Democrat platform committee member: no one should have guns...

[martybegan]

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Jesus. I'd be more inclined to believe you know what you're talking about if you could spell "privilege".

Everyone hates spelling Nazis.

 

[hunarcy]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

 

[Asclepias]

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Nope. The whole idea of the amendment is to give the states the right to arm the militia. Thats why for the first century the SCOTUS agreed with me.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree with her. If no one had a gun no one would get shot.

Except you when the homies in the next neighborhood decide you've been vertical too long. and decide to shoot you bwith the gun you think they won't have.

And here we thought you were smart. Guess not.

That doesnt make any sense. Start correcting that after you are less emotional and try again.

You are wrong on all levels....

As to the individual Right...

from Heller v. District of Columbia...

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

-----------

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

Youre just telling me how the SCOTUS interpreted after a century of the SCOTUS interpreting it the way I see it. Looks like the pendulum is swinging back to what the original intent was now.

 

[martybegan]

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Nope. The whole idea of the amendment is to give the states the right to arm the militia. Thats why for the first century the SCOTUS agreed with me.

Actually the people were expected to bring their own weapons, militia's that kept arms in an armory were optional.

For the first century the idea that a law abiding citizen could own a firearm wasn't even questioned, so your point is moot and idiotic.

We all know why assy is in favor of gun control, because he has no qualms about owning firearms illegally, and neither do his ilk.

 

[Asclepias]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

 

[2aguy]

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Nope. The whole idea of the amendment is to give the states the right to arm the militia. Thats why for the first century the SCOTUS agreed with me.

Wrong....and case law shows you are wrong.

 

[Asclepias]

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Nope. The whole idea of the amendment is to give the states the right to arm the militia. Thats why for the first century the SCOTUS agreed with me.

Actually the people were expected to bring their own weapons, militia's that kept arms in an armory were optional.

For the first century the idea that a law abiding citizen could own a firearm wasn't even questioned, so your point is moot and idiotic.

We all know why assy is in favor of gun control, because he has no qualms about owning firearms illegally, and neither do his ilk.

Owning an arm doesnt mean you have a right to have one and carry it around so your point is moot and moronic. I could buy a live hand grenade but that doesnt mean I legally have a right to own it and carry it around.

 

[2aguy]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

Again....addressed by the Supreme Court....and by common sense.

 

[2aguy]

I agree with her. If no one had a gun no one would get shot.

Except you when the homies in the next neighborhood decide you've been vertical too long. and decide to shoot you bwith the gun you think they won't have.

And here we thought you were smart. Guess not.

That doesnt make any sense. Start correcting that after you are less emotional and try again.

You are wrong on all levels....

As to the individual Right...

from Heller v. District of Columbia...

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

-----------

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

Youre just telling me how the SCOTUS interpreted after a century of the SCOTUS interpreting it the way I see it. Looks like the pendulum is swinging back to what the original intent was now.

Nope....case law long before Heller also says you are stupid.....

As to bearing arms...since you can't understand the word "Bear" from liberal justice Ginsburg...from the Heller decision....

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

 

[Asclepias]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

Again....addressed by the Supreme Court....and by common sense.

thats correct. For the first century the SCOTUS that was closest to the founders intent agreed with me and common sense.

 

[2aguy]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

And here you go dunce....

I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights predate Heller.....twit.

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

 

[2aguy]

And of course...again, from Heller....


B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the


---------

1. Post-ratification Commentary Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 33 Opinion of the Court the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

 

[GaryDog]

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Jesus. I'd be more inclined to believe you know what you're talking about if you could spell "privilege".

Everyone hates spelling Nazis.

No, it's actually fun, watch: N-A-Z-I-S.

 

[Asclepias]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

And here you go dunce....

I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights predate Heller.....twit.

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

And here you go dunce....

I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights predate Heller.....twit.

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

And on miller...

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.

 

[martybegan]

The right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

The right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Nope. The whole idea of the amendment is to give the states the right to arm the militia. Thats why for the first century the SCOTUS agreed with me.

Actually the people were expected to bring their own weapons, militia's that kept arms in an armory were optional.

For the first century the idea that a law abiding citizen could own a firearm wasn't even questioned, so your point is moot and idiotic.

We all know why assy is in favor of gun control, because he has no qualms about owning firearms illegally, and neither do his ilk.

Owning an arm doesnt mean you have a right to have one and carry it around so your point is moot and moronic. I could buy a live hand grenade but that doesnt mean I legally have a right to own it and carry it around.

We are talking about handguns, not grenades. try to to go all argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[Asclepias]

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

And here you go dunce....

I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights predate Heller.....twit.

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

And on miller...

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.

where is the link for this? I noticed you dont have one.

 

[martybegan]

The right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

The right of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Jesus. I'd be more inclined to believe you know what you're talking about if you could spell "privilege".

Everyone hates spelling Nazis.

No, it's actually fun, watch: N-A-Z-I-S.

How about you go deep throat a flaming AIDS infested tire-iron?

 

[Asclepias]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Nope. The whole idea of the amendment is to give the states the right to arm the militia. Thats why for the first century the SCOTUS agreed with me.

Actually the people were expected to bring their own weapons, militia's that kept arms in an armory were optional.

For the first century the idea that a law abiding citizen could own a firearm wasn't even questioned, so your point is moot and idiotic.

We all know why assy is in favor of gun control, because he has no qualms about owning firearms illegally, and neither do his ilk.

Owning an arm doesnt mean you have a right to have one and carry it around so your point is moot and moronic. I could buy a live hand grenade but that doesnt mean I legally have a right to own it and carry it around.

We are talking about handguns, not grenades. try to to go all argumentum ad absurdum.

Just giving you some contrast so you understand your argument is idiotic.