Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS

[Rigby5]

All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise – ultimately the Supreme Court.

Laws and measures that place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right which have not been invalidated by the courts are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘infringing’ on the Second Amendment right.

Wrong.
The SCOTUS has been very wrong many times.
An obvious example it the Dread Scott Decision.
The fact we decide to let them fix their own mistakes is from our benevolence.
Legally, morally, and ethically we should not, and we should be up in arms more.
For example, Prohibition, Vietnam, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, etc.
Those things murdered people, and those responsible should then pay the ultimate price.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course.

Not quite.
What they can require a permit for is when you want to infringe upon the rights of those who depend upon that road to get someplace.
The government itself has no authority to arbitrarily require or regulate anything.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

what should be? the 2nd amendment itself? or the expansion of its meaning?

The 2nd Amendment is (at a minimum) a ban on any federal authority.

Others argue that it does not specify, and is a ban on ALL authority.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is simply not true. Context matters. There are no individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment. Simply implying it is a fallacy.

There are no collective rights independent of individual rights, PERIOD. They do not exist. It is a logical impossibility.

If you would quit espousing that COMPLETELY FLAWED position, you would actually be right about most of it.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no collective rights independent of individual rights, PERIOD. They do not exist. It is a logical impossibility.

If you would quit espousing that COMPLETELY FLAWED position, you would actually be right about most of it.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Then, why do we need a second amendment?

To lay a foundation, set a floor as it were, our right to bear arms is then given a "skies the limit" expansion allowance in terms of freedom which can be different in each state but 2nd amendment puts all states under the same constitutional restraint in limiting the right to bear arms...
It used to be taught in schools that the second amendment [[along with the first] was/were our red flag amendment...you were taught to recognize those that would take our freedoms would have to first take our guns lest they become a statistic.

 

[Rigby5]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Exactly.
Those who think the militia is the National Guard have it wrong because when you chase a thief from your property, you are then the militia as well.
There were no police back then, and police really are not in our line of defense because they arrive too late.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You confuse the unorganized militia with the organized militia.

 

[Rigby5]

To lay a foundation, set a floor as it were, our right to bear arms is then given a "skies the limit" expansion allowance in terms of freedom which can be different in each state but 2nd amendment puts all states under the same constitutional restraint in limiting the right to bear arms...
It used to be taught in schools that the second amendment [[along with the first] was/were our red flag amendment...you were taught to recognize those that would take our freedoms would have to first take our guns lest they become a statistic.

Exactly.
Without the right to bear arms, then you end up with no rights at all.

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly.
Without the right to bear arms, then you end up with no rights at all.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[Rigby5]

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.

You confuse the unorganized militia with the organized militia.

Since the "right of the people" implies universality, it then can't be limited to just the organized militia, which could now be considered the National Guard.
The unorganized militia is not only who needed defensive arms the most often, but is where the organized militia has to draw from when needed.
So you need both, and can't really have either if you allow significant gun control.
Gun control by its nature is automatically against egalitarianism.
It always tends to the corruption of the wealthy elite over the masses, and implies the end of democracy.

 

[danielpalos]

Since the "right of the people" implies universality, it then can't be limited to just the organized militia, which could now be considered the National Guard.
The unorganized militia is not only who needed defensive arms the most often, but is where the organized militia has to draw from when needed.
So you need both, and can't really have either if you allow significant gun control.
Gun control by its nature is automatically against egalitarianism.
It always tends to the corruption of the wealthy elite over the masses, and implies the end of democracy.

No, it doesn't. Only well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

No, it doesn't. Only well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

But you just quoted that the militia is the ENTIRE population.
If a granny needs to shoot a shotgun in the air to scare a fox from the chickens, she is the militia.

And again, "well regulated" means practiced and functioning smoothly.
The implication being that the founders wanted citizen soldiers instead of a mercenary military, and wanted to be sure the entire population was well versed in the use of weapons.
Citizen soldiers and gun control are contradictory.

Nor does ANYONE need "recourse" to the 2nd amendment.
The constitution does not create rights.
It simply was limiting federal jurisdiction, and prevented any federal jurisdiction over firearms.

 

[danielpalos]

But you just quoted that the militia is the ENTIRE population.

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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[Rigby5]

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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

This is obviously saying the people as a whole ARE the unorganized militia that need to keep well versed in firearms.
The organized militia can then draw on this constantly firearm familiar pool when needed.

Sure the federal government is authorized to organize, arm, and discipline the organized Militia when needed.
But that can not happen if the people as a whole are not in possession of firearms, so they are familiar.

And clearly only part of the militia are ever called up.
Your quote says that.
{... for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States ...}

 

[Rigby5]

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.

You confuse the unorganized militia with the organized militia.

That makes no sense.
The organized militia is the part of the militia that is called up for active duty by the federal government, so it can NOT be the organized militia the 2nd amendment is protecting.
What sense would it make to prevent the federal government from disarming its own troops?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That makes no sense.
The organized militia is the part of the militia that is called up for active duty by the federal government, so it can NOT be the organized militia the 2nd amendment is protecting.
What sense would it make to prevent the federal government from disarming its own troops?

there is no point arguing with him he is brain dead.

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong.
The SCOTUS has been very wrong many times.
An obvious example it the Dread Scott Decision.

Actually the Dred Scott decision teaches that the Supreme Court wasn't wrong, they were a reflection of what the country was at the time. They found support for slavery in the constitution, and in the laws of the states.
So in the end, Dred Scott was never overturned, it was constitutionally amended.

 

[danielpalos]

This is obviously saying the people as a whole ARE the unorganized militia that need to keep well versed in firearms.
The organized militia can then draw on this constantly firearm familiar pool when needed.

Sure the federal government is authorized to organize, arm, and discipline the organized Militia when needed.
But that can not happen if the people as a whole are not in possession of firearms, so they are familiar.

And clearly only part of the militia are ever called up.
Your quote says that.
{... for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States ...}

according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That means "wellness of regulation" must be prescribed by Congress not any common definition in any dictionary.

 

[danielpalos]

That makes no sense.
The organized militia is the part of the militia that is called up for active duty by the federal government, so it can NOT be the organized militia the 2nd amendment is protecting.
What sense would it make to prevent the federal government from disarming its own troops?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.