Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[justinacolmena]

No one has or wants recourse to the 2nd amendment.
The second amendment does not create or grant any rights or privileges.
The point of the 2nd amendment was to prohibit federal jurisdiction over weapons.

That is to prohibit state and local jurisdictions as well as federal from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; that is, to possess and carry firearms and other weapons.

The individual right to weapons and their need is much clearer from the Declaration of Independence, or the 4th and 5th amendments.

There is no denying that of course, but "the right of the people" as stated in the Second Amendment is in fact a universal human right, as any of those listed here.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

In other words, "everyone has the right" in the language used in that context, and it is an absolute right, that is, a right that shall not be infringed. Why do you want to hem and haw and beat around the bush on it? What about felons? Not when a cigarette butt or a candy wrapper is charged as a felony in a court of law these days. Prison records can't be used to deny a universal human right, either, not anymore than the concentration camp inmates' serial numbers tattooed on their forearms by Nazi soldiers during the Holocause.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Lol. Maybe its you.

I’m good with my interpretation

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.

Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority

Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

How do militias operate in working order or as expected?

by training as a group which doesn't mean regulated by the government

Ok great, so what would be an example of trained group and an untrained group in modern day terms? How are they trained?

My group is well-regulated hell we well regulated last weekend
Night land navigation and night fire, evasion

So you mean self regulated. Is that it?

no I mean well regulated

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Lol. Maybe its you.

I’m good with my interpretation

and your interpretation would be wrong
If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

 

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Lol. Maybe its you.

I’m good with my interpretation

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.

Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority

Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

How do militias operate in working order or as expected?

by training as a group which doesn't mean regulated by the government

Ok great, so what would be an example of trained group and an untrained group in modern day terms? How are they trained?

My group is well-regulated hell we well regulated last weekend
Night land navigation and night fire, evasion

So you mean self regulated. Is that it?

no I mean well regulated

Who determines if it’s well regulated or not?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Lol. Maybe its you.

I’m good with my interpretation

and your interpretation would be wrong
If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Generations of law makers and Supreme Court justices would disagree with you

 

[justinacolmena]

"States militia must be well regulated and maintained."

Obviously.

State Troopers and other armed local cops at the police union hall need to be well regulated and educated on actual laws in pursuance of the Constitution.

They need to be re-educated and taught that they cannot get away with infringing the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

 

[justinacolmena]

Generations of law makers and Supreme Court justices would disagree with you

Don't get your hopes up. They're all gun-grabbing elites.

 

[Slade3200]

Generations of law makers and Supreme Court justices would disagree with you

Don't get your hopes up. They're all gun-grabbing elites.

Haha, yeah totally

 

[Rigby5]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Lol. Maybe its you.

I’m good with my interpretation

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.

Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority

Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

How do militias operate in working order or as expected?

by training as a group which doesn't mean regulated by the government

Ok great, so what would be an example of trained group and an untrained group in modern day terms? How are they trained?

My group is well-regulated hell we well regulated last weekend
Night land navigation and night fire, evasion

So you mean self regulated. Is that it?

no I mean well regulated

The word "regulated" when used by the Founders means to be smoothly and regularly functioning, like a regulated clock, regulated interstate commerce, or regular bowel movements.
To keep something regular does not mean to restrict, but the exact opposite, to prevent restrictions.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This is a State's sovereign right:

No. We don't go for "States' rights" after the Union won the Civil War.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

The Chicago Outfit cannot revoke gun rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both guarantee that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the law, right wingers:

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 means must be sacrificed to the end, not the end to the means.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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

Appeal to gibberish.

We need fucking machine guns.

Enroll in the organized militia so you can have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Only the unorganized militia, Doth Protest Too Much, about gun control laws meant for them as Civilian Individuals of the People.

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

 

[danielpalos]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Rigby5]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

 

[danielpalos]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Rigby5]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The infrequent or rare need to call up and create an Organized Militia in no way implies there is not even greater need and right for an unorganized militia for state, municipal, and individual needs.

 

[danielpalos]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The infrequent or rare need to call up and create an Organized Militia in no way implies there is not even greater need and right for an unorganized militia for state, municipal, and individual needs.

Not at all. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

 

[Lesh]

This is a State's sovereign right:

No. We don't go for "States' rights" after the Union won the Civil War.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

The Chicago Outfit cannot revoke gun rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both guarantee that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the law, right wingers:

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 means must be sacrificed to the end, not the end to the means.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A WELL REGULATED MILIA BEING NECESSARY...

 

[Lesh]

This is the law, right wingers:

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 means must be sacrificed to the end, not the end to the means.

It's two separate statements.

Except it is not. It’s one friggin sentence

 

[Lesh]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

SCOTUS says no.

actually U.S. v Miller says otherwise

Miller actually ties the 2A to the militia... and upholds the regulation of machine guns

 

[BlindBoo]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The infrequent or rare need to call up and create an Organized Militia in no way implies there is not even greater need and right for an unorganized militia for state, municipal, and individual needs.

But still in reality, the organized militia today is the mostly states national guard and the unorganized militia is all citizens between 18 and 45 who are eligible for the draft.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.