Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights

[RetiredGySgt]

You're FOS.
' A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'.

The vision of an American militia goes back even before the United States Constitution or the founding of the United States. In most states in colonial America, all able-bodied men were considered to be part of the militia – through which the individual towns and cities would provide for the common defense.

A militia is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution, prior to the Bill of Rights. Article I, Section 8, drafted around the same time as the founding of the Springfield Armory (ground zero for American ammunition manufacturing), mentions it three times alone:

• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
• 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

Article II, Section 2 designates the President of the United States as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”

The Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY address that and RULED the right is not dependent on membership in a militia it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

 

[M14 Shooter]

That isn't a ban, moron.

Fact remains:
California requires the registration of firearms with the state, that gun owners obtain a license - which has a training requirement - to own a gun, limits ownership to only certain approved guns (thereby banning ownership of the rest), and allows people to carry a gun only in they can demonstrate a good reason for doing so.
Apply the relevant analogues of these limitations to abortion, and liberal heads would explode.

Why do you disagree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes.

And so, you agree that if some psychopath steals an AR15 and shoots up a school, Bushmaster cannot be hald liable.
Right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those were some rights, people previously never had.

Incorrect.
These were rights the people has, but not allowed to exercise by the state.
The court (and the amendments) removed the restrictions placed on said exercise by the state.
Therefore, not granted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There was at the time.

False.
At no point in time was there a requirement by any government that to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, a person had to be a member of a militia.

Thus
As there is no requirement to be part of any militia to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and to the enjoy the protection of the 2nd Amendment while doing so, it is only proper that the GOP ignore "that part".

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're FOS.
' A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'.

Nowhere in here is a requirement tha 'the people" who hold the right to keep and bear arms be part of a militia to enjoy the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
So says the USSC.
You can disagree, but it just means you choose to be wrong.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You're lying about what the 2A actually says...lol

You're FOS.

'We don't have to belong to a militia. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment requires it'.

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.

Of course, the GQP leaves out the first six words.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

If they can be overturned by a court, they're not rights...lol

What a moron.
IF rights can be overturned by a court, they're not rights?
Trump really loves you.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

False.
At no point in time was there a requirement by any government that to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, a person had to be a member of a militia.

That's because at the time virtually everyone was in the militia.

A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records.

Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law.
Unorganized Militia: This is virtually every other man in the United States. Men are not part of the unorganized militia if they are part of the organized militia. All other able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 are considered part of the militia.

Thus
As there is no requirement to be part of any militia to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and to the enjoy the protection of the 2nd Amendment while doing so, it is only proper that the GOP ignore "that part".

Not now, there isn't.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Nowhere in here is a requirement tha 'the people" who hold the right to keep and bear arms be part of a militia to enjoy the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
So says the USSC.
You can disagree, but it just means you choose to be wrong.

'So says the USSC'.
That was the ruling.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY address that and RULED the right is not dependent on membership in a militia it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

No shit.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Fact remains:
California requires the registration of firearms with the state, that gun owners obtain a license - which has a training requirement - to own a gun, limits ownership to only certain approved guns (thereby banning ownership of the rest), and allows people to carry a gun only in they can demonstrate a good reason for doing so.
Apply the relevant analogues of these limitations to abortion, and liberal heads would explode.

Why do you disagree?

A woman gets an abortion has to go to a licensed provider or hospital.
Her name and other personal records are kept on a permanent file, depending.
The unlicensed provider is banned and can be charged with murder if they terminate a pregnancy of the late term or if the woman tries an abortion herself.

 

[Batcat]

GREAT!

Abortion kills unborn children.
Guns enable suicide and murder.

Human Life is precious.

Guns also save lives when used for legitimate self defense.

I might not have ever been born had it not been for the fact that my mother carried a S&W Ladysmith .22 caliber revolver with her in her purse.

In Pennsylvania in the 1920s she was returning home from work. She had got off a bus in a fairly remote area and was walking to her house. A man who had been hiding in some bushes rushed her. She drew the revolver from her purse and fired two shots over his head. He turned and ran. Her father heard the shots and ran out of their home with his .Colt 45 pistol. The attacker (most likely a rapist) was never caught but my mother never had any further problems.

Firearms are neither evil or good. That is all up to the person using one.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Incorrect.
These were rights the people has, but not allowed to exercise by the state.
The court (and the amendments) removed the restrictions placed on said exercise by the state.
Therefore, not granted.

Wrong.
They're were vigilantes and militias before there were state laws.
They were the law.

 

[JoeB131]

We see it in several cities where the government has forced police to stand down. It has nothing to do with the economy.

That's one theory... it really doesn't hold any water, but you go with that.

 

[SavannahMann]

Take it beyond the Second Amendment. This law, if it stands, could be used to abridge any rights you can imagine. Michigan has a growing Muslim Population. If they get enough votes in the Legislature, they could pass a similar law that anyone who attends a Christian Church can be sued by someone else, not the Government, under a mirror of this law.

Sound insane? You bet it is. But if the Texas law is allowed to stand, that would be our future. States simply passing legislation to allow mob enforcement of laws through harassment lawsuits.

And before you say that the Constitution protects this or that. Think again. The Constitution is already well beyond where the Founders wrote it. Take the First Amendment.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law. What stops States and local governments from banning the rights listed in the First Amendment? Congress didn’t act. The Courts did. They determined that the rights listed were individual rights, and protected from infringement by any Government. So the City Council can’t screw with your First Amendment rights despite the fact that they are not Congress.

That is always something the Originalists seem to ignore.

And for those who argue that Abortion isn’t needed. There are alternatives available. Fine. Explain why you need a Semi Automatic Rifle. Isn’t there Bolt Action, Lever Action, and Pump Action rifles available? Why do you need a semi automatic rifle?

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about the type of arms. So banning Semi Automatic Weapons would be fine wouldn’t it?

FWIW I don’t think anything should be banned. In fact, I believe that Ex Cons should get their full rights back after completing their sentence. But I am a believer in freedom. I am merely playing Devils Advocate here.

Your right to be secure in your person and papers. The Supreme Court ruled that these protections extended to phone calls and electronic communications. Where is that in the Constitution? Where does it say your email, which is not paper, is protected from unwarranted search and seizure?

You all need to think.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

That's one theory... it really doesn't hold any water, but you go with that.

That's a fact, not a theory.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You're FOS.

'We don't have to belong to a militia. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment requires it'.

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.

Of course, the GQP leaves out the first six words.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary.

What does "right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

What does "right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean?

What does "right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean?

What does 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' mean?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

What does 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' mean?

It means that since a militia is necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in case of the government excercising tyrannical rule. Say if military units decide to violate the 3rd Amendment, or the 4th and 5th Amendments, or the 8th Amendment.

Let's put it terms you can relate to: if Trump were reelected and deployed the Army to arrest you for being a Libtard. In that scenario, you'll need to be able to defend yourself and you'll want your neighbors to be armed and able to assist in that defense.