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

[Flash]

You dumb shit. Heller established the right to keep and bear arms as being an individual right.

Yup. Scalia knowing that the Militia Clause was a weak argument had to decouple that from the 2A. It was blatant Judicial Activism by a hypocrite who claimed to be an "originalist"

Unless we are in the armed forces we are all in the militia according to Federal code you dumbass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see your desire to modernize the constitutional view of the 2nd amendment to fit what the country currently looks like.

Actually not – I have no such desire.

My only desire is to be as consistent as possible by acknowledging the fact that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.

If one is to demonstrate that conservatives are wrong concerning various issues – conservatives’ desire to violate a woman’s right to privacy, conservatives’ desire to violate the rights of gay and transgender Americans, conservatives’ desire to violate the First Amendment rights of social media – by citing Constitutional case law as determined by the Supreme Court, then that acknowledgement must be likewise consistent, in this case Second Amendment case law.

 

[Lesh]

You dumb shit. Heller established the right to keep and bear arms as being an individual right.

Yup. Scalia knowing that the Militia Clause was a weak argument had to decouple that from the 2A. It was blatant Judicial Activism by a hypocrite who claimed to be an "originalist"

Unless we are in the armed forces we are all in the militia according to Federal code you dumbass.

Absolutely untrue.

NO person holding a federal job is in the militia.

Age limit is 18-45. Unsure if the law has ever been changed to include women.

Those limitations (among other reasons)are why Scalia felt compelled to decouple the militia clause from the 2A

 

[meaner gene]

"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."

from the way it is worded, it protects both.

This is where conservation comes in. The constitution is only 4,500 words long. So they did not put words into the constitution or it's amendments that did not need to be there. If the same meaning comes from 14 words (ignoring the preceding 13), there is no reason for the first 13 words.

Essentially, the constitution uses few words, but every word counts.

 

[Auld Phart]

"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."

from the way it is worded, it protects both.

This is where conservation comes in. The constitution is only 4,500 words long. So they did not put words into the constitution or it's amendments that did not need to be there. If the same meaning comes from 14 words (ignoring the preceding 13), there is no reason for the first 13 words.

Essentially, the constitution uses few words, but every word counts.

So, instead of listing rifles, shotguns, muskets, derringers, handguns, swords, knives, etc separately, they save space by only using 'arms', and somehow, it's readers choice as to which it refers to?

 

[meaner gene]

Exactly. The Insurrectionists knew that had the used guns they would have been met with overpowering force and would have "crossed the Rubicon" of sorts.

They would have committed treason, as defined in the constitution. A crime punishable by death.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them....

And that has already been interpreted by the USSC as:

The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution.

It would implicate both the people carrying out the act, and those who conspired with them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Correct, but they also have a certain duty not to upset the applecart, unless it's important enough to do so. The problem the supreme court has is to weigh stare decicis against a changing reality. They have done this by siteing things like the prevalence of "gay marriage" laws in the states, in order to make it a constitutional right by applying privileges and immunitys, and equal protection.

The Supreme Court’s duty is to interpret the Constitution consistent with facts, logic, and established precedent; to create a comprehensive Constitutional jurisprudence to guide lawmakers and instruct the lower courts how to rule.

The problem is that prior to Heller, Second Amendment case law was almost non-existent; indeed, the Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010!

That wasn’t the situation for cases such as Obergefell – the 14th Amendment jurisprudence used to overturn measures prohibiting same-sex marriage was comprehensive and overwhelming.

In essence Scalia had a clean slate with which to rule – he was at complete liberty to contrive whatever justification for the individual right, which he took full advantage of.

 

[meaner gene]

My only desire is to be as consistent as possible by acknowledging the fact that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.

If one is to demonstrate that conservatives are wrong concerning various issues – conservatives’ desire to violate a woman’s right to privacy, conservatives’ desire to violate the rights of gay and transgender Americans, conservatives’ desire to violate the First Amendment rights of social media – by citing Constitutional case law as determined by the Supreme Court, then that acknowledgement must be likewise consistent, in this case Second Amendment case law.

This is where conservatives are trying to apply to the courts, what they have done to voting laws. You can win the game by either scoring more points, or by controlling the umpires of the game.

Mitch McConnell has stacked the courts, denying qualified judges a hearing, and putting unqualified (except for their political views) judges onto the federal bench.

 

[meaner gene]

Unless we are in the armed forces we are all in the militia according to Federal code you dumbass.

Even the children?

WOW, you're a dumbass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“The Second Amendment – this is a little history lesson for all the fake news media. The Second Amendment is not about, it’s not about hunting, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about sports,” the 39-year-old went on. “The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary. I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation, and to make sure that they are fully understood.”

Gaetz: Second Amendment about waging ‘armed rebellion’ if necessary

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told an audience in Georgia Thursday that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to “maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary.&#82…

nypost.com

Do you agree with him?

Next thing they be rounding up all Democrats and put them in concentration camps.

Yes, Matt is so right, the way this fucked up government is acting, the concerned citizens need to be ready for the take over of this country by the Socialists.

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

Matt Gaetz says guns are not for hunting, they are to take down the government. Did that help you move a little closer to a higher education?​

View attachment 494552

This is a lie.

Jefferson never said this.

But he did say this:

Thomas Jefferson Quotes About Second Amendment | A-Z Quotes

Discover Thomas Jefferson quotes about second amendment. Share with friends. Create amazing picture quotes from Thomas Jefferson quotations.

www.azquotes.com

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

He also said this, at no time when he was president did the have a military like today, they had militia and wanted to make sure men was entitled to arm themselves.
------------------------------

First Army was established on 10 August 1918 as a field army when sufficient American military manpower had arrived in France during World War I.

First Army (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's nice.

When was the Navy, or Marines, created in the US?


I seem to remember celebrating the Navys 200th Birthday about 35 years ago.

Marines about the same time.

5 Oldest Branches of the U.S. Military - Oldest.org

Discover the 5 Oldest Branches of the U.S. Military here. Prepare to be transported into a rich & fascinating history on the oldest branches of military that exist.

www.oldest.org

LIBERTY! . Militia, Minutemen & the Continental Army | PBS

So, the Navy and the Marines have been lying about their ages for over 200 years?

OH, BTW

military service has NOTHING to do with the 2nd.

“The Second Amendment – this is a little history lesson for all the fake news media. The Second Amendment is not about, it’s not about hunting, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about sports,” the 39-year-old went on. “The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary. I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation, and to make sure that they are fully understood.”

Gaetz: Second Amendment about waging ‘armed rebellion’ if necessary

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told an audience in Georgia Thursday that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to “maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary.&#82…

nypost.com

Do you agree with him?

Next thing they be rounding up all Democrats and put them in concentration camps.

Yes, Matt is so right, the way this fucked up government is acting, the concerned citizens need to be ready for the take over of this country by the Socialists.

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

Matt Gaetz says guns are not for hunting, they are to take down the government. Did that help you move a little closer to a higher education?​

View attachment 494552

This is a lie.

Jefferson never said this.

But he did say this:

Thomas Jefferson Quotes About Second Amendment | A-Z Quotes

Discover Thomas Jefferson quotes about second amendment. Share with friends. Create amazing picture quotes from Thomas Jefferson quotations.

www.azquotes.com

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

He also said this, at no time when he was president did the have a military like today, they had militia and wanted to make sure men was entitled to arm themselves.
------------------------------

First Army was established on 10 August 1918 as a field army when sufficient American military manpower had arrived in France during World War I.

First Army (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's nice.

When was the Navy, or Marines, created in the US?


I seem to remember celebrating the Navys 200th Birthday about 35 years ago.

Marines about the same time.

5 Oldest Branches of the U.S. Military - Oldest.org

Discover the 5 Oldest Branches of the U.S. Military here. Prepare to be transported into a rich & fascinating history on the oldest branches of military that exist.

www.oldest.org

LIBERTY! . Militia, Minutemen & the Continental Army | PBS

So, the Navy and the Marines have been lying about their ages for over 200 years?

OH, BTW

military service has NOTHING to do with the 2nd.

No it doesn't. The military use to refer to them as militias.

Who gets to decide for militias (nowadays) to fight the military. Tramp??

Have you ever read past the second comma in the 2nd Amendment?


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 don't have to belong to a militia to own a firearm.

That's old , now we have both the military and the militias. They are different.

You seem to can't answer a question I put to you,

Who gets to decide as to whether the Militias (nowadays) fight the Military. Tramp?

That's old , now we have both the military and the militias. They are different.

and my point remains.

Military/militia have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.


"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

and the only 'tramp' I see is you.

I see you can't or refuse to answer my question!

and I see you can't pull your head out of your ass.

TrUmp has no jurisdiction over militias.

I don't know which is worse...

your infatuation with Trump, or your ignorance about the 2nd Amendment.

the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary.

who decides the above quote, if it becomes necessary??
It was a conservative (misnomer)who said it.

I guess we'll never know, because nobody will be allowed to say "it's now necessary" without facing a midnight raid and criminal prosecution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They should use these, the day the Constitution was ratified. The rifles today are not for the civilians.

Rifles​

Another type of weapon was the American long rifle. Many legends surround the American long rifle in the Revolution.

The rifle was a long gun made with grooves inside its barrel which made it more accurate than a musket. It was very accurate up to 300 yards and thus was a powerful weapon in the hands of scouts and skirmishers. American riflemen were so feared that some British officers were advised to remove the gold trimmings from their coats. However, the rifle was a slow weapon to reload and did not have a bayonet. A rifleman could be overtaken quickly by dragoons—troops on horseback—or by men with bayonets. North Carolina riflemen participated in defeating the British at the Battle of Kings Mountain.

You have no first amendment right to free speech on a computer!!! There were no computers when the constitution was ratified.

 

[CremeBrulee]

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.

If you want to interpret the 2nd amendment you have to know the difference. Did it protect people owning rifles, or did it protect people owning muskets?

Owning rifles is an individual right, while owning muskets is a collective one.

A fowler/fowling "musket" is a civilian smoothbore and a musket is a military smoothbore. The differences aren't that great. The biggest probably being standardized production, weight, and the ability to equip a bayonet. Fowlers would have been owned by pretty much every colonist making it kind of absurd that the 2nd Amendment wouldn't protect muskets.

 

[freyasman]

I don't care.

I have guns, and I'm keeping them.
If someone comes to take them, I will shoot them.
If I can't for some reason, then I will catch them later, cut their throats, and take their guns, to replace the ones they stole from me.
Then I will go find whoever sent them after me and kill them, too.

And soon, after a dozen or a hundred guys like me get done, there will be no more of this nonsense. Because the folks pushing it will be either dead or hiding.





Now...... any more stupid questions, or are we done here?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

True but the Constitution only protects gun ownership in THAT regard

…if the Supreme Court had ruled in such a manner as to codify the collective right, but it didn’t.

Yes, under the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment DC’s handgun ban would be Constitutional, as no resident of the District had neither the need nor reason to participate in a militia.

Moreover, the collective right interpretation likely would not have resulted in the incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions – allowing the states and local jurisdictions to decide for themselves what firearm regulatory measures are appropriate and what are not, consistent with states’ rights and local rule dogma.

Such is the irony of conservative hypocrisy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Supreme Court’s duty is to interpret the Constitution consistent with facts, logic, and established precedent; to create a comprehensive Constitutional jurisprudence to guide lawmakers and instruct the lower courts how to rule.

And for the past 80 years, they have been derelict in that duty because they have ignored construction principles and went straight down party lines. It started with the entire SCOTUS that was appointed by that motherfucking asshole, FDR.

 

[meaner gene]

Essentially, the constitution uses few words, but every word counts.

So, instead of listing rifles, shotguns, muskets, derringers, handguns, swords, knives, etc separately, they save space by only using 'arms', and somehow, it's readers choice as to which it refers to?

Yes. It is also why they use "the people" meaning different things in different places, without enumerating which groups are included or excluded from "the people".

It's up to the interpretation of the constitution, to determine what it says, or what it means.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

True but the Constitution only protects gun ownership in THAT regard

…if the Supreme Court had ruled in such a manner as to codify the collective right, but it didn’t.

Yes, under the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment DC’s handgun ban would be Constitutional, as no resident of the District had neither the need nor reason to participate in a militia.

Moreover, the collective right interpretation likely would not have resulted in the incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions – allowing the states and local jurisdictions to decide for themselves what firearm regulatory measures are appropriate and what are not, consistent with states’ rights and local rule dogma.

Such is the irony of conservative hypocrisy.

And this post is further proof that you know good and motherfucking well what Scalia was gutless in Heller. What he should have done (and you fucking know it) is to declare all federal gun laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You KNOW it.

 

[meaner gene]

A fowler/fowling "musket" is a civilian smoothbore and a musket is a military smoothbore. The differences aren't that great.

Actually they're completely different. Different caliber. take different projectiles, and have completely different range.

Other than that, they're just like each other.

 

[meaner gene]

Yes, under the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment DC’s handgun ban would be Constitutional, as no resident of the District had neither the need nor reason to participate in a militia.

Moreover, the collective right interpretation likely would not have resulted in the incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions – allowing the states and local jurisdictions to decide for themselves what firearm regulatory measures are appropriate and what are not, consistent with states’ rights and local rule dogma.

Such is the irony of conservative hypocrisy.

Just when I thought you didn't deserve another "WOW" you hit another home run.

 

[meaner gene]

And this post is further proof that you know good and motherfucking well what Scalia was gutless in Heller. What he should have done (and you fucking know it) is to declare all federal gun laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You KNOW it.

Interesting. And having done so, how would you justify keeping firearms out of the hands of people in prison?