Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
HUH??If anyone wanted to make an anti-2nd campaign, posting absurdly provocative and unrealistic positions such as those exposed here in order to support firearms would be what one would want to do.
If people want the present availability of firearms to end, this is how to do it.
A "lot of people care"? What the hell does that mean in a Constitutional political argument?a lot of people care,,
you said no one cares about the branch davidian massacre,,A "lot of people care"? What the hell does that mean in a Constitutional political argument?
Restating this does not make it true.
-The court held that demonstrating a need to carry and gun is an infringement.
-The court held that the legal requirement to secure a gun is an infringement.
In both cases you could still legally own a gun, in both cases your right to do so was infringed.
Thus, your standard, above, has no factual or legal basis.
The court created a test to see if a restriction is an infringement -- the result being most restrictions qualify as such.
You have no factual or legal basis for this statement.
The term is "bearable arms"
The term means "any firearm in common use for traditional lawful purposes"
This excludes SAMs, et al.
You have no factual or legal basis for this statement.
That's the NG.
The NG is a federal force, a federal reserve component, and created under the congressional power to raise armies.
Thus, not militia.
Further:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights 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.
This means "bearable arms" does not include tanks, SAMS and nukes.
Meaningless mumbo jumbo.
compelled and exclude are two different things,,You're mentioning "The court" and you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claim. How am I supposed to know what court you're talking about and what case you're talking about?
There are courts that will say anything, there are courts that will say things that look like one thing, but actually aren't. But I don't know what you're talking about.
Actually I do have a factual basis for saying that "bear arms" means "militia duty"
It comes from the House in 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
This is the clause they're talking about. A part of the 2A that never made it to the final version.
Mr Gerry said: " Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms."
See here? He's said "exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples". The clause says "bear arms", not "militia duty" but they're using them synonymously.
"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
So Mr Jackson wanted to use "render military service" and not "bear arms". They changed between the two a lot in different versions of the 2A. Clearly they are synonymous.
So yeah, I actually have a factual AND legal basis for my statement.
Fine, you want fully automatic machine guns to be "in common use"? They just aren't. Some people use them. But really they're not "common".
And SAMs aren't common because THEY'RE BANNED. So they could ban something, say they're not common because they're banned and you'd be fine with that.
No, the National Guard is not a federal force. It can, like the unorganized militia, be called up into federal service. The National Guard does have dual status because they find that easier, but the governor could stop the National Guard doing what the feds want if the governor tried hard enough.
Well, you've managed to bring up the Heller case without actually saying it's the Heller case. You need to say what case you're talking about.
"f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. "
This, you quoted, is about the "individual rights interpretation." We're not arguing the individual v. collective rights interpretations, because the collective rights interpretation is a crock of shit.
The Miller case they said:
"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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."
"In the absence of any evidence.... we cannot say the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument"
Basically. We don't know. Because the evidence isn't here.
"Meaningless mumbo jumbo."
If you think it's "Meaningless mumbo jumbo." it's because you have no idea what I'm saying. Just because you're ignorant of these matters, doesn't mean I am.
If nobody cares about a bunch of mostly white people who were murdered by the Clinton administration, what's left for America except the left wing media propaganda network.you said no one cares about the branch davidian massacre,,
I am just pointing out a lot of people care,,
as I said,, a lot of people care,,If nobody cares about a bunch of mostly white people who were murdered by the Clinton administration, what's left for America except the left wing media propaganda network.
The People aren't armed because they're part of the militia. They're part of the militia because they're armed.You're mentioning "The court" and you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claim. How am I supposed to know what court you're talking about and what case you're talking about?
There are courts that will say anything, there are courts that will say things that look like one thing, but actually aren't. But I don't know what you're talking about.
Actually I do have a factual basis for saying that "bear arms" means "militia duty"
It comes from the House in 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
This is the clause they're talking about. A part of the 2A that never made it to the final version.
Mr Gerry said: " Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms."
See here? He's said "exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples". The clause says "bear arms", not "militia duty" but they're using them synonymously.
"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
So Mr Jackson wanted to use "render military service" and not "bear arms". They changed between the two a lot in different versions of the 2A. Clearly they are synonymous.
So yeah, I actually have a factual AND legal basis for my statement.
Fine, you want fully automatic machine guns to be "in common use"? They just aren't. Some people use them. But really they're not "common".
And SAMs aren't common because THEY'RE BANNED. So they could ban something, say they're not common because they're banned and you'd be fine with that.
No, the National Guard is not a federal force. It can, like the unorganized militia, be called up into federal service. The National Guard does have dual status because they find that easier, but the governor could stop the National Guard doing what the feds want if the governor tried hard enough.
Well, you've managed to bring up the Heller case without actually saying it's the Heller case. You need to say what case you're talking about.
"f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. "
This, you quoted, is about the "individual rights interpretation." We're not arguing the individual v. collective rights interpretations, because the collective rights interpretation is a crock of shit.
The Miller case they said:
"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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."
"In the absence of any evidence.... we cannot say the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument"
Basically. We don't know. Because the evidence isn't here.
"Meaningless mumbo jumbo."
If you think it's "Meaningless mumbo jumbo." it's because you have no idea what I'm saying. Just because you're ignorant of these matters, doesn't mean I am.
Oh. You aren't familiar with the jurisprudence. My bad.You're mentioning "The court" and you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claim. How am I supposed to know what court you're talking about and what case you're talking about?
Is this part of the 2nd Amendment? I may have missed it.It comes from the House in 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
"In common use for traditionally legal purposes."Fine, you want fully automatic machine guns to be "in common use"? They just aren't
giffords.org
It was created under the article 1 Sec 8 power to create armies, not the militia clausesNo, the National Guard is not a federal force.
Oh. You aren't familiar with the jurisprudence. My badWell, you've managed to bring up the Heller case without actually saying it's the Heller case. You need to say what case you're talking about.
You missed the point.Basically. We don't know. Because the evidence isn't here.
That's the mumbo jumbo part.If you think it's "Meaningless mumbo jumbo." it's because you have no idea what I'm saying.
When that happens, let us know.Court cases are frequently re-visited...
I don't care. It will have no affect on me.When that happens, let us know.
"Less" criminality; fewer criminals.If our society banned and outlawed dopeheads, criminals and crazy people from being a part of society we could all own automatic weapons and everything would be fine.
Semi auto or full auto, doesn't matter. If someone wants to pick one up and go hurt others they will do it. Even if we ban all guns the people who want to go out and hurt others will still be here.
There are over 100 million more guns than people in America. Obviously guns don't cause shootings, if they did we would all be dead right now. But we aren't because most Americans are decent people and don't want to shoot others.
If we get rid of criminals, dopeheads and crazy people there won't be anyone left that wants to go hurt others. All that would be here are decent average citizens that already own several guns and never shot anyone.
I say America needs to get rid of people who comitt crimes and are crazy so our society is safer. And so I can go buy a fully automatic mp5 and ak47 without paying through the nose and having an atf license and being in a watch list.
Less criminals means more freedom.
The only way for that to happen is to amend the Constitution.Court cases are frequently re-visited, especially after extremists push things too far and the vast majority has had enough. The real "slippery slope" is insisting on an unrealistic standard that drives the public to over reaction. "Infringed" and other terms may go the way of "marriage", for example.
we can start with antifa and BLM,,Those oppose this ruling are being unconstitutional.
If you become involved with violence, be sure and make sure the police find out if the accused have firearms.
The People aren't armed because they're part of the militia. They're part of the militia because they're armed.
Oh. You aren't familiar with the jurisprudence. My bad.
-The court held that demonstrating a need to carry and gun is an infringement.
-The court held that the legal requirement to secure a gun is an infringement.New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN
www.law.cornell.edu
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Thus:
In both cases you could still legally own a gun, in both cases your right to do so was infringed.
Thus, your standard, has no factual or legal basis.
Is this part of the 2nd Amendment? I may have missed it.
"In common use for traditionally legal purposes."
According to Giffords, there are over 740,000 legal machine guns registered in the US
In Caetano "common use" was met at about 200,000Machine Guns, Trigger Activators & 50 Caliber Weapons
Machine guns, trigger activators, and bump stocks can cause destruction. The government does not regulate all military-grade firearms.
Thus, in common use for traditionally legal purposes - even if that use is just collecting or investingCAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
It was created under the article 1 Sec 8 power to create armies, not the militia clauses
Reserve component of the US military.
When you join the NG you join the NG of the United States.
Federal force.
Oh. You aren't familiar with the jurisprudence. My bad
You missed the point.
In both cases, the weapons protected by the 2nd are those "in common use at the time" - and thus, not tanks, SAMS, etc.
That's the mumbo jumbo part.
Work on your clarity.
