Matt Gaetz says gun are not hunting , their to take down the government.

[meaner gene]

case law doesnt apply to constitutional issues,, only amendments change the constitution,,

but you knew that,,\

Really? The case law of Marburry v Madison comes to mind to completely disprove that theory.

 

[2aguy]

The right cannot be exercised without the individuals.

Wouldn't that be the definition of a collective right? A group made up of individuals.

Wow.....you really are slow, aren't you?

 

[meaner gene]

And as the members of the Continental Army went home as the Army moved between the colonies....they took their private muskets and rifles with them...

Once again for the man in the clown car. They did not own private muskets (this is a 99th percentile statement) They owned rifles, pistol, etc, but muskets were not a practical firearm for any other purpose but waging war, or suppressing insurrecton.

 

[2aguy]

case law doesnt apply to constitutional issues,, only amendments change the constitution,,

but you knew that,,\

Really? The case law of Marburry v Madison comes to mind to completely disprove that theory.

Can I go down to the Townhall and hold up a sign?

Or am I required to be part of a group to do it?

Does a single reporter have protection of the "press," or must he be part of a group of reporters to get that protection?

Again...where are you getting your ideas?

 

[progressive hunter]

case law doesnt apply to constitutional issues,, only amendments change the constitution,,

but you knew that,,\

Really? The case law of Marburry v Madison comes to mind to completely disprove that theory.

Can I go down to the Townhall and hold up a sign?

Or am I required to be part of a group to do it?

Does a single reporter have protection of the "press," or must he be part of a group of reporters to get that protection?

Again...where are you getting your ideas?

you can save your time with this one,,

 

[2aguy]

And as the members of the Continental Army went home as the Army moved between the colonies....they took their private muskets and rifles with them...

Once again for the man in the clown car. They did not own private muskets (this is a 99th percentile statement) They owned rifles, pistol, etc, but muskets were not a practical firearm for any other purpose but waging war, or suppressing insurrecton.

Either way, dipshit, the only point that is important, while you dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge....................the rifles and muskets were privately owned......

 

[meaner gene]

So, again, you are saying I can't go to townhall and protest...right....? If I am by myself then the government can prevent me from protesting.....?

Are you really this dense?

If you, as an individual stood in front of city hall and loudly shouted, you would be disturbing the peace under california law

In the state of California, disturbing the peace is defined as a violation of California Penal Code 415 PC

Maliciously and willfully disturbing another person by using loud and unreasonable noise, including music or shouting

In contrast, california allows that behavior of a group.

Does Disturbing the Peace Apply to Protests?

Protests can become loud and definitely constitute the broad concept of “disturbing the peace,” but many protests are protected under the first amendment. Individuals are allowed to legally gather in California in order to make their voices heard and speak out against injustices.

A large crowd is loudly chanting or singing a particular message ... is protected under the first amendment

When Is Protesting Disturbing the Peace? | Orange County Criminal Defense Blog

The first amendment protects your right to peacefully assemble and protest, but when is that freedom infringed upon by disturbing the peace laws?

www.topcalifornialawyer.com

 

[2aguy]

So, again, you are saying I can't go to townhall and protest...right....? If I am by myself then the government can prevent me from protesting.....?

Are you really this dense?

If you, as an individual stood in front of city hall and loudly shouted, you would be disturbing the peace under california law

In the state of California, disturbing the peace is defined as a violation of California Penal Code 415 PC

Maliciously and willfully disturbing another person by using loud and unreasonable noise, including music or shouting

In contrast, california allows that behavior of a group.

Does Disturbing the Peace Apply to Protests?

Protests can become loud and definitely constitute the broad concept of “disturbing the peace,” but many protests are protected under the first amendment. Individuals are allowed to legally gather in California in order to make their voices heard and speak out against injustices.

A large crowd is loudly chanting or singing a particular message ... is protected under the first amendment

When Is Protesting Disturbing the Peace? | Orange County Criminal Defense Blog

The first amendment protects your right to peacefully assemble and protest, but when is that freedom infringed upon by disturbing the peace laws?

www.topcalifornialawyer.com

Again....you duck, dodge, dip, dive, duck......

You pretend not to understand the question and answer made up issues...

Do I have the Right as an individual to go to Town Hall and assemble?

 

[meaner gene]

Once again for the man in the clown car. They did not own private muskets (this is a 99th percentile statement) They owned rifles, pistol, etc, but muskets were not a practical firearm for any other purpose but waging war, or suppressing insurrecton.

Either way, dipshit, the only point that is important, while you dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge....................the rifles and muskets were privately owned......

You should abandon that private individuals owned muskets. This is ridiculous. These were weapons provisioned to the militia by the states.
The people owned rifles, and other weapons of hunting, or personal protection like pistols. Weapons of war like muskets were only in the hands of the state and local governments.

 

[2aguy]

Once again for the man in the clown car. They did not own private muskets (this is a 99th percentile statement) They owned rifles, pistol, etc, but muskets were not a practical firearm for any other purpose but waging war, or suppressing insurrecton.

Either way, dipshit, the only point that is important, while you dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge....................the rifles and muskets were privately owned......

You should abandon that private individuals owned muskets. This is ridiculous. These were weapons provisioned to the militia by the states.
The people owned rifles, and other weapons of hunting, or personal protection like pistols. Weapons of war like muskets were only in the hands of the state and local governments.

Were the rifles and muskets privately owned?

 

[BlackSand]

Wouldn't that be the definition of a collective right? A group made up of individuals.

.

Any collective right is exercised by the individuals.
Collective rights don't exist without individuals.

The Bill of Rights plainly define what the Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government the power to do in the first damn place ...
You trying to figure out any way it grants the Government the power to do anything ... Is not what the fuck it means ...


.​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gaetz explained the reason for the 2nd amendment. It was a right of the people, but a right through the local elected government, who was in charge of the militia to arm its citizens.

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

Correct.

None of which has anything to do with the Second Amendment, which is an individual – not collective – right.

Indeed, the military paradigm of the Founding Era has long been an anachronism no longer relevant; for well over a century state militia were not the first and only line of defense from foreign invasion or attack.

Moreover, the notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ private citizens to ‘form’ militias and be armed as soldiers or military combatants is likewise anachronistic, wrong, and devoid of Constitutional merit.

Defending America from invasion and attack is the sole purview of the US military and national guard, not private citizens with semi-automatic small arms.

Last, and again, there is nothing in Second Amendment case law that endorses insurrectionist dogma, the wrongheaded belief that private citizens have the right to be armed to defend against a lawfully elected government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ – the Framers did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they just created.

 

[meaner gene]

Again....you duck, dodge, dip, dive, duck......

You pretend not to understand the question and answer made up issues...

Do I have the Right as an individual to go to Town Hall and assemble?

For the man in the clown car, to put it simply enough for you to understand.

California penal code 415 PC says that if you protested in front of city hall, you would be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace.

If you were part of a group, you could not be.

Thus that right is a group right, not an individual one.

 

[meaner gene]

Were the rifles and muskets privately owned?

This is why you have clown czar status.
Muskets were owned by the state (99th percentile statement)
Rifles were owned by private individuals.

 

[meaner gene]

.

Any collective right is exercised by the individuals.
Collective rights don't exist without individuals.
.​

Did you ever study logic? All passenger cars are motor vehicles, but not all motor vehicles are passenger cars.

Did you ever study math? Sin(a+b) doesn't equal Sin(a) + Sin(b). A group right or function is non-distributive.

 

[Auld Phart]

Again....you duck, dodge, dip, dive, duck......

You pretend not to understand the question and answer made up issues...

Do I have the Right as an individual to go to Town Hall and assemble?

For the man in the clown car, to put it simply enough for you to understand.

California penal code 415 PC says that if you protested in front of city hall, you would be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace.

If you were part of a group, you could not be.

Thus that right is a group right, not an individual one.

So, what number is the cut off?


1 person=gets arrested
2 people=gets arrested
3 people=gets arrested
etc

How many individuals have to show up, before they are afforded the right to peacefully protest?

 

[BlackSand]

Did you ever study logic? All passenger cars are motor vehicles, but not all motor vehicles are passenger cars.

Did you ever study math? Sin(a+b) doesn't equal Sin(a) + Sin(b). A group right or function is non-distributive.

.

Sweetie ... I don't give a fuck if you are a Rhodes Scholar ...
That's not going to change what the Constitution says or means.

.​

 

[meaner gene]

None of which has anything to do with the Second Amendment, which is an individual – not collective – right.

Indeed, the military paradigm of the Founding Era has long been an anachronism no longer relevant; for well over a century state militia were not the first and only line of defense from foreign invasion or attack.

Moreover, the notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ private citizens to ‘form’ militias and be armed as soldiers or military combatants is likewise anachronistic, wrong, and devoid of Constitutional merit.

Defending America from invasion and attack is the sole purview of the US military and national guard, not private citizens with semi-automatic small arms.

You are correct under the legal theory of the constitution as a living document, but with the new conservative us supreme court, I have to operate under their legal doctrines, as they would be the ones to ultimately prevail.

Matt Gaetz's view actually would reverse DC V Heller, as an interpretation of the 2nd from applying the intent, meaning, and usage of those words at the time the constitution was written, and not their interpretation to fit the country as it is today.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

.

You don't need to explain what isn't in the Second Amendment.
It's not there ... It doesn't say or mean what you want it to mean.

A State can form, arm and regulate a militia without violating the individual's right.
No one is asking you to make something up that suggests otherwise, or isn't in the Second Amendment.

.​

There is no individual right in the 2nd, no matter what Scalia twisted into Heller V DC. It's clear from the text " the right of the people" is used, not an individual reference.

And the case stating such right DC V Heller, ... well read about the problem for yourself.

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

This definition of “the people” applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights, the Court said.11 In District of Columbia v. Heller12 in 2008, the Court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition, and similarly suggested that the term “the people” has a
consistent meaning throughout the Constitution.13 But Heller also said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community.” Heller thus contains a confusing three-part analysis: (1) it approved of
Verdugo-Urquidez’s interpretation; (2) it substituted “members of the political community” for “persons who are part of a national community”; and (3) it suggested that “the people” means the same thing throughout the Constitution. Heller’s analysis has created a tension
that has attracted little notice

Prior to Heller the prevailing consensus among American jurists was that the Second Amendment right was a collective right, concerning the role of state militia as the first line of defense from foreign invasion, that private citizens needed to be armed to participate in a militia, being the sole purpose of armed private citizens – in that those not serving in the capacity of a militia could be lawfully and constitutionally prohibited from possessing firearms.

But the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what the Constitution means; the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment, an Amendment that codifies an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

 

[CremeBrulee]

And as the members of the Continental Army went home as the Army moved between the colonies....they took their private muskets and rifles with them...

Once again for the man in the clown car. They did not own private muskets (this is a 99th percentile statement) They owned rifles, pistol, etc, but muskets were not a practical firearm for any other purpose but waging war, or suppressing insurrecton.

You're kind of nitpicking here on the difference between a musket and a fowler.