quoted it.
> 
> The framers rejected this conscientious objector language for two reasons.  First is the one you quote, because it could be used to empower government to make a blanket statement, declare all people religiously scrupulous and remove the right to arms of all, even those who were not claiming this dispensation.
> 
> ...



Do you think they hurt their brains as they go through the mental gymnastics to come up with their silly anti- second amendment arguments?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 29, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Not "my" interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kilroy and frigid remind me of the gymnastics Justice Breyer used in his dissent in the Lopez case……trying to ban guns within 100 yards of a school…….he tried to say the interstate commerce clause allowed the ban….how?  If guns were allowed within 100 yards of a school, kids would be afraid, if they were afraid at school they wouldn’t learn well……so then, they wouldn’t be able to get good jobs, and therefore it would effect interstate commerce…..

That level of insanity is what we are fighting against…..


----------



## westwall (Oct 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Do you think they hurt their brains as they go through the mental gymnastics to come up with their silly anti- second amendment arguments?




You are assuming they have brains.

I see little evidence to support that claim.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 29, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> It doesn't go against my position. The issue here is that you haven't yet delved deeply enough into all of this to find that out yet.
> 
> So, we'll go a bit deeper.
> 
> ...



The almighty Ginsburg herself stated that “Bear” meant to wear or carry on the person or in a coat……..any sane human being understands this……..and she was hardly sane….


----------



## Abatis (Oct 30, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> It doesn't go against my position. The issue here is that you haven't yet delved deeply enough into all of this to find that out yet.
> 
> So, we'll go a bit deeper.



I tailor my arguments to the person I am debating.  The deeper end of the pool is not a place that I get to swim in that often, not because I can't swim there, but because most anti-gunners can't keep from drowning in knee-deep water.

I thank you for this post, I enjoyed reading it; I like when quotes from original sources are presented and then directed, "this is what I think this means and why I think my position is supported by it" analysis is given.   It is what I try to do, what I like to see. 

It's not like anything we say here is really determinative, all we are doing is presenting our most persuasive interpretation and opinion about words, facts and especially statements by SCOTUS and other sources that *we both are working from*.  This debate is about those interpretations.  Thank you again and I appreciate the time you spent writing it.

In my reply I'm going to break down your post and post multiple replies and I might combine similar points you made and address them together in one post, just to keep those ideas together.  I hope I don't come across as altering or misrepresenting them or your position, if you think I do, please make a note of it.



frigidweirdo said:


> What is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Well, the first half of the amendment makes this clear, and the Founding Fathers also made it clear. There's no mention of self defense or of hunting. They were concerned with protecting the Militia as stated in the Constitution (as opposed to random militias).



Correct.  The 2nd Amendment has a purpose, a singular intent, and that was to perpetuate the general militia principle.  _US v Miller_ speaks to this directly, telling us the "obvious purpose" of the "declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment" was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of militia forces. The 2nd Amendment did that by rendering immune from federal government infringement, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the means by which the people can fulfill their duty if called.

You are correct too that there is no mention of particular recreational or personal uses of arms in the 2ndA.  That's because there was never any question that the right to possess and use arms to hunt and defend oneself, along with a myriad of other lawful uses, was considered a birthright of every citizen.  That right was possessed by the citizen without any recognition or permission from government. The right wasn't given or granted and was not a product of the benevolence of the magistrate.

As an aside, there's no _nota bene_ for types or topics of speech or writing that are protected under the 1st Amendment.  There is no a mention of adventure novels or texts on the sciences but nobody would argue the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the right to converse or write or publish upon those topics.  

The aspects of those activities that people demanded be secure and protected from government in the 1st and 2nd Amendment, were the political aspects.  By protecting the means and actions that could question or even oppose the political power structure meant that political structure was powerless to injure the right to read romance novels or hunt or justifiably defend yourself. 

Holding government impotent to impact undefined speech, press and arms, of course automatically protects ancillary, unrelated and nonpolitical means and actions; a federal government held powerless can't claim a power to restrict citizens in any of those affairs.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 30, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The question here is how do you protect the militia from the Federal government?
> 
> 1) You prevent the federal government stopping people being in the militia. Pretty obvious, if a militia has no personnel, it's not a militia.



But there were restrictions on who could serve, it wasn't universally open for all, and there certainly wasn't a "right to serve in the militia".  First, only the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" could enroll.

Then there were the elected officials, judges, custom house officers, post officers and stage-drivers employed delivery of mail, Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; inspectors of exports; pilots and mariners employed in the sea service and all persons who are exempted by the laws of the respective states, who were all exempted from militia duty.




frigidweirdo said:


> the Dick Act of 1902/1903. They made the "unorganized militia". Why? Why would you make a militia that is POINTLESS?
> 
> Well, it wasn't pointless. It was designed to get around the right to bear arms. If everyone had the right to be in the militia and you made the National Guard and people were like "I want to be in the militia, you have to let me in" then the National Guard wouldn't be so professional, would it?
> 
> So they made the professional militia and then they made an unprofessional militia so if you did turn around and say "I want to be in the militia", they could say "you're in the 'unorganized militia', deal with it."



The "unorganized militia" wasn't created in 1903; it existed before the Constitution.  If your read *Federalist 29* (which was explaining what the powers _would_ be over the _organized_ militia if the Constitution was ratified) and it speaks of '_the militia_' as an entity already in existence.

In Presser the Court states unequivocally:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states,. . . "​
It is those citizens merely* capable of bearing arms* that constitute the reserve / unorganized militia and it is those citizens that possess the right to keep and bear arms simply because they might be called upon to defend the nation or their state.  

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 30, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> If we take the Heller case. They said:
> 
> "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
> 
> Okay, the important part here is that the 2A is unconnected with service in the militia.



That quote from the syllabus is relating the part of the decision that abrogates *U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942)* and *Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)*, two incestuous sister cases that dismissed and ignored SCOTUS in _Miller_ and created the "state's right" (_Tot_) and "militia right" (_Cases_) interpretations in the federal courts.  Invalidating those Circuit decisions also made infirm the dozens of lower and state court decisions citing those 1942 "collective right" holdings that upheld /sustained hundreds of gun laws.

For 66 years in the lower federal and state courts, the 2nd Amendment was *not* an individual right, it was a right to states to organize their militias without federal interference and/or a right of _some_ people, to keep and bear arms only when active in the organized militia.  

66 fucking years . . .

That's why _Heller_ reads like it does.




frigidweirdo said:


> If you had to be in the militia to be in the militia, then it would be pointless, wouldn't it? They could prevent you from being in the militia easily. The same with the right to keep arms. If you had to be in the militia to keep arms, then they'd just stop everyone being in the militia and ban guns.
> 
> To protect the militia, you need to have that disconnection. So they can't call you up into the militia and take your arms, so they can't ban you being in the militia. You have that right to be in the militia, or be the source of militia weaponry no matter what.



That construction, that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been noted before and was argued more effectively than I could do.  Here is Thomas Cooley, a 19th Century constitutional commentator cited approvingly by SCOTUS on many issues including the 2nd Amendment in _Miller_.  He said about the 2ndA in his treatise, _The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America_, 282-83 (Boston, Little, Brown 2d ed. 1891):

"The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."​​.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 30, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
> 
> It's individual. Yes, it has to be individual. How can a collective get a right?



Yes, but again, the "collective right" interpretation was what the lower court case law directed for 66 years (1942-2008).



frigidweirdo said:


> "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."
> 
> So, there isn't an unlimited right to keep a weapon.



No party or amicus in _Heller_ was arguing for an unlimited, absolute right to keep and bear any weapon any where; I don't think it remarkable the Court did not hold such a right exists.



frigidweirdo said:


> They use the term "carry" here. Not "bear".



The terms "bear" and "carry" are synonymous.  They have to be, that is an unavoidable determination because whatever military / militia activity connotation "bear arms" _might _be construed to mean, that connotation can't be applied as a condtioning or restraint on the right secured by the 2nd Amendment . . . Because "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

Sure it's a circular argument when you look at it this narrow, but it is the legal reality.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 30, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> They talk about self defense IN THE HOME. Not carrying weapons outside for self defense. People have a right to own a gun. Therefore in their own home they can do whatever they want with it, within the law. Congress cannot make a law that stops them using their gun INSIDE.
> 
> But get outside and the 2A does NOT protect them unless it involves buying and selling.



This argument is a shiny trinket that only catches the attention of anti-gunners on message boards.

Heller's "in the home" wasn't establishing or even acknowledging a limitation of the RKBA ending at one's door frame; it was acknowledging the focus of the DC law's _*specific words*_ and action that was being challenged, (and invalidated).  SCOTUS was respecting its duty to keep its decisions narrow, to just the issues and arguments before them . . .  _Heller_ says:


"We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession *in the home*. It also requires that any lawful firearm* in the home* be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. . . .​​In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession *in the home* violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm *in the home* operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it *in the home*."​

To read that specific, direct response to the challenged DC's law's particular wording and action, as a Court "established" restraint on the RKBA *across the nation*, is the most ridiculous exercise in anti-gunner over-reading. The Court isn't endorsing the idea, the Court is rejecting it and declaring it a violation of the 2nd Amendment . . .

We can agree that it is obvious the DC statutes that set the restrictions and "good cause" qualifications for citizens to carry a gun _outside_ the home were not being challenged or reviewed by _Heller_.

DC's "good cause" qualifications for citizens to carry a gun _outside_ the home have been challenged in recent years and it is interesting that the DC lawyers did not argue that the Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment only protects gun possession and use "in the home".

In 2017 the DC Circuit applying _Heller_ invalidated DC's restrictive "good cause" requirements and ordered DC to issue to any person not disqualified to keep and bear arms, a license to carry a gun for self defense _outside_ the home, *WRENN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 864 F.3d 650 (2017)*.  Did the DC Circuit ignore / disobey SCOTUS? 

No . . .

Even in the NY case before SCOTUS now, the New York lawyers, on page 9 in their reply brief filed on Feb. 22nd, in discussing four federal Circuit decisions UPHOLDING various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses, concede that those courts all 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%20in%20Opposition.pdf
		
​
 This imagined _Heller_ established "in the home" restriction has never been recognized let alone enforced.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 30, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I tailor my arguments to the person I am debating.  The deeper end of the pool is not a place that I get to swim in that often, not because I can't swim there, but because most anti-gunners can't keep from drowning in knee-deep water.
> 
> I thank you for this post, I enjoyed reading it; I like when quotes from original sources are presented and then directed, "this is what I think this means and why I think my position is supported by it" analysis is given.   It is what I try to do, what I like to see.
> 
> ...



Well, I'm glad you're taking that approach to it. Too many people struggle to discuss politics in a sensible manner. So hopefully we can continue and enjoy using our brains. Really that's why I come on here, is to use my brain. I know I'm not going to convince 99% of people, because they don't want that, and I'm okay with it. As long as I get what I want out of this. 

I don't think hunting or self defense were not included in the 2A because they were obvious. They weren't included because they didn't serve a political purpose.

Free speech is protected to make politics more open, unlike England at the time.
Religion was protected, because governments used religion as a tool. 
Protecting the militia was important because A) the US couldn't afford a standing army and B) they worried the government would do what the English would do and keep people down with a standing army.
And on and on. They were all political.

Any right, or no right, of hunting wasn't needed in the Constitution. At the time I suppose they would never imagine people banning hunting. Self defense is probably included in the Constitution elsewhere, rather than the Second Amendment. 

Self defense in itself is not a government issue. This is between two people. Unless you're defending yourself against government employees, in which case you most definitely aren't protected. If a police officer, or member of the armed forces tells you to do something in an official capacity, then you do it or get arrested if you resist. 

With the First Amendment, everything is protected, with those exceptions like Libel, Treason etc etc, because if you limit the right beyond things that harm others or the country, then where does it stop? We see the debates in Congress over the "religious scruples" argument and we see that they worried one little crack would turn into a massive hole. 

With guns, this would mean that it doesn't just apply to 18th century weaponry. However there's plenty of weaponry that can be limited. Like nukes. SAMs etc.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I tailor my arguments to the person I am debating.  The deeper end of the pool is not a place that I get to swim in that often, not because I can't swim there, but because most anti-gunners can't keep from drowning in knee-deep water.
> 
> I thank you for this post, I enjoyed reading it; I like when quotes from original sources are presented and then directed, "this is what I think this means and why I think my position is supported by it" analysis is given.   It is what I try to do, what I like to see.
> 
> ...



Again….another excellent set of posts……..thank you.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 30, 2021)

Abatis said:


> But there were restrictions on who could serve, it wasn't universally open for all, and there certainly wasn't a "right to serve in the militia".  First, only the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" could enroll.
> 
> Then there were the elected officials, judges, custom house officers, post officers and stage-drivers employed delivery of mail, Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; inspectors of exports; pilots and mariners employed in the sea service and all persons who are exempted by the laws of the respective states, who were all exempted from militia duty.
> 
> ...


Well, in the case of women, it wasn't expected of them, and it wasn't expected they'd even want to. Those were the times when "all men are created equal" and they have SLAVERY. Things were like that in those days.

The reality was there was an expectation that people served, rather than people demanding to serve. That the Founding Fathers used "militia duty" and "render military service" leaves no one in doubt that people were expected to serve. But, the Founders foresaw a situation where the feds would not want people to serve. So they protected it, even if it wasn't needed for hundreds of years.

Being exempt from service didn't mean you couldn't join up. Also you have the right to keep arms, where a person who didn't want to fight could give their weapon to someone who would.

No, you're wrong about the "unorganized militia".

Firstly because the term "unorganized militia" came from the Dick Act, whatever came before that wasn't the "unorganized militia"

Secondly because what came before was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. There was a militia with state authority, with state chosen officers which could be called up into the service of the federal government. This is "the militia". 

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

Not "a Militia", it's capitalized and it has the word "the". The means "One of one" or "two of two" or "three of three". But as "Militia" is singular, it's "one of one".

There's one "Militia" and this is "the Militia" which can be called up into federal service.

This is a militia separated into many parts, each state having its own part of this. But this is the militia of the United States.

As seen in Supreme Court cases, we have parading and drilling is not protected. Why? Because it's not "the Militia".

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

And then they talk about it:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States,"

"the reserved military force", there being one. All citizens "capable of bearing arms", being men. But looking at the "religiously scrupulous" clause that didn't make it, they clearly didn't want to FORCE people to be in the militia. They EXPECTED them to want to be in it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 30, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Yes, but again, the "collective right" interpretation was what the lower court case law directed for 66 years (1942-2008).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) I don't think we need to go into the "collective right" issue. Neither of us, I assume, thinks it has any validity at all, so it's not really worth looking into. Mostly just embarrassing, like the Heller case (DC side).

Yes, "bear" and "carry" CAN BE synonymous. Not "are", but "can be". Big difference.

My favorite example is the word "stool". "stool" and "wooden three legged place to sit" are synonymous. So we say they are the same, so they HAVE TO BE the same.

Therefore "The doctor asked for a stool sample" and the man cuts off a bit of wood from his stool. Doesn't work.

The reality is that there are many meanings for "bear"





__





						The American Heritage Dictionary entry: bear
					

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: bear




					www.ahdictionary.com
				




Five transitive and four intransitive.

One of which is "bear children". This doesn't mean to carry the child. It means to "give birth to", which is totally different to carry

Number one in this dictionary is "carry".

But then in Heller they said:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry.""

"When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."

The issue here is that "bear arms" does NOT mean to give birth to arms, it does not mean to conduct arms in a specific way, it does not mean to yield fruit arms.

It means "render military service", it means "militia duty", ESPECIALLY when considering the Second Amendment. This is how it was used in these times.

Here's George Washington using it in 1783. 
"SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783​George Washington"

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Even looking at "bear arms" in state constitutions, we don't see anything individual until Mississippi in 1817.

That's a long time after the Bill of Rights. There's little not no evidence of "bear arms" being "carry arms" and NONE when considering the Second Amendment.

The best Heller could do to appease the gun crowd was:

"We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

It no way connotes participation in a structured military organization is the best they could do. When in reality "bear arms" doesn't have to be "bear arms" in the militia. It could be "bear arms" in an informal militia. COULD BE. It isn't in the Second Amendment, the Amendment is clear on it being "the Militia" as set out in Article one, Section eight, BUT it COULD have been used to mean something else if it were written somewhere else. 
​


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 30, 2021)

Abatis said:


> This argument is a shiny trinket that only catches the attention of anti-gunners on message boards.
> 
> Heller's "in the home" wasn't establishing or even acknowledging a limitation of the RKBA ending at one's door frame; it was acknowledging the focus of the DC law's _*specific words*_ and action that was being challenged, (and invalidated).  SCOTUS was respecting its duty to keep its decisions narrow, to just the issues and arguments before them . . .  _Heller_ says:
> 
> ...



Well, the Supreme Court is talking about this for a reason.

They did say, in their main decision:

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

Not "self-defense" but "self-defense within the home". Why? 

Why not say the Amendment protects the right to self defense with a gun if that's what they want to put in place? 

Perhaps it's because they're limited in scope, based on the DC law and they want to overturn the DC law. Perhaps it's because the realize the 2A doesn't protect a right to carry. The whole case is one of trying to make pro-gun people think one thing, while all the time not actually saying it.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 30, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Not "my" interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You say it is restrictive but there is nothing restrictive  in the statement if you interpret it correctly that it means that the government can raise an army.  A new nation needs to raise an army because they are breaking away  from English rule. So to join this army it might help if you had a weapon.  Of course something like that is not needed today as the government will supply it military members with weapons. They do not  need to bring one when they join. 

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.

Please specifically tell us what is restrictive. The only thing you can say is that the government cannot stop the people from bearing arms. Yet the government can prevent people from bearing arms for various reason such as mental state, criminal background , etc.

even if the supreme court says that it is restrictive you fail to state that court opinions can go both ways and the one that win is based on numbers or the majority.  5-4 wins. 


mumble jumble about dependent clauses

You ignore the two commas in the sentence and their meaning. 

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

  The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 They just combined the two points into one sentence. They work together and not separately as they are being used in used in *one* sentence. 

Clearly the main thought is about the militia and the need to raise one.  Realizing that when they join they may need to bring their weapons as the government does not have any at that point in time. Thus when it is over the militia members would go home if they survived the war. 

The rest is easily transference when you talk about what democrats are misunderstanding something when it is republicans that are doing it. 

Republican's just want to focus on fear.  The government can't restrict based on  "the right to bear arms" and interpret it as meaning the right to protect their home when in fact it just that they want to shoot guns whether it's hunting , target practice, or letting others touch it.  Nothing wrong with that but gun violence is a problem that needs to be address.  

* Responsible gun owners is okay. Democrats or Republicans own guns. *

The problem is when guns end up in the hands of those who will deprive citizens of their life for various malicious reasons. 

Whose pursuit of happiness is more important? If a person does not want to bear arms then that is a right that they can choose. IT does not mean that they can be subject to random people shooting at the crowd because the shooter has problems. 

 Gun laws are not about whether responsible citizens can own guns and rifles.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 30, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> 1) I don't think we need to go into the "collective right" issue. Neither of us, I assume, thinks it has any validity at all, so it's not really worth looking into. Mostly just embarrassing, like the Heller case (DC side).
> 
> Yes, "bear" and "carry" CAN BE synonymous. Not "are", but "can be". Big difference.
> 
> ...



It i do”


Kilroy2 said:


> You say it is restrictive but there is nothing restrictive  in the statement if you interpret it correctly that it means that the government can raise an army.  A new nation needs to raise an army because they are breaking away  from English rule. So to join this army it might help if you had a weapon.  Of course something like that is not needed today as the government will supply it military members with weapons. They do not  need to bring one when they join.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



*A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.*
*
  The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
*
* They just combined the two points into one sentence. They work together and not separately as they are being used in used in one sentence.*

Wow……what a bunch of crap…….

They fought over every phrase and word, nothing was done without purpose………

They are not “working together.”

The Right to keep and bear arms is an individual Right …..and you guys can play word smash up all you want to lie and distort the truth, but we aren’t buying it.   Sell it to Biden voters….

You don’t address gun violence by taking guns away from people who don’t use them for crime……you lock up the actual criminals.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> It i do”
> 
> 
> *A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.*
> ...




yet who is taking guns away from people and who are these people that had their guns taken away. 

They are working together as it is one sentence. Otherwise they would have just said 

2nd Amendment
*  The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

then they could have used another amendment to raise an army.  There are plenty of numbers and paper to do that. *

 crystal clear meaning no need to interpret


----------



## Abatis (Oct 31, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> I don't think hunting or self defense were not included in the 2A because they were obvious. They weren't included because they didn't serve a political purpose.
> 
> Any right, or no right, of hunting wasn't needed in the Constitution. At the time I suppose they would never imagine people banning hunting.



We agree on this and even if some government interest could have been be argued in 1787-89, it was not a federal issue, thus the right needed no recognition, nor any duty of protection from the _federal_ government. . . . Well, until the Civil War, Reconstruction and the states enacting  the Black Codes, making the ratification of the 14th Amendment necessary.



frigidweirdo said:


> Self defense is probably included in the Constitution elsewhere, rather than the Second Amendment.
> 
> Self defense in itself is not a government issue. This is between two people.



Self defense could result in injury or homicide thus it implicates the criminal justice system, justiciability and the acknowledgement in law for justifiable homicide or harming another person out of self-preservation.  But again, those are not federal issues or actions of the federal government so no recognition or protection is needed as a federal right.



frigidweirdo said:


> With the First Amendment, everything is protected, with those exceptions like Libel, Treason etc etc, because if you limit the right beyond things that harm others or the country, then where does it stop?



Agree.  And that libel and slander and even treason are specific crimes by individuals, that destroys using the "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" etc. example as a justification for enacting gun control.  Guns and gun use is limited in *exactly* the same fashion as speech; you can't brandish a gun or threaten with it, shoot at, actually shoot or kill someone without legal justification. The "crowded theater" example is only a restriction on speech to cause panic and harm. It doesn't ban yelling if there is an actual fire and is done to save life.  

Laws assuming all gun use is bad and all people must be banned from owning one (especially banning public carry) is as absurd and offfensive as cutting the tongues out of everyone entering a theater.  Gun control is essentially, prior restraint.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 31, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> We see the debates in Congress over the "religious scruples" argument and we see that they worried one little crack would turn into a massive hole.
> 
> With guns, this would mean that it doesn't just apply to 18th century weaponry. However there's plenty of weaponry that can be limited. Like nukes. SAMs etc.



Correct, but I will say I don't assign the government's legal, constitutional ability to restrict citizens from possessing *weapons of open warfare* as a limitation on the rights secured by the 2nd Amendment.  

It is a foundational principle that all power emanates from the people. We the People established the federal government by surrendering powers via a contract and that structuring and specific enumeration limits the extent of the powers of the federal government.

The weapons of modern open indiscriminate war like rockets and missiles and fighter jets and NBC WMD's are legitimately under the sole control of the federal government because We the People have surrendered the control of those types of arms to government through the war powers.

In Article I, § 8: the Constitution states:

Congress shall have the power:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,. . .
12. To raise and support armies, . . .
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:​
The powers granted to the federal government preempt other entities acting in similar fashion, i.e., states or the people printing their own currency or raising and supporting their own army or entering into treaties with foreign nations . . . Laws restricting people from doing those things are not restrictions of any right because they are not claimable as rights. We the People relinquished all those powers in Article I, § 8, for as long as the Constitution is in force. 


*The interests we have conferred (surrendered) to government we can not claim as a right.
Those interests that we have not surrendered but fully retained, the government cannot claim as a power.*


Interestingly, this principle of the restriction on owning weapons of open warfare is actually applied to private citizens in the Constitution in clause 11 and remains true and is applicable today.

The most devastating weapon of the time (Man o' War's) were owned by private citizens (Privateer's) and after the War, through the Constitution, power / control over those weapons was granted to Congress. Private citizens could not maintain or sail a warship without the permission of Congress (receiving a letter of marque and reprisal).

The same principle allowing government to place restrictions on citizens owning / using those weapons of open warfare in 1789, is applied to restrictions over citizens owning weapons of modern open / indiscriminate warfare today.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 31, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The reality was there was an expectation that people served, rather than people demanding to serve. That the Founding Fathers used "militia duty" and "render military service" leaves no one in doubt that people were expected to serve.



One look at the Militia Act of 1792 should remove any doubt that that _for those liable by law to serve_, it was a compelled duty to serve, with penalties for refusal.  That duty also included providing yourself with an appropriate firearm (militarily useful, not a fowling piece) and some measure of ammo and some supplies in a knapsack to sustain yourself for a short time in the field.

Another thing that is brutally obvious is nothing an enrolled militia member does is an exercise of a right, nor does he require or need any immunity from government power to fulfill his duty -- he is entirely under the control of law. He is armed according to the law set-out by Congress which is preemptive of any state law possibly interfering.

No aspect of militia duty / service is ever associated with any "right"; there was/is no free will or discretionary aspect of militia duty.



frigidweirdo said:


> But, the Founders foresaw a situation where the feds would not want people to serve. So they protected it, even if it wasn't needed for hundreds of years.



But it wasn't protected.  The feds allowed the states to ignore and neglect their militias and the militia structure became debilitated and useless, hence the Dick Act.



frigidweirdo said:


> Being exempt from service didn't mean you couldn't join up. Also you have the right to keep arms, where a person who didn't want to fight could give their weapon to someone who would.



Or you could be paid by someone that's obligated to serve, to serve in their stead. 



frigidweirdo said:


> No, you're wrong about the "unorganized militia".
> 
> Firstly because the term "unorganized militia" came from the Dick Act, whatever came before that wasn't the "unorganized militia"



Well the militia that existed before the Constitution sure wasn't organized by the national government, it was just, '_the militia_', which was every able bodied male capable of bearing arms and working in concert, 25% give or take of the total population -- some of which were organized under nonuniform, irregular state authority.

The militia did not need to be created, what needed to be created was a uniform, regular [national] scheme of command, training and control and setting out exactly how *--the part of the militia *_*obligated under law to serve--*_ would be regulated (organized). 

That endeavor never meant to bring _all_ the militia under government regulations but the proposed §8, cl's 15 & 16 powers, was the subject of major dispute. Granting such wide authority to the proposed federal government over any part of the militia, especially the parts under state authority, was seen as dangerous.

If you read Federalist 29, which is explaining the proposed powers over the militia, you can see the militia is an entity that was in existence. 

Actually, Federalist 29 argues that obligating the entire militia ("the whole nation") to undergo the training necessary to allow the accolade of "well regulated militia" to be awarded, would be "injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution".

Hamilton gives many reasons why such a demand, that the militia must attain the degree of perfection to be called, "well regulated militia", must be abandoned. 

He comes to the realization that, "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."




frigidweirdo said:


> Secondly because what came before was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. There was a militia with state authority, with state chosen officers which could be called up into the service of the federal government. This is "the militia".
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"
> 
> ...



Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 and the law written under those powers (Militia Act of 1792) does not operate on anyone not mentioned in the law.  This rule of interpretation is demanded by the statutory canon of
_expressio unius est exclusio alterius_ -- the express mention of one thing excludes all others. 

The Militia Act made only impressed militia regulations on enrolled, free white male citizens aged 18-45; anyone not included in those criteria are not covered by the law nor bound by militia regulations.  That would be "the people", all the rest of the citizens not duty-bound to enroll and serve, the people is however the entity mentioned in the 2nd Amendment as possessing the *right* to keep and bear arms. Again, enrolled militia members have no need for, or opportunity to claim "rights". Everything an enrolled militia member does with the one arm he chooses from his possessions to muster with, is under operation and demand of law -- without any "rights", exceptions or immunities to be claimed.

There are actually three militias if one only examines the law's impact and the levels of government's interest in the militia member. 

*First* is the "entire nation", the "whole people", all those capable of bearing arms and working in concert. They are immune from militia regulations, they have no militia impressment nor any expectation of any duty owed to the nation.

*Second* is the Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 militia, those specific citizens called out in the duly enacted law written under those clauses, and who are obligated to serve and provide themselves with a gun and accoutrements, with mustering and training under the direct control of the states. 

_*Third*_ is the *part* of the state militias called into service of the nation.  The entire complexion of the militia transforms once they become in the employ of the federal government.  When in actual service they fall under the UCMJ not civil law and are prosecuted federally for violations of their duty or crimes committed.  They no longer have the protections of the 5th Amendment, the military courts and their procedures are the controlling law. This specific moment, of when an enrolled militia member comes into federal service, is a vital determination in those cases heard by SCOTUS deciding disputes between the states and federal government, see _Houston v. Moore_, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), _Martin v. Mott_, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827). 

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 31, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> As seen in Supreme Court cases, we have parading and drilling is not protected. Why? Because it's not "the Militia".
> 
> "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."



Correct, private citizens, not enrolled in the militia have no militia duties impressed upon them but neither are they allowed to perform militia actions such as drilling or parading with arms.  The only procedure to call-up, assemble, organize, train and deploy citizens as militia, is set-out in Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16, and performed under the authority of Congress and the powers given to states by Congress.

The 2nd Amendment can not be pointed to to authorize or protect any militia interests or activity for anyone, state or the people. There are no "militia rights" to be found in the 2nd Amendment which is why it was/is never cited by states when SCOTUS decides militia disputes between the states and the federal government.



frigidweirdo said:


> "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States,"



That is the "first" militia I speak of above, the body of the people who are not bound by militia law but also, even though they possess the right to keep and bear arms, they do not have any authority to perform the activities of the organized militia.  Because the 2nd Amendment does not confer or authorize any organized militia activity,it cannot be claimed as an immunity from state laws forbidding paramilitary activity like, a group drilling or parading with arms.



frigidweirdo said:


> "the reserved military force", there being one. All citizens "capable of bearing arms", being men. But looking at the "religiously scrupulous" clause that didn't make it, they clearly didn't want to FORCE people to be in the militia. They EXPECTED them to want to be in it.


Except under law (*Militia Act of 1792*) there absolutely was a legal obligation to enroll, provide yourself with a gun that is appropriate for military use, and serve and muster when called, with legal exposure and fines for refusing.  Again, no aspect of any action of an enrolled militia member could be described as, or was _ever _understood to be the exercise of any "right" (an exception of government power).


"*Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, . . .​​That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."​​
*Only* "enrolled and notified" citizens had militia regulations impressed upon them and were obligated to serve.

.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 31, 2021)

Abatis said:


> We agree on this and even if some government interest could have been be argued in 1787-89, it was not a federal issue, thus the right needed no recognition, nor any duty of protection from the _federal_ government. . . . Well, until the Civil War, Reconstruction and the states enacting  the Black Codes, making the ratification of the 14th Amendment necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, for the most part self-defense and even homicide are state issues. 

For me there are two issues with guns in the US. One is what the current situation and my understanding of the Second Amendment. The other is what I feel would be better.

Guns in the US make things worse. The police are on edge in certain places, which results in more problems and more deaths, police deaths and deaths at the hands of the police. It's inevitable. Even cases like the Floyd George case are because the police's mentality is different in the US than in other first world countries with less guns.

The US murder rate is up to five times higher than other first world countries (well more than ten times for some countries). That's a problem. But..... there are other issues at play too. Like how politicians are there for the ride, rather than actually to represent people.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 31, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Correct, but I will say I don't assign the government's legal, constitutional ability to restrict citizens from possessing *weapons of open warfare* as a limitation on the rights secured by the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It is a foundational principle that all power emanates from the people. We the People established the federal government by surrendering powers via a contract and that structuring and specific enumeration limits the extent of the powers of the federal government.
> 
> ...



The definition of what can and what cannot be banned, in terms of arms, is not written in the Second Amendment. Limitations there are, all rights have them. So where is the line?

Literally the line is a line of power. People pushing and people pulling and that's where the line is. The line has been drawn at "assault weapons" right now, and that's where the fight is mostly. 

The founding principle that all power lies with the people, but really this hasn't been the case for a long, long time. The reality is that the people who want to control, use people on the left and the right to keep their own power.

They'll use issues like guns, abortion etc to keep people entertained while they get on with stuff that bores people who want to be entertained.

So I guess I disagree that the people have actively surrendered certain rights, or parts of rights. For me it's that the people are puppets on strings.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 31, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> You say it is restrictive but there is nothing restrictive  in the statement if you interpret it correctly



Get it through your thick skull, it isn't *my* term, it isn't *my* definition or *my* characterization of the action and effect of the 2nd Amendment.  It is the word used by the framers of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court explaining and enforcing the Constitution.

Go and find retrieve those statements and explanations, bring them here, you quote them and then you parse them and use your vast scholarship of the Constitution and its fundamental principles to explain the incorrectness of the framer's and Court's use of the word "restrictive"and "restriction".



Kilroy2 said:


> that it means that the government can raise an army.



JHFC-FJB No it doesn't.  Not unless you feel the framers all worked in the Department of Redundancy Department.

The powers of the federal government are set-out and contained in the *body* of the Constitution. 

The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything; it doesn't create anything or allow or let anything be done or mandate anything be established or maintained.

Not once, not ever, was the 2nd Amendment ever inspected to inform or held to direct or permit any aspect of establishing or maintaining or the operations of, the militia or the military.

If you were correct, the Supreme Court's "militia cases" would be our "2nd Amendment cases" because the Court would have examined and used the 2ndA to decide questions and disputes centered on the militia . . .   But no, those militia cases, those militia disputes were decided by examining the powers granted in Article I (Congress) and Article II (President) and _*NOTHING*_ else.  In those militia cases the 2nd Amendment was mentioned once, in 1820, in a dissent, but only to say the 2nd Amendment offered no illumination on militia powers.

Just stop with the idiocy, _please_.



Kilroy2 said:


> mumble jumble about dependent clauses



Yeah, who cares about those stupid framers and their affinity for Lockean political theory and individual, inherent rights and then their use of old Latin stuff like ablative absolutes or even how dependent and independent clauses work in English, when all that crap interferes with my politics, influenced by leftists who gained prominence in the early 20th Century.

.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 31, 2021)

Abatis said:


> One look at the Militia Act of 1792 should remove any doubt that that _for those liable by law to serve_, it was a compelled duty to serve, with penalties for refusal.  That duty also included providing yourself with an appropriate firearm (militarily useful, not a fowling piece) and some measure of ammo and some supplies in a knapsack to sustain yourself for a short time in the field.
> 
> Another thing that is brutally obvious is nothing an enrolled militia member does is an exercise of a right, nor does he require or need any immunity from government power to fulfill his duty -- he is entirely under the control of law. He is armed according to the law set-out by Congress which is preemptive of any state law possibly interfering.
> 
> ...



The Militia Act of 1792 was UNDER the Second Amendment. It was a law passed by Congress. 

The US needed a militia. So they made a militia and they put all able bodied males (more or less) between 18 and 45 in those militias. 

This was compelled because of the times. But the Founding Fathers knew this might not always be the case. Hence why the Act was just law, and not Constitutional law.

This is akin to compulsory military service in WW2 or VIetnam. 

The issue here is that the right to be in the militia was there for "just in case". If the Feds wanted to get rid of the militia. They never did, because they new they couldn't. Until the Dick Act when they got smart. But by then the situation had changed and people still had the right to keep arms. 

So, the reality is the RKBA did its job. It made it impossible to be rid of the militia. 

You're saying that because it was never needed (because it did its job) therefore it wasn't a thing. 

It's like saying that you drink milk, and it gives you strong bones. But you don't need to drink milk because you have strong bones. That doesn't make sense.

The problem for you is that the Founding Fathers literally said that the right to bear arms was "militia duty". 

The issue with ignoring and neglecting their militias is totally a different issue. This is article 1, section 8, not the Second Amendment. HOWEVER, the reality is that the militia is a last resort. The militia might be neglected, but it could be brought back with the arms people owned, and the people joining the militia at short notice. Why? Because they're both protected.

The Dick Act happened because the militia was poor. But this is 1789 we're talking about, when the militia was all they had. They couldn't foresee that the militia would be so poor in the future. You can say the future influenced the Founding Fathers in 1789 

The militias that existed before the Constitution were militias of SEPARATE COUNTRIES, more or less. Then the Constitution brought these together in Article one, section eight.

The militia didn't need to be created. But it needed to be organized for the modern world, to defend the USA. They did that.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 31, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Correct, private citizens, not enrolled in the militia have no militia duties impressed upon them but neither are they allowed to perform militia actions such as drilling or parading with arms.  The only procedure to call-up, assemble, organize, train and deploy citizens as militia, is set-out in Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16, and performed under the authority of Congress and the powers given to states by Congress.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment can not be pointed to to authorize or protect any militia interests or activity for anyone, state or the people. There are no "militia rights" to be found in the 2nd Amendment which is why it was/is never cited by states when SCOTUS decides militia disputes between the states and the federal government.
> 
> ...



It's not about people not in the militia not having militia duties. Of course they don't. 

You have the right to be in the militia. If you choose to be in the militia.

The thinking there is that when the militia is really necessary, people will join up. 

Why? Because they don't want random militias. Those random militias would be a threat to everyone. A threat to the very Constitution. You want to join up, you join up to the one that has state appointed officers and does things properly. 

If you stopped people from being in the militia, because they're not in the militia, then you don't have a militia.

Why are you talking about "militia rights"? I didn't say the militia had any rights. 



It's simple:

To protect the militia, you need to protect the two things a militia requires. The personnel and the arms.

So they did that. 

You have the right to free speech even if you do not speak.
You have the right to protest the government, even if you do not protest. 
You have the right to freedom of religion, even if you choose the government's preferred choice of religion. 
You have the right to be in the militia, even if you never join up the militia in your whole life. 

WOMEN have the right to be in the militia. It was never, ever expected of them to join up. But they had that right. Even if they didn't want to be in the militia. 

That the militia was not needed in the way the Founding Fathers envisaged is not the point. The point is that having these powers, having these individual rights to own weapons and be in the militia, has kept the US government at bay.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 31, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> For me there are two issues with guns in the US. One is what the current situation and my understanding of the Second Amendment. The other is what I feel would be better.



And that is fine but having a personal "understanding" of what the 2nd Amendment is and what it does, may not have any relationship to what is _really_ is and what it _really_ does.

Often I find that people's understanding has more to do with massaging and molding the 2nd Amendment to fit their politics, rather than having their politics and policies fitting within the Constitution.  For me, it is a useless endeavor to make grand proposals (or worse, demands) of what you want to see government do, without first determining what can be legally, constitutionally enacted and enforced.



frigidweirdo said:


> Guns in the US make things worse.



The unrestrained and uncontrolled illegal misuse of guns makes things worse.



frigidweirdo said:


> The police are on edge in certain places, which results in more problems and more deaths, police deaths and deaths at the hands of the police. It's inevitable. Even cases like the Floyd George case are because the police's mentality is different in the US than in other first world countries with less guns.



Well, that's a different discussion than gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.  There's no right to be a criminal, no right to misuse guns or even own them if you have a criminal history.    The government possesses wide uncontested authority to arrest and prosecute criminals and to segregate them from society.  The failures of government to employ those powers to insulate society from those who can not operate within its rules, is not a constitutional matter.



frigidweirdo said:


> The US murder rate is up to five times higher than other first world countries (well more than ten times for some countries). That's a problem. But..... there are other issues at play too. Like how politicians are there for the ride, rather than actually to represent people.



Most murder is perpetrated by people with with established criminal histories and are actively engaged in criminal enterprise.   In our homicide hubs, the percentage of homicide victims *and* perpetrators with significant criminal records is upwards of 80%, often higher.

Back in 2007, USAToday had a series of articles on how police were examining the backgrounds of victims and perpetrators to find ways of breaking the cycle of murders.  The articles are no longer on the main site but are archived.

One article, *Criminals target each other, trend shows**,* reported, again, in 2007:
​"In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.​​In many cases, says Frederick Bealefeld III, Baltimore's interim police commissioner, victims' rap sheets provide critical links to potential suspects in botched drug deals or violent territorial disputes.​​Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.​​In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.​​While it was common in the past for murder victims to have criminal records, the current levels are surprising even to analysts who study homicides.​​"Anecdotally, the detectives on the street knew" victims with prior police contact were being killed, "but we wanted people to start to look at this" in the community, O'Brien says.​​In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show.​​David Kennedy, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the rise in criminals killing criminals has escaped policymakers' attention.​​"The notion that these (murders) are random bolts of lightning, which is the commonly held image, is not the reality," says Kennedy, who has examined the backgrounds of murder suspects and victims in multiple U.S. cities. "It happens, but it doesn't happen often.""​​​
This trend has not been corrected, if anything it has worsened.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 31, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And that is fine but having a personal "understanding" of what the 2nd Amendment is and what it does, may not have any relationship to what is _really_ is and what it _really_ does.
> 
> Often I find that people's understanding has more to do with massaging and molding the 2nd Amendment to fit their politics, rather than having their politics and policies fitting within the Constitution.  For me, it is a useless endeavor to make grand proposals (or worse, demands) of what you want to see government do, without first determining what can be legally, constitutionally enacted and enforced.
> 
> ...




Yes...we do not have a "gun problem..."  we have a criminal problem...exacerbated by the policies of the democrat party, a party that attacks the police to the point they stop doing their jobs, and then the party continues to release known, violent offenders, over and over again....it is these individuals...not normal gun owners, who are doing almost all of the illegal shootings in this country.........

We do not have a gun problem here....we have a criminal problem created by the democrat party.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 31, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, in the case of women, it wasn't expected of them, and it wasn't expected they'd even want to. Those were the times when "all men are created equal" and they have SLAVERY. Things were like that in those days.
> 
> The reality was there was an expectation that people served, rather than people demanding to serve. That the Founding Fathers used "militia duty" and "render military service" leaves no one in doubt that people were expected to serve. But, the Founders foresaw a situation where the feds would not want people to serve. So they protected it, even if it wasn't needed for hundreds of years.
> 
> ...



An actual look at “bearing arms” and the history of the U.S…..the Amicus brief to the Supreme Court for the New York case…..

*During the colonial and founding period, no colony or state forbade carrying arms. Only a few addressed the issue. Massachusetts in 1692 outlawed going "Armed Offensively." Likewise, New Hampshire in 1699 ordered justices of the peace to arrest "affrayers, rioters, disturbers or breakers of the peace, or any other who shall go armed offensively." Being armed "offensively" is the opposite of peaceable defensive carry.*
*———
The Heller case cited five antebellum state supreme court cases concealed carry laws. Only one of them asserted that concealed carry was outside the right to bear arms. The main line of the cases indicate that concealed carry can be banned as long as open carry is allowed. Or vice versa. Because New York State prohibits open carry, the statutory system of concealed carry licensing may not be misused so as to prohibit the vast majority of law-abiding, trained adults from obtaining a carry permit.*









						Second Amendment professors brief in Supreme Court right to bear arms case
					

American and English historical precedents show a robust individual right




					reason.com


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 31, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And that is fine but having a personal "understanding" of what the 2nd Amendment is and what it does, may not have any relationship to what is _really_ is and what it _really_ does.
> 
> Often I find that people's understanding has more to do with massaging and molding the 2nd Amendment to fit their politics, rather than having their politics and policies fitting within the Constitution.  For me, it is a useless endeavor to make grand proposals (or worse, demands) of what you want to see government do, without first determining what can be legally, constitutionally enacted and enforced.
> 
> ...



Well, my understanding of the Second Amendment is very deep, based on decades of research and looking at everything.

Most other people's understanding is based on what they want to be true. I've had plenty of discussions with people who, once they'd seen all the facts, said "no, I prefer my uninformed view of the amendment, thanks"

Most murder is committed in certain places. Places that have been developed by the politicians to allow them to be "tough on crime".


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 31, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, my understanding of the Second Amendment is very deep, based on decades of research and looking at everything.
> 
> Most other people's understanding is based on what they want to be true. I've had plenty of discussions with people who, once they'd seen all the facts, said "no, I prefer my uninformed view of the amendment, thanks"
> 
> Most murder is committed in certain places. Places that have been developed by the politicians to allow them to be "tough on crime".




No...most places where murder is happening belong to the democrat party...who are as soft on crime as you can get...releasing known, violent criminals, over and over again...or not even bothering to charge them even when they are caught on video shooting at each other on a public street.

_*As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas. These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.*_
_*--------*_
*
A distinct pattern emerged: In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death.

In regions of the country won by Republicans, which tend to be rural areas and small towns, the opposite is true — people are more likely to shoot themselves to death than they are to be murdered with a gun.
----
In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...prising-way-gun-violence-is-dividing-america/


----------



## Abatis (Nov 1, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The definition of what can and what cannot be banned, in terms of arms, is not written in the Second Amendment. Limitations there are, all rights have them. So where is the line?


As it sits now, it is the "line" first established in _Miller_. and then clarified (watered down) by _Heller_.

_Miller_'s criteria is only based on the military usefulness of the type of arm.

If the type of arm meets any of _Miller_'s criteria then the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use, must be repelled or invalidated if already in force.

To be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be shown to be:

*A type of arm usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and/or a type of arm that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.*

If the arm fails ALL those tests, the government would be permitted to argue that type of arm is "dangerous and unusual" (shortened form of "dangerous to the peace of the citizenry and not usual in civilized warfare" -- _Aymette v State_).  If the arm is deemed "dangerous and unusual, the government could plead that it should be afforded a power to restrict the ability of private citizens, to possess and use of that type of arm.

_Heller_ noted that such a strict reading and application of_ Miller_ might mean the NFA-34 is facially unconstitutional; that's been an argument of gun rights supporters for 75+ years.

To avoid this, Scalia elevated _Miller_'s dicta about, "in common use at the time" to full status among the protection criteria in the majority's opinion of the Court.  What that effectively did was neuter any immediate challenges to the NFA-34 that would have followed _Heller_.

This new criteria essentially validated an argument that since machine-guns have been _*out*_ of "common use" for so long, they no longer had 2nd Amendment protection.  Notably, it also could be argued to preemptively remove from 2nd Amendment protection, any future, new, non-firearm types of arms yet to be developed / come to market . . .   Sonofabitch! I really wanted a '_phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range_' . . .



frigidweirdo said:


> The line has been drawn at "assault weapons" right now, and that's where the fight is mostly.



Adhering to _Miller_ and _Heller_ and _Ceatano_, the type of arms commonly called "assault weapons" enjoy the strongest level of 2nd Amendment protection.  They fit all prongs of the protection criteria and do it better than any other type of arm available to the private citizen.  Recall, _Heller_ only used "in common use" to invalidate DC's handgun statutes; the others remain at the ready to employ / deploy in a future case for other types of arms.



frigidweirdo said:


> The founding principle that all power lies with the people, but really this hasn't been the case for a long, long time. . . .
> 
> So I guess I disagree that the people have actively surrendered certain rights, or parts of rights. For me it's that the people are puppets on strings.



Well you will get no argument from me that the once "self-evident truths" have been scrubbed from the consciousness of modern, 'enlightened' Americans.

.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 1, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Militia Act of 1792 was UNDER the Second Amendment. It was a law passed by Congress.



The 2nd Amendment was not the source of authority for the Militia Act, the militia clauses of Article I, §8, were, and _only_ those clauses.


frigidweirdo said:


> The issue here is that the right to be in the militia was there for "just in case".



There is no "'_right_' to be in the militia".



frigidweirdo said:


> If the Feds wanted to get rid of the militia. They never did, because they new they couldn't.


Congress *did* "get rid" of state militias of some southern states during Reconstruction.  

The state militias were the enforcers of the Black Codes and they did it with horrible brutality, especially the laws barring Blacks from owning guns.  Problem was, the men who were "militiamen" one day, continued to do the same work after the militias were disbanded, just without the color of state authority.  

That unintended outcome expanded the reach and power of the KKK, Night Riders, White League and other racist groups.  Problem was, that they were just "private citizens" worked to evade the 14th Amendment's intent, see _Cruikshank_.



frigidweirdo said:


> Until the Dick Act when they got smart. But by then the situation had changed and people still had the right to keep arms.
> 
> So, the reality is the RKBA did its job. It made it impossible to be rid of the militia.


Well, we have *exactly* what the framers feared and warned us about.  The feds eliminated the state militias with the National Defense Acts (1903 & 1917? IIRC) and extinguished state militia powers, and inserted a national standing army in every state in the place of their militias.  

Of course that isn't an argument against the armed citizenry, (general militia); to respect and honor founding principles that condition demands the citizens and their arms remain unmolested.  



frigidweirdo said:


> You're saying that because it was never needed (because it did its job) therefore it wasn't a thing.



????



frigidweirdo said:


> The problem for you is that the Founding Fathers literally said that the right to bear arms was "militia duty".



Where's that at?



frigidweirdo said:


> The issue with ignoring and neglecting their militias is totally a different issue. This is article 1, section 8, not the Second Amendment.



Correct.  That the governments (state and federal) were derelict in their duties to maintain the structure of militia organization and training demanded by the Constitution, and subsequent federal enactments consistent with the Constitution (i.e., Militia Act of 179, has zero impact on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right to arms of the people is possessed and enjoyed by the people for a myriad of legal purposes and that right exists because of the complete silence in the body of the Constitution granting the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. 

When Congress eliminated the clause 15 & 16 militia and removed all militia obligation for any citizen, they also extinguished the narrow interest Congress had in an enrolled militia member's *one* firearm they were required to obtain and muster with.  

Currently, without a militia law on the books, there is zero express constitutional authorization or legitimacy for Congress to even contemplate a thought about the citizen and the arms he keeps.  

Federal gun control was always a Wizard of Oz deception . . .  It was never written under the §8 militia clauses; it was enacted under the power to tax (NFA-34) and the commerce clause.  

Of course gun laws were defended by claiming §8 power to regulate the militia, but that was a ruse, and an even more absurd lie was the claim that that gun control was authorized by the 2nd Amendment.

.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 1, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> It's not about people not in the militia not having militia duties. Of course they don't.



And _Presser_ says there is no right to act like militia, assembling as a military organization and drilling under arms. All those non-enrolled citizens possess is a right to keep and bear arms, which provides an ancillary benefit to the the federal and state governments, a ready pool of properly equipped citizens should the need arise to call them up in aid of the civil authorities.



frigidweirdo said:


> You have the right to be in the militia. If you choose to be in the militia.



Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong . . .

There is no right to be in the militia.  Only by a specific allowance in law, both federal and state, can militias be formed and only the particular citizens specified in the law, meeting certain criteria, are obligated to serve and can enroll.  There was no universal, open enrollment that allowed anyone to join.



frigidweirdo said:


> The thinking there is that when the militia is really necessary, people will join up.



If a *general* call-up was made by the civil authority --_*anyone* who is able, please come help!_-- that would be the hope. 

There have always been a number of civic-minded citizens who eagerly come to the mutual aid even without a call from authorities . . . That doesn't make them militia, even if they call themselves militia.



frigidweirdo said:


> Why? Because they don't want random militias. Those random militias would be a threat to everyone. A threat to the very Constitution. You want to join up, you join up to the one that has state appointed officers and does things properly.



If there is a law creating the organized milita, and you meet the criteria and are among those obligated to enroll, you are duty bound to join. 

For all other citizens, using the 1792 Militia Act as the guide (which was in force until 1903), there is no right to enroll; the citizens who were obligated (allowed) to enroll were a selective subset of the citizenry.



frigidweirdo said:


> Why are you talking about "militia rights"? I didn't say the militia had any rights.



Well, you keep saying, "You have the right to be in the militia" . . .   No such right exists; there are no "militia rights" for anyone or any entity or even any state, pointing to any clause of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment. 

The cases where disputes were settled between states and the feds, SCOTUS has held that the federal government enjoys near field preemption.  States (and certainly the people) retained no "militia rights".  See  _Houston v. Moore_, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), _Martin v. Mott_, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827), _Selective Draft Law Cases_, 245 U.S. 366 (1917) and _Perpich v. Dep't of Defense_, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).



frigidweirdo said:


> You have the right to be in the militia, even if you never join up the militia in your whole life.



Your examples really don't work because the structure of the organized militia needs government actions and effort and allowances in law for the organized militia to come into existence and operation. 

If I were to concede for a moment that a "right to be in the militia" exists, I would draw an analogy to the right to vote. 

You have a right to vote but only,
_*if*_ you are citizen recognized in law as a qualified voter,
*if *you are registered at your address and district / precinct, 
_*if *_you cast a valid ballot and most of all,
*if* there is an election structure to open polling locations, provide machines to cast ballots, tabulators to count them and then a government willing to abide by that process and the citizen's choices.

Without all that government action and effort regoniton in law and citizen qualification, your "right to vote" is the right to shove a piece of paper in a knot-hole in the big oak tree in the town square . . .   Same for a "right to be in the militia" . . .


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 1, 2021)

Abatis said:


> As it sits now, it is the "line" first established in _Miller_. and then clarified (watered down) by _Heller_.
> 
> _Miller_'s criteria is only based on the military usefulness of the type of arm.
> 
> ...


Well, however someone defines it, it will always be a political interpretation. The US government could declare that no guns in the hands of individuals is the best for the militia, seeing how it was proven to be pointless in wars 100 something years ago and the National Guard is now, effectively, the Militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 1, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The 2nd Amendment was not the source of authority for the Militia Act, the militia clauses of Article I, §8, were, and _only_ those clauses.
> 
> 
> There is no "'_right_' to be in the militia".
> ...



Yes, I know Article 1 Section 8 is the reason for the Militia Act. I was merely replying to what you wrote.

So if there's no "right to be in the militia" then why did Mr Gerry say "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Why did he use "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously? Why didn't he talk about carrying arms around because he felt like it?

But the feds didn't eliminate the militia. They merely created a more professional militia. The National Guard is the militia. The unorganized militia is the militia. 

The government doesn't have to keep up the militia. There's nothing that says they have to. The States were responsible for the upkeep of the militia UNTIL the militia was called into federal service.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 1, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And _Presser_ says there is no right to act like militia, assembling as a military organization and drilling under arms. All those non-enrolled citizens possess is a right to keep and bear arms, which provides an ancillary benefit to the the federal and state governments, a ready pool of properly equipped citizens should the need arise to call them up in aid of the civil authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look, if you have a gun, you are not the militia. You cannot claim to be the militia.

However a militia can appear out of nowhere. The State could say "We're now creating a militia". It's subject to the Constitution, it could be called up into federal service. Maybe it won't be.

There was a balance here. A balance between mobs doing what they wanted, and Federal power. This is a balance in the middle, state balance with people power. That's what the militia is. All males aged 18-45 are in the militia. Automatically. That doesn't mean they can go parading at will. They need to be instructed to do so by people in authority.

HOWEVER, if the shit hits the fan, they could rise up against a tyrannical government and make their own militia. That's part of the issue here.

You seem to think an individual having a right to be in the militia is the same as the militia having rights. I don't get it.

The subject is completely different in these sentences. The INDIVIDUAL has a right to join up the militia if he (or she) so chooses. The militia does not have a right to join the militia. How would a militia join up a militia? Makes no sense.

How do you stop the federal government destroying the militia by stopping individuals from being in the militia?

Why did the Founding Fathers get rid of the religiously scrupulous clause in the Second Amendment?

As Mr Gerry put it: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, how would they destroy the constitution by preventing people from walking around with guns? 

They wanted to stop the feds destroying the militia as they saw the militia as the ultimate check and balance on the federal government. 

Now, we KNOW they used "Militia duty" and "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms" in these debates. 

So, "and prevent them from militia duty" and "prevent them from rendering military service" are equal to what Mr Gerry said.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Nov 1, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Get it through your thick skull, it isn't *my* term, it isn't *my* definition or *my* characterization of the action and effect of the 2nd Amendment.  It is the word used by the framers of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court explaining and enforcing the Constitution.
> 
> Go and find retrieve those statements and explanations, bring them here, you quote them and then you parse them and use your vast scholarship of the Constitution and its fundamental principles to explain the incorrectness of the framer's and Court's use of the word "restrictive"and "restriction".
> 
> ...



IF only you provide some back up by quoting something other than the court said this and that. The court is a majority rule. If half the members disagree with the other half then their arguments are half ass. The only rules that determine anything is the 5/4 rule and the majority opinion is the opinion of the court.  Yet we know that previous supreme court opinions are overturn by the supreme court years later.  


 The constitution gives the government the right to raise armies. The amendments are part of the constitution and are there to fill the holes of the original document. It is nice to have the right to raise and army but if a new government does not have guns then they must depend on the citizens that choose to fight to have a way to fight. In the early days citizens had guns and the new government did not.  Thus they use the amendment to supplement raising an army. Raising an army with no weapons is not realistic.  So that why they added the 2nd amendment.  

I am sure you feel frustrated but my argument are sound because it considers what was happen over 200 years ago not what is happening today.   if you care to punch holes feel free but try to be specific. 

defeat the argument instead of talking about other things.


----------

