Best quotes from the Heller case that make Gun Grabbers go total Levithan on you

[The2ndAmendment]

Full text of Heller case:
http://jpfo.org/pdf02/heller-opinion-07-290.pdf
[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
Bottom of page 26:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothingmore than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

Bottom of page 27:

When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

Page 28:

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army.

Page 28:

When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.

page 29:

It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking aw ay their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

Page 34:

JUSTICE STEVENS thinks it significant that the Virginia, New York, and North Carolina Second Amendment proposals were “embedded . . . within a group of principles that are distinctly military in meaning,” such as statements about the danger of standing armies.

Page 36:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever , prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Page 39:

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.

Page 42:

blacks were treated as a “dangerous population","laws have been passed to prevent their migration into this State; to make it unlawful for them to bear arms;

Page 43:

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

Page 45:

Blacks were routinely disarmed by Southern States after the Civil War.

Page 49:

But a militia would be use- less unless the citizens were enabled to exercise them- selves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to op- pose themselves in military force against the usurpation of f government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

Page 50:

The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen.

Page 53:

This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (t

Page 55:

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time."

Page 68:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

Page 75:

Confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms.

Page 77:

Similarly, the words “the people” in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment’s preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.

Did the SCOTUS admit that Nullification is legal and needs to be backed up by armed force in this segment?

Page 77:

As used in the Fourth Amendment, “the people” describes the class of persons protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by Government officials. It is true that the Fourth Amendment describes a right that need not be exercised in any collective sense.

Page 78:

“To keep and bear Arms” Although the Court’s discussion of these words treats them as two “phrases”—as if they read “to keep” and “to bear”—they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Actually, this entire Case of full of win.

Why do Libtards ever quote or refer to it for Gun Grabbing purposes?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Going to laugh so hard when someone's quotes the Dissent for Gun Grabbing justification lololol
[MENTION=21905]FA_Q2[/MENTION]

@Templar_Kormac
[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Where is [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] and [MENTION=37749]Black_Label[/MENTION]

 

[R.C. Christian]

And yet D.C. continues to ignore this case.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Come on Libs, you leave to quote one-liners from this Case out of context. Why aren't you all praising this thread now?

 

[MeBelle]

Levithan?
Supernatural!

~~~~
C_Clayton_Jones is reading this thread as I type...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Levithan?
Supernatural!

~~~~
C_Clayton_Jones is reading this thread as I type...

???

I didn't' even know you could see who was viewing the thread until just now lol

but yeah, cite any of these during a debate when a Gun Grabber cites Heller and they turn into this bestial entity, like this:

Every time you cut off the head of a gun grabber, two more of his buddies show up so they can give each other circle jerk support.

 

[Clementine]

I think one problem the left has regarding guns is that they do not like the concept of freedom and, especially, liberty. They despise our founding fathers and the constitution because it goes against their innate need to control. Their mindset was the very thing our forefathers escaped from and the constitution was written the way it was to prevent these kind of people from oppressing the people. Our founders understood well how a tyrannical government could make people lives miserable. They were all about the people and wanted a country where people lived free without dictators causing people to live in fear.

The left has no respect for gun owners or their ability to protect themselves from criminals or a tyrannical government.

The left sympathizes with criminals while holding decent gun owners in contempt.

Those gangs and other thugs roaming our streets know nothing about patriotism or what it means to live in a free society. They are a lot like dictators, who do as they please and harm anyone who gets in their way. Funny, that the left refuses to discuss gang violence, let alone do anything about it. They find it easier to pick on the law abiding citizens. Free thinkers scare them more than gangs or terrorists.

The left will forever claim that gun control will make people safer, even though they outright ignore the real dangers, such as the gangs in Chicago and other big cities who will not be the least bit deterred by yet another law.

It's never been about making our streets safer. With liberals, it's all about the big picture, which in their case means changing this country from a free capitalist country into a socialist country with a controlling government. The intelligent people know it would be a disaster to disarm the people and to take away more freedom and liberty. The liberals believe that some sort of utopia will be found by forcing people to live the way they see fit. Liberals are the least tolerant among us. They claim to be all about choice, but only if they approve of that choice. We are being smothered with ridiculous laws, from not being able to catch rain water to what kind of toilets we should have in our homes. The more laws they create, the better the odds that virtually everyone is bound to break at least one. There is no better way to go after political enemies than arresting them for breaking some idiotic law.

The gun control is all about disarming the people. Sure, they denied it at first, but at the same time were making claims that only a well regulated militia could own guns and they attempted to re-define things in order to make their point that no one outside of military, police or government militia should have a gun. They would like to take away the only means the people have of preventing a tyrannical government from ruling over us with an iron fist. That is their dream. Of course, there would be no more elections because they would never want their opposition to have the same power they would grant themselves.

While other countries are realizing what a horrible nightmare socialism and communism are, we have politicians anxious to go down that road. It's only appealing to those who will rule, but a true nightmare for those who will be ruled.

 

[MeBelle]

There is another way to slay the leviathan:

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Levithan?
Supernatural!

~~~~
C_Clayton_Jones is reading this thread as I type...

Then you should know the OP needs to be reminded that context is important:

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, there is no such thing as a ‘gun grabber,’ as liberals have acknowledged Heller as settled and accepted law, where various regulatory measures have been upheld as Constitutional.

For example, Federal law prohibiting owning machine guns and parts, as they meet Heller’s criteria concerning ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’ and are not subject to Second Amendment protection (United States v. Henry (9th Cir.)), laws requiring the safe storage of handguns and prohibiting the sale of unsafe ammunition ( Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal.)), and laws that require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to be denied a permit if they fail to meet a suitable person requirement (Hightower v. City of Boston (1st Cir.)).

Moreover, Federal and state courts have upheld as constitutional laws requiring permits and licenses to own a handgun, fees for these licenses, and applicants to be state residents. Also upheld are laws disallowing possession of a firearm to those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, possessing firearms in places of worship, public housing dwellings, college campuses and campus events.

The OP is more interested in exhibiting his ignorance of the law than a serious discussion as to the meaning of Heller and the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think one problem the left has regarding guns is that they do not like the concept of freedom and, especially, liberty. They despise our founding fathers and the constitution because it goes against their innate need to control. Their mindset was the very thing our forefathers escaped from and the constitution was written the way it was to prevent these kind of people from oppressing the people. Our founders understood well how a tyrannical government could make people lives miserable. They were all about the people and wanted a country where people lived free without dictators causing people to live in fear.

The left has no respect for gun owners or their ability to protect themselves from criminals or a tyrannical government.

The left sympathizes with criminals while holding decent gun owners in contempt.

Those gangs and other thugs roaming our streets know nothing about patriotism or what it means to live in a free society. They are a lot like dictators, who do as they please and harm anyone who gets in their way. Funny, that the left refuses to discuss gang violence, let alone do anything about it. They find it easier to pick on the law abiding citizens. Free thinkers scare them more than gangs or terrorists.

The left will forever claim that gun control will make people safer, even though they outright ignore the real dangers, such as the gangs in Chicago and other big cities who will not be the least bit deterred by yet another law.

It's never been about making our streets safer. With liberals, it's all about the big picture, which in their case means changing this country from a free capitalist country into a socialist country with a controlling government. The intelligent people know it would be a disaster to disarm the people and to take away more freedom and liberty. The liberals believe that some sort of utopia will be found by forcing people to live the way they see fit. Liberals are the least tolerant among us. They claim to be all about choice, but only if they approve of that choice. We are being smothered with ridiculous laws, from not being able to catch rain water to what kind of toilets we should have in our homes. The more laws they create, the better the odds that virtually everyone is bound to break at least one. There is no better way to go after political enemies than arresting them for breaking some idiotic law.

The gun control is all about disarming the people. Sure, they denied it at first, but at the same time were making claims that only a well regulated militia could own guns and they attempted to re-define things in order to make their point that no one outside of military, police or government militia should have a gun. They would like to take away the only means the people have of preventing a tyrannical government from ruling over us with an iron fist. That is their dream. Of course, there would be no more elections because they would never want their opposition to have the same power they would grant themselves.

While other countries are realizing what a horrible nightmare socialism and communism are, we have politicians anxious to go down that road. It's only appealing to those who will rule, but a true nightmare for those who will be ruled.

Another rightist eager to exhibit his ignorance.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Clayton hasn't even responded to the quotes.

He's gone into total Leviathan mode!

 

[MeBelle]

Levithan?
Supernatural!

~~~~
C_Clayton_Jones is reading this thread as I type...

Then you should know the OP needs to be reminded that context is important:

And you should buy a sense of humor.

 

[Bfgrn]

I think one problem the left has regarding guns is that they do not like the concept of freedom and, especially, liberty. They despise our founding fathers and the constitution because it goes against their innate need to control. Their mindset was the very thing our forefathers escaped from and the constitution was written the way it was to prevent these kind of people from oppressing the people. Our founders understood well how a tyrannical government could make people lives miserable. They were all about the people and wanted a country where people lived free without dictators causing people to live in fear.

The left has no respect for gun owners or their ability to protect themselves from criminals or a tyrannical government.

The left sympathizes with criminals while holding decent gun owners in contempt.

Those gangs and other thugs roaming our streets know nothing about patriotism or what it means to live in a free society. They are a lot like dictators, who do as they please and harm anyone who gets in their way. Funny, that the left refuses to discuss gang violence, let alone do anything about it. They find it easier to pick on the law abiding citizens. Free thinkers scare them more than gangs or terrorists.

The left will forever claim that gun control will make people safer, even though they outright ignore the real dangers, such as the gangs in Chicago and other big cities who will not be the least bit deterred by yet another law.

It's never been about making our streets safer. With liberals, it's all about the big picture, which in their case means changing this country from a free capitalist country into a socialist country with a controlling government. The intelligent people know it would be a disaster to disarm the people and to take away more freedom and liberty. The liberals believe that some sort of utopia will be found by forcing people to live the way they see fit. Liberals are the least tolerant among us. They claim to be all about choice, but only if they approve of that choice. We are being smothered with ridiculous laws, from not being able to catch rain water to what kind of toilets we should have in our homes. The more laws they create, the better the odds that virtually everyone is bound to break at least one. There is no better way to go after political enemies than arresting them for breaking some idiotic law.

The gun control is all about disarming the people. Sure, they denied it at first, but at the same time were making claims that only a well regulated militia could own guns and they attempted to re-define things in order to make their point that no one outside of military, police or government militia should have a gun. They would like to take away the only means the people have of preventing a tyrannical government from ruling over us with an iron fist. That is their dream. Of course, there would be no more elections because they would never want their opposition to have the same power they would grant themselves.

While other countries are realizing what a horrible nightmare socialism and communism are, we have politicians anxious to go down that road. It's only appealing to those who will rule, but a true nightmare for those who will be ruled.

This is a perfect example of just how deep the psychosis (an abnormal condition of the mind, often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality") is on the right.

It also proves that conservatism is based on a single pure emotion...FEAR.

No common sense laws can be discussed with these psychotic, fear infested people. No brainer laws like closing the gun show loophole that allows unscrupulous gun dealers to hide behind a exception that was designed to allow uncle Joe to sell his hunting rifle to his nephew, has allowed these unscrupulous gun dealers to move thousands of weapons, and provides felons a safe haven where they can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon they choose.

This gun debate has exposed these sick Americans. They are way past any treatment. They are a cancer on our country.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think one problem the left has regarding guns is that they do not like the concept of freedom and, especially, liberty. They despise our founding fathers and the constitution because it goes against their innate need to control. Their mindset was the very thing our forefathers escaped from and the constitution was written the way it was to prevent these kind of people from oppressing the people. Our founders understood well how a tyrannical government could make people lives miserable. They were all about the people and wanted a country where people lived free without dictators causing people to live in fear.

The left has no respect for gun owners or their ability to protect themselves from criminals or a tyrannical government.

The left sympathizes with criminals while holding decent gun owners in contempt.

Those gangs and other thugs roaming our streets know nothing about patriotism or what it means to live in a free society. They are a lot like dictators, who do as they please and harm anyone who gets in their way. Funny, that the left refuses to discuss gang violence, let alone do anything about it. They find it easier to pick on the law abiding citizens. Free thinkers scare them more than gangs or terrorists.

The left will forever claim that gun control will make people safer, even though they outright ignore the real dangers, such as the gangs in Chicago and other big cities who will not be the least bit deterred by yet another law.

It's never been about making our streets safer. With liberals, it's all about the big picture, which in their case means changing this country from a free capitalist country into a socialist country with a controlling government. The intelligent people know it would be a disaster to disarm the people and to take away more freedom and liberty. The liberals believe that some sort of utopia will be found by forcing people to live the way they see fit. Liberals are the least tolerant among us. They claim to be all about choice, but only if they approve of that choice. We are being smothered with ridiculous laws, from not being able to catch rain water to what kind of toilets we should have in our homes. The more laws they create, the better the odds that virtually everyone is bound to break at least one. There is no better way to go after political enemies than arresting them for breaking some idiotic law.

The gun control is all about disarming the people. Sure, they denied it at first, but at the same time were making claims that only a well regulated militia could own guns and they attempted to re-define things in order to make their point that no one outside of military, police or government militia should have a gun. They would like to take away the only means the people have of preventing a tyrannical government from ruling over us with an iron fist. That is their dream. Of course, there would be no more elections because they would never want their opposition to have the same power they would grant themselves.

While other countries are realizing what a horrible nightmare socialism and communism are, we have politicians anxious to go down that road. It's only appealing to those who will rule, but a true nightmare for those who will be ruled.

This is a perfect example of just how deep the psychosis (an abnormal condition of the mind, often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality") is on the right.

It also proves that conservatism is based on a single pure emotion...FEAR.

No common sense laws can be discussed with these psychotic, fear infested people. No brainer laws like closing the gun show loophole that allows unscrupulous gun dealers to hide behind a exception that was designed to allow uncle Joe to sell his hunting rifle to his nephew, has allowed these unscrupulous gun dealers to move thousands of weapons, and provides felons a safe haven where they can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon they choose.

This gun debate has exposed these sick Americans. They are way past any treatment. They are a cancer on our country.

Why are you afraid of guns?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is a perfect example of just how deep the psychosis (an abnormal condition of the mind, often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality") is on the right.

It also proves that conservatism is based on a single pure emotion...FEAR.

No common sense laws can be discussed with these psychotic, fear infested people. No brainer laws like closing the gun show loophole that allows unscrupulous gun dealers to hide behind a exception that was designed to allow uncle Joe to sell his hunting rifle to his nephew, has allowed these unscrupulous gun dealers to move thousands of weapons, and provides felons a safe haven where they can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon they choose.

This gun debate has exposed these sick Americans. They are way past any treatment. They are a cancer on our country.

Notice that [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] has totally disregarded the OP and hasn't discussed any of the quotes.

He's gone totally Leviathan on us!

 

[Bfgrn]

Thank you for proving my points Rabbi and 2nd amendment.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Thank you for proving my points Rabbi and 2nd amendment.

Notice that [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] has totally disregarded the OP and hasn't discussed any of the quotes.

He's gone totally Leviathan on us!

 

[Bfgrn]

Thank you for proving my points Rabbi and 2nd amendment.

Notice that [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] has totally disregarded the OP and hasn't discussed any of the quotes.

He's gone totally Leviathan on us!

How to spot psychosis: When common sense becomes "Why are you afraid of guns?" and "gone totally Leviathan"

The "Leviathan" and the "fear" is the monsters the right has fabricated...Obama, Democrats and the Federal government.

What citizens need to understand about District of Columbia v. Heller:

Held:

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. Pp. 2–53.

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