Federal Ban on Fully Automatic Assault rifles, and Sub- Machine guns, unconstitutional. And anti 2nd Amendment. Must be overturned by Supreme Court.!

[M14 Shooter]

Thing is, at no point have I said that a person has to demonstrate a need to carry a gun.
In fact I haven't even spoken about carrying guns.
So I'm wondering why you brought up a case about demonstrating a need to carry a gun.
Also didn't talk about securing guns.
So again, why did you bring thing up?

Then you haven't been paying attention, because it should be obvious to anyone who has.

You said:
If you legally own a weapon, they're not infringing on that right.
Thus, your standard.

I gave you two instances where people could legally own weapons, and yet had their right infringed.

Your if/then - your standard - is unsound.

Are you fucking kidding me. This is from the Founding Fathers, the people who WROTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. They clearly show what "bear arms" means. You dismiss it without even a thought.

Its not in the amendment, so they must have changed their minds.
Absent the inclusion of the amendment, all you have is commentary of a minority who was overruled.
Which, of course, proves nothing.
So sorry, try again.,

I can't be bothered with this conversation.

Running way so soon?
Your surrender... accepted.

 

[whitehall]

They celebrate restrictions on the 1st Amendment freedom of religion with bad Supreme Court decisions that created the "separation of church and state" that had no Constitutional relevance but they want to make fully automatic weapons (that the Founding Fathers never conceived of ) available to maniacs?

 

[52ndStreet]

The main point is, there is a reason why the Federal government banned Fully automatic weapons. It was not just the criminal gangs of the 1920's. They did not want the civilians with these kinds of weapons. Even though there are a few states where you can still buy a fully automatic assault rifle, and or submachine gun. Its just that the price may be very high. The Federal government wants to eventually confiscate all weapons at some point in the future, from what I have been hearing.!!??But many won't allow it to happen!!??That's why we have these gun grabbing politicians out there.!1?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They celebrate restrictions on the 1st Amendment freedom of religion with bad Supreme Court decisions that created the "separation of church and state" that had no Constitutional relevance but they want to make fully automatic weapons (that the Founding Fathers never conceived of ) available to maniacs?

What a goofy opinion. The separation of state is positive republicanism that protects man's private opinions.

You have no need for certain as everyday weapons: a mortar, a 50 cal machine gun, a bazooka, a nuclear frigate. Just stop being stupid.

 

[progressive hunter]

What a goofy opinion. The separation of state is positive republicanism that protects man's private opinions.

You have no need for certain as everyday weapons: a mortar, a 50 cal machine gun, a bazooka, a nuclear frigate. Just stop being stupid.

would you rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it??

just think of a 50 cal machine gun as insurance against the unkown,,

I cant imagine how much fire insurance I have paid for in the last 35 ys of owning a home tht I havent gotten any return on,,

at least thee 50 cal is fun to practice with,,

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They celebrate restrictions on the 1st Amendment freedom of religion with bad Supreme Court decisions that created the "separation of church and state" that had no Constitutional relevance but they want to make fully automatic weapons (that the Founding Fathers never conceived of ) available to maniacs?

What a goofy opinion. The separation of state is positive republicanism that protects man's private opinions.

You have no need for certain as every day weapons: a mortar, a 50 cal machine gun, a boozka, a nuclear frigrate. Just stop being stupid.

Then you haven't been paying attention, because it should be obvious to anyone who has.

You said:
If you legally own a weapon, they're not infringing on that right.
Thus, your standard.

I gave you two instances where people could legally own weapons, and yet had their right infringed.

Your if/then - your standard - is unsound.


Its not in the amendment, so they must have changed their minds.
Absent the inclusion of the amendment, all you have is commentary of a minority who was overruled.
Which, of course, proves nothing.
So sorry, try again.,

Running way so soon?
Your surrender... accepted.

Your argument is facile and weak. You are no expert. The Supreme Court is, thus you get to opine but nothing more. You are wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then you haven't been paying attention, because it should be obvious to anyone who has.

You said:
If you legally own a weapon, they're not infringing on that right.
Thus, your standard.

I gave you two instances where people could legally own weapons, and yet had their right infringed.

Your if/then - your standard - is unsound.


Its not in the amendment, so they must have changed their minds.
Absent the inclusion of the amendment, all you have is commentary of a minority who was overruled.
Which, of course, proves nothing.
So sorry, try again.,

Running way so soon?
Your surrender... accepted.

If you're childish to go for surrenders and the like, by all means, have a surrender.

I come on here for adult conversation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I come on here for adult conversation.

If that were true you would not have tucked tail and ran away from points you cannot counter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your argument is facile and weak.

You cannot demonstrate the error in my argument.,

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Okay, and what does this have to do with what I said?

This is what you said,

"Actually I do have a factual basis for saying that "bear arms" means "militia duty""

We don't own guns because we're part of the militia. We're part of the militia because we own guns.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

frigidweirdo is clearly correct, and Will Bill ain't got a clue.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is what you said,

"Actually I do have a factual basis for saying that "bear arms" means "militia duty""

We don't own guns because we're part of the militia. We're part of the militia because we own guns.

Not really. But also you're not wrong.

An individual has the right to be in the militia.

Mostly people are automatically in the militia. However the right to be in the militia was designed to stop the feds from being able to stop people being in the militia.

You could own guns without being in the militia.

However I wrote a post showing that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" as meaning "render military service" and "militia duty". Hence, the right to bear arms means the right to be in the militia. Your post doesn't even mention this, doesn't respond to this. It just says something related to the militia, not related to what I said.

 

[progressive hunter]

However I wrote a post showing that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" as meaning "render military service" and "militia duty". Hence, the right to bear arms means the right to be in the militia. Your post doesn't even mention this, doesn't respond to this. It just says something related to the militia, not related to what I said.

what causes a person to think just because they wrote something on the internet that its true??

military service and militia are two different things and it went downhill from there,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not really. But also you're not wrong.
An individual has the right to be in the militia.

False.
The militia can reject anyone it wants; a rejected individual cannot force the militia to accept him..
Currently, it rejects the disabled, men over the age of 45, and almost all women.

Mostly people are automatically in the militia.

Again: False.

You could own guns without being in the militia.

As the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd is not connected to service on the militia, this is obvious.

However I wrote a post showing that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" as meaning "render military service" and "militia duty".

You made a claim..
You did not demonstrate the validity of same.

Hence, the right to bear arms means the right to be in the militia.

This argument, demonstrated unsound, above.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We all read the 2nd Amendment. " The right to bear arms must not be infringed upon. And a well maintained, and fully regulated States militia must be maintained." This Federal ban of Fully automatic weapons, can be considered an infringement.!!? The main weapons of a States militia man, is an Assault rifle.!, not semi automatic assault rifle. But we must have access to Fully Automatic Assault rifles. The Federal ban on Fully automatic weapons must be revoked.!!??

So why you won't let the likes of felons own guns, or do you cherry pick the infringement part?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Not really. But also you're not wrong.

An individual has the right to be in the militia.

Mostly people are automatically in the militia. However the right to be in the militia was designed to stop the feds from being able to stop people being in the militia.

You could own guns without being in the militia.

However I wrote a post showing that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" as meaning "render military service" and "militia duty". Hence, the right to bear arms means the right to be in the militia. Your post doesn't even mention this, doesn't respond to this. It just says something related to the militia, not related to what I said.

That was never the case.

 

[frigidweirdo]

False.
The militia can reject anyone it wants; a rejected individual cannot force the militia to accept him..
Currently, it rejects the disabled, men over the age of 45, and almost all women.

Again: False.

As the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd is not connected to service on the militia, this is obvious.

You made a claim..
You did not demonstrate the validity of same.

This argument, demonstrated unsound, above.

Nope, the militia can't reject whoever it wants.

The NATIONAL GUARD can. Why? Because of the Militia Act of 1902 where they made the "unorganized militia". Everyone is literally in it, but it barely exists. It exists to get around the problem of the right to bear arms giving every individual, more or less, the right to be in the militia.

"You made a claim..
You did not demonstrate the validity of same."

Yes, I did.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Here it is again. From post 25 which you didn't seem to read the first time.

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.

Either read it, or the conversation is over.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That was never the case.

That's not a reply that leads anywhere. Try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, the militia can't reject whoever it wants.

The state and local militias define their own membership requirements; if you don't meet the requirements, it can deny you entry.
The federal government also defines its membership requirements; if you don't meet the requirements, it can deny you entry.
And neither militia can be forced to take you.
So... Yes. It can.
Thus, its not a right.

The NATIONAL GUARD can.

The NG is a federal force, created under the congressional power to raise armies. It can refuse people just like the army can.
No right to join that, either.

"You made a claim..
You did not demonstrate the validity of same."
Yes, I did.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I addressed this
Where is that language in the 2nd? I must have missed it.
Absent its inclusion into the 2nd, all you have is a brief exchange of ideas among a few people - hardly a factual or legal basis.

So, you're back to no rational, factual, or legal basis for your statement.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The state and local militias define their own membership requirements; if you don't meet the requirements, it can deny you entry.
The federal government also defines its membership requirements; if you don't meet the requirements, it can deny you entry.
And neither militia can be forced to take you.
So... Yes. It can.
Thus, its not a right.

The NG is a federal force, created under the congressional power to raise armies. It can refuse people just like the army can.
No right to join that, either.

I addressed this
Where is that language in the 2nd? I must have missed it.
Absent its inclusion into the 2nd, all you have is a brief exchange of ideas among a few people - hardly a factual or legal basis.

So, you're back to no rational, factual, or legal basis for your statement.

Yes, because the state militias can do this because EVERYONE is automatically in the "unorganized militia".

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25119439.pdf

The Dick Act,

"I propose to state briefly the provisions of this Act. The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes?the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia."

The state militia is part of the National Guard and is the "organized militia". They are usually a part of their state, but when called upon, can be a federal force.

Texas Militia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example the Texas militia:

"The Texas Militia are the militia forces of the State of Texas. It currently consists of the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard"

The Texas State Guard isn't a part of the federal forces, but the other two are. The feds passed a law in WW1 that allowed for state militias to exist outside of the federal service because they were calling people up into the National Guard and sending them to France.

The problem with the militia, and the reason for the Dick Act, was that militias weren't very good.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Several problems were identified with the National Guard during the Spanish–American War, such as units suffering from low levels of training and readiness and a lack of standardization in organizational structure, uniforms, equipment, leader qualifications and professional development."

The question was "how do you professionalize an army, when everyone can demand to be a part of that army?" The simple answer was to make this "unorganized militia" as a "look, you're already in the militia, you can't demand to be a part of the National Guard".

But there is a right to be in the militia. The Founding Fathers literally spoke about it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

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."

So, they worried the govt would say "you're a Catholic, Catholics are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, therefore you can't bear them" if they kept this clause.
Why would stopping individuals carrying guns around in their daily life give the people in power the chance "to destroy the constitution itself"?

It wouldn't.
However, stopping individuals being in the militia WOULD.

Yep, no right to join the National Guard. But there is a right to join the militia. So they made the "unorganized militia". You're in it, everyone's in it, problem solved.

You're dismissing what the Founding Fathers said when discussing the language that was to go into the Second Amendment. This conversation was IN THE HOUSE. We don't have Senate conversations because they're secret.

Get this if you're going to ignore what the Founding Fathers said:

These conversations happened on the 17th and 20th August 1789

The original version of the 2A said nothing about religious scruples.

June 8th 1789 the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." was introduced.

August 17th they changed it to: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th they changed it back to "render military service" and it was there the day after then disappeared.

So, clearly "render military service" and "bear arms" are synonymous. This isn't just a conversation in the insignificant House which debated the wording of the 2A, this is the actually different versions of it.

But I guess if you want to dismiss things without understanding them... you'll do it just because you don't want the truth, you want what's convenient.