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

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Wrong.
The courts do not get to make law.
When the courts are wrong, as they were before 1776, the Declaration of Independence says we have the inherent individual rights to abolish the current courts and start over.
The courts are NOT the top of the law, we are, with our inherent individual rights.
That is why we can create the courts.
And since we create them, they can not be superior to us.

While no right is absolute, jurisdiction is absolute in the case of firearms.
The 2nd amendment is saying that since firearms are so important for a free state, then there was a total ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The 2nd amendment does not have to be a right at all.
All it has to be is a prohibition on federal jurisdiction.
The Founders clearly were wary of any federal government, since they were just forced to mount an armed rebellion.

Which is amplified by the 9th and 10th amendments, which say the feds only get the jurisdiction they are expressly granted in the constitution. Do you see any article granting federal jurisdiction over firearms?
Nope, nothing at all gives the federal government ANY firearms jurisdiction.
So even if we ignore the 2nd amendment entirely, there can still be no federal weapons legislation, legally.

Courts apply the law. And, the right to petition for redress of grievances is in our First Amendment not our Second Amendment.

without the second you wouldn't have a first

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Since "regulate" means protect, facilitate, and keep regular, then I agree completely.

Unfortunately for you and those of your point of view; the law already covers and preempts your special pleading.

Besides, this is what it refers to: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

no it does not mean control by the government
Tyrants love idiots like you

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Except a "well regulated militia" means that you have to allow the public to keep arms so that they have regular exposure to their use and handling.

How did you reach your conclusion? Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State not Individual Liberty or natural rights.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

once again the unorganized militia is not connected with the organized militia

 

[StormAl]

The courts will do as they do, and the state will back them.

 

[StormAl]

Except a "well regulated militia" means that you have to allow the public to keep arms so that they have regular exposure to their use and handling.

How did you reach your conclusion? Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State not Individual Liberty or natural rights.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

once again the unorganized militia is not connected with the organized militia

Any governor can call and organize the unorganized militia at any time. Read your constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

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.

So who removes a tyrant when they control the military?

Not Individuals of the People who are unconnected with the Militia. Congress has the power to impeach and remove even the chief magistrate of the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Wrong.
The courts do not get to make law.
When the courts are wrong, as they were before 1776, the Declaration of Independence says we have the inherent individual rights to abolish the current courts and start over.
The courts are NOT the top of the law, we are, with our inherent individual rights.
That is why we can create the courts.
And since we create them, they can not be superior to us.

While no right is absolute, jurisdiction is absolute in the case of firearms.
The 2nd amendment is saying that since firearms are so important for a free state, then there was a total ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The 2nd amendment does not have to be a right at all.
All it has to be is a prohibition on federal jurisdiction.
The Founders clearly were wary of any federal government, since they were just forced to mount an armed rebellion.

Which is amplified by the 9th and 10th amendments, which say the feds only get the jurisdiction they are expressly granted in the constitution. Do you see any article granting federal jurisdiction over firearms?
Nope, nothing at all gives the federal government ANY firearms jurisdiction.
So even if we ignore the 2nd amendment entirely, there can still be no federal weapons legislation, legally.

Courts apply the law. And, the right to petition for redress of grievances is in our First Amendment not our Second Amendment.

without the second you wouldn't have a first

The Second is about the security of a free State not Individual liberty or natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Since "regulate" means protect, facilitate, and keep regular, then I agree completely.

Unfortunately for you and those of your point of view; the law already covers and preempts your special pleading.

Besides, this is what it refers to: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

no it does not mean control by the government
Tyrants love idiots like you

In right-wing fantasy, you are Always Right. Besides, it is right-wingers who make the best Russian tools.

In the real world, this is a controlling law of Government:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[danielpalos]

Except a "well regulated militia" means that you have to allow the public to keep arms so that they have regular exposure to their use and handling.

How did you reach your conclusion? Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State not Individual Liberty or natural rights.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

once again the unorganized militia is not connected with the organized militia

Your point?

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.

 

[Leo123]

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.

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.

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

Except it is not. It’s one friggin sentence

Since when can't 2 statements be made in one sentence, you're an idiot; see how that works?

 

[justinacolmena]

Your point?

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 militia has to handle gun-grabbing idiots like you as domestic enemies.

 

[StormAl]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

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.

So who removes a tyrant when they control the military?

Not Individuals of the People who are unconnected with the Militia. Congress has the power to impeach and remove even the chief magistrate of the Union.

You saw what happened when the crazy goonies invaded the Capitol.

They were spanked, sent home, and Congress conducted business as usual.

Now more than 400 are going to trial.

The People will do nothing.

 

[Leo123]

You saw what happened when the crazy goonies invaded the Capitol.

They were spanked, sent home, and Congress conducted business as usual.

Now more than 400 are going to trial.

The People will do nothing.

That was just a protest, you know like BLM does only the Jan 6th protesters didn't burn down buildings.

 

[danielpalos]

Your point?

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 militia has to handle gun-grabbing idiots like you as domestic enemies.

Only the "lazy" unorganized militia complains about gun controls laws.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[justinacolmena]

Only the "lazy" unorganized militia complains about gun controls laws.

You're going learn how to shut up and when to shut up, whether you want to or not, bitch.

 

[Lesh]

Since when can't 2 statements be made in one sentence, you're an idiot; see how that works?

WTF are you talking about?

Where have you ever seen one sentence (especially in a document like the Constitution) contain two ideas unconnected to each other?

 

[Rigby5]

Except a "well regulated militia" means that you have to allow the public to keep arms so that they have regular exposure to their use and handling.

How did you reach your conclusion? Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State not Individual Liberty or natural rights.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

once again the unorganized militia is not connected with the organized militia

Any governor can call and organize the unorganized militia at any time. Read your constitution.

Wrong.
Calling up the unorganized militia is supposed to only be used in emergencies.
It is identical to the mandatory draft the army uses, and if you look into the drafts in the past, they actually were all done by the states.
It is not just on the whim of a governor.
The draft would be a huge infringement on individual rights if not for a good enough reason.

 

[Leo123]

Where have you ever seen one sentence (especially in a document like the Constitution) contain two ideas unconnected to each other?

The sky is blue, the moon is made of cheese. Get it yet?

 

[justinacolmena]

The draft would be a huge infringement on individual rights if not for a good enough reason.

If you're mental and you're drafted in the United States, it's off to an internment camp or concentration camp in the event of war. The military believes strongly in all that mental health gun control shit. They don't ever let you out of prison on mental illness.

 

[Rigby5]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

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.

So who removes a tyrant when they control the military?

Not Individuals of the People who are unconnected with the Militia. Congress has the power to impeach and remove even the chief magistrate of the Union.

Wrong.
Individual are superior to any body of government.
Not only are inherent individual rights the only legal basis for government, but all governments (in a democratic republic), are always created by the people. The people can not create that which is superior to them.
Doesn't matter if they are connected or unconnected with the organized militia, because as you keep pointing out, the People and the Militia are one in the same.

Congress does not have any power.
If the military goes corrupt, there is nothing congress will be able to do about it.
But the reality is that Congress is likely the most corrupt of all.
For example, it is congress that started every single illegal war the US has been in, which is about all of them since the War of 1812.