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

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
The second amendment is only about completely eliminating any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
By "free state" they meant one where the federal government can not get out of control.

 

[Leo123]

"To some people, the way that the above Second Amendment is written may seem a bit strange to a modern English speaker with the addition of commas in places that today they would not be. In most cases, punctuation in the 18th century was absolute chaos as this was a time of transition from middle English (think Chaucer and Shakespeare) to that of modern English. In this sense, one must understand that while the commas may be confusing, they should not detract from the document at hand. Furthermore, the variations that can be seen in different editions of the Bill of Rights can be attributed to the fact that at the time, these documents were hand written. If one looks at the original Constitution that Congress ratified, the only comma in the document is in “state, the right”. Thus, it should be noted that the militia was not the one given the un-infringed upon right to use arms (including muskets, rifles, swords, bayonets, etc), but rather the people of the United States."

How a comma ruins the 2nd Amendment

Most people are aware that the mechanics and nuances of the English language have changed over the centuries. However, this does lead to some confusion when looking at texts from centuries ago and app

yaliberty.org

 

[Leo123]

Wrong.
The second amendment is only about completely eliminating any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
By "free state" they meant one where the federal government can not get out of control.

It's easy to identify the Marxists here at the Forum, they're the ones wanting government to control We The People. If they don't they themselves are Marxists, they certainly are ignorant tools.

 

[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

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.

But the 2nd amendment is a restriction on federal jurisdiction, so can not be about the Organized Militia the federal government can call up in emergencies. There would be no need for a prohibition on the federal government from disarming its own Organized Militia. So clearly the point of the 2nd amendment has to be to prevent the federal government from disarming the unorganized militia.

 

[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.

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.

The governors have the power to call up and regulate the militia. The unorganized militia is not exempt from being regulated by the state.

 

[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

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.

But the 2nd amendment is a restriction on federal jurisdiction, so can not be about the Organized Militia the federal government can call up in emergencies. There would be no need for a prohibition on the federal government from disarming its own Organized Militia. So clearly the point of the 2nd amendment has to be to prevent the federal government from disarming the unorganized militia.

Heller incorporated the 2d Amendment. Look it up.

The governors can call up and regulate the militia, organized or unorganized.

 

[Leo123]

The governors have the power to call up and regulate the militia. The unorganized militia is not exempt from being regulated by the state.

Define 'unorganized militia' at this point you're just making shit up.

 

[Rigby5]

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;

It is incredibly illegal for the federal government to start legislation firearm restrictions when clearly the federal government has zero authority to do that, and for the federal government to believe it is the only valid entity that needs arms.
So according to the federal government, there is no state, municipal, or individual need for weapons for defense?
That's crazy.
Its also totally illegal.

 

[Lesh]

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

Wait. You think the Founding Fathers would make a statement as stupid as that? IN the Constitution?

Really?

 

[Lesh]

The governors have the power to call up and regulate the militia. The unorganized militia is not exempt from being regulated by the state.

Define 'unorganized militia' at this point you're just making shit up.

It's defined in the Dick Amendment

 

[Lesh]

Wrong.
The second amendment is only about completely eliminating any federal jurisdiction over firearms.

Like machine guns, rockets, grenades?

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Lets assume they are connected.
The second phrase is essentially saying that the federal government is prohibited from making firearm laws.
Why would the founders have wanted that?
Could it be because they just had to fight a rebellion against a sovereign tyrant, and did not want to let another tyranny get into power?

 

[justinacolmena]

So according to the federal government, there is no state, municipal, or individual need for weapons for defense?

States and municipalities do not want individuals to own weapons for self-defense.

That's crazy.

Somebody said you're crazy and you lost your gun rights in that state/municipal court.

 

[Lesh]

Lets assume they are connected.
The second phrase is essentially saying that the federal government is prohibited from making firearm laws.

In furtherance of the FIRST phrase

Why would the founders have wanted that?

Because at that time they were afraid of a large standing Army...which we now have.

Could it be because they just had to fight a rebellion against a sovereign tyrant, and did not want to let another tyranny get into power?

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 specifically says that the militia is supposed to put DOWN the type of insurrection you promote. And it was used to do that several times in that period

 

[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

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.

But the 2nd amendment is a restriction on federal jurisdiction, so can not be about the Organized Militia the federal government can call up in emergencies. There would be no need for a prohibition on the federal government from disarming its own Organized Militia. So clearly the point of the 2nd amendment has to be to prevent the federal government from disarming the unorganized militia.

Heller incorporated the 2d Amendment. Look it up.

The governors can call up and regulate the militia, organized or unorganized.

Incorporating the 2nd amendment means the right to bear arms is a protected individual right.
I agree with that.

But why do you say the governors can call up and regulate the militia?
The governor or the president can't call on the militia unless there is an emergency that warrants it.
Until it becomes warranted for some reason, the militia is on its own and is ruled by no one.

 

[Rigby5]

The governors have the power to call up and regulate the militia. The unorganized militia is not exempt from being regulated by the state.

Define 'unorganized militia' at this point you're just making shit up.

It's defined in the Dick Amendment

Incorrect.
{... The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army’s primary organized reserve. ...}
The Dick Act of 1903 only provided for the a federal and state Organized Militia.
It does not provide or define a municipal Organized Militia, like a posse, or the unorganized militia.

 

[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

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.

But the 2nd amendment is a restriction on federal jurisdiction, so can not be about the Organized Militia the federal government can call up in emergencies. There would be no need for a prohibition on the federal government from disarming its own Organized Militia. So clearly the point of the 2nd amendment has to be to prevent the federal government from disarming the unorganized militia.

Heller incorporated the 2d Amendment. Look it up.

The governors can call up and regulate the militia, organized or unorganized.

Incorporating the 2nd amendment means the right to bear arms is a protected individual right.
I agree with that.

But why do you cay the governors can call up and regulate the militia?
The governor or the president can't call on the militia unless there is an emergency that warrants it.
Until it becomes warranted for some reason, the militia is on its own and is ruled by no one.

Read your Constitution, particularly the 1st Article and the 2d Amendment.

1. ilitia Clause | The Heritage Guide to the Constitution
   www.heritage.org › constitution › articles
   State governors, however, retain concurrent authority to call out their respective militias to handle civil and military emergencies, as well as to repel invasions (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3...
2. Commander of Militia | The Heritage Guide to the Constitution
   www.heritage.org › constitution › articles
   In the 1980s, governors again resisted a presidential call for the militia (National Guard). Some of them objected to the deployment of their states’ National Guard troops to Central America.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
The second amendment is only about completely eliminating any federal jurisdiction over firearms.

Like machine guns, rockets, grenades?

Absolutely.
If you want machine guns, rockets, and grenades restricted, then you have to do it state by state.

 

[Rigby5]

Lets assume they are connected.
The second phrase is essentially saying that the federal government is prohibited from making firearm laws.

In furtherance of the FIRST phrase

Why would the founders have wanted that?

Because at that time they were afraid of a large standing Army...which we now have.

Could it be because they just had to fight a rebellion against a sovereign tyrant, and did not want to let another tyranny get into power?

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 specifically says that the militia is supposed to put DOWN the type of insurrection you promote. And it was used to do that several times in that period

Wrong.
The founders only wanted unwarranted insurrections to be put down.
If the federal government goes corrupt and abusive, then the founders wanted the ability of the people to put down the corrupt government.
The only insurrections put down were unwarranted.
But additional federal gun control laws could change that and make insurrection warranted.

 

[Leo123]

Wait. You think the Founding Fathers would make a statement as stupid as that? IN the Constitution?

Really?

No, it's and example of one sentence with 2 different statements. You know, what we were discussing. I think you are being a bit disingenuous.