Obama's Judges : Right to Bear Arms Not An INDIVIDUAL Right

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama's Judges : Right to Bear Arms Not An INDIVIDUAL Right

And?

You’ve got Reagan and Bush appointees to the Supreme Court who state there’s no right to privacy.

Federal judges, Supreme Court justices, and the president are all entitled to their own opinions, regardless how wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bullshit it's bullshit. The Constituion does not say guns or firearms. it says ARMS, period.

YOU said it was "There is no, not even a wisp, of ambiguity in the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms.’", didn't you? Are now backtracking from that statement?

Pretty straight forward, right?

The U.S. Congress defined ARMS......



Defining Arms, Ammunition and Implements of War under the Neutrality Legislation, 1934 - Wikisource, the free online library

Notice the words "Mustard Gas"? Isn't that considered a WMD????

"ARMS" are what you are basing your argument on?
You do realize that arms are the 18th century term for firearms?
Ever heard the term Stack of arms?

I gave you a dictionary definition and Congressional definition. What else do you need?

.

How about the word as it was meant when it was written into the second amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.

Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.

But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.

There is little evidence as to why the Framers composed the Second Amendment as they did. Its composition is consistent with the rest of the Constitution, however, allowing for interpretation.

The important thing is that the Framers perceived it to be a significant issue to include in the Bill of Rights, worthy of judicial review, and subject to interpretation by the courts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait, so we DON'T have to follow SCOTUS rulings?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.

Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.

But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.

There is little evidence as to why the Framers composed the Second Amendment as they did. Its composition is consistent with the rest of the Constitution, however, allowing for interpretation.

The important thing is that the Framers perceived it to be a significant issue to include in the Bill of Rights, worthy of judicial review, and subject to interpretation by the courts.

You don't know as much as you think you do.
Long version
Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison

Short version
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

 

[AmericanFirst]

Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:

Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama

Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama

Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy


OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.

.

Obamaturds judges are as retarded as he is.

 

[DaGoose]

"ARMS" are what you are basing your argument on?
You do realize that arms are the 18th century term for firearms?
Ever heard the term Stack of arms?

I gave you a dictionary definition and Congressional definition. What else do you need?

.

How about the word as it was meant when it was written into the second amendment.

Are you saying people could not privately own cannons during the Revolutionary War? You do realize, of course, that the framers of the Constitution were alive at that time too.

So again......

We have the dictionary that defines ARMS.

We have the U.S. Congress that defines ARMS.

And we know that people privately owned cannons that are considered ARMS during the Revolutionary War.

And we have you trying to make points without a shred of evidence. What else ya got?

.

 

[OKTexas]

The Maryland legislature has declined to allow unrestricted carry outside the home, preferring instead to set standards for who can carry and who cannot. You seem to think that District Court should be able to overrule the legislature and effectively legislate from the bench.

Isn't that what the right likes to accuse liberal judges of doing?

So you think the courts shouldn't get in the way of voter id laws that were passed by legislators or abortion control laws. Let's see how you try to wiggle out of this without coming off as a hypocrite.

Give me some specific cases and let me see WHY the Courts have ruled the way they did and I'll get back to you.

I get it, you're the only one with the ability to judge if court interference is justified, OK. LMAO

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I gave you a dictionary definition and Congressional definition. What else do you need?

.

How about the word as it was meant when it was written into the second amendment.

Are you saying people could not privately own cannons during the Revolutionary War? You do realize, of course, that the framers of the Constitution were alive at that time too.

So again......

We have the dictionary that defines ARMS.

We have the U.S. Congress that defines ARMS.

And we know that people privately owned cannons that are considered ARMS during the Revolutionary War.

And we have you trying to make points without a shred of evidence. What else ya got?

.

Do you know how George Washington got most of his cannons?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I gave you a dictionary definition and Congressional definition. What else do you need?

.

How about the word as it was meant when it was written into the second amendment.

Are you saying people could not privately own cannons during the Revolutionary War? You do realize, of course, that the framers of the Constitution were alive at that time too.

So again......

We have the dictionary that defines ARMS.

We have the U.S. Congress that defines ARMS.

And we know that people privately owned cannons that are considered ARMS during the Revolutionary War.

And we have you trying to make points without a shred of evidence. What else ya got?

.

That would be amazing if they could pick up a cannon and carry it.

And we have you trying to make points without a shred of evidence. What else ya got?

Selective reading is what you do best. Stop using the a 1th century term as if it means the same thing in the 21st century.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The First Amendment can't apply to email because it didn't exist wayyyy back when the Constitution was ratified, amiright?

 

[FA_Q2]

Bullshit it's bullshit. The Constituion does not say guns or firearms. it says ARMS, period.

YOU said it was "There is no, not even a wisp, of ambiguity in the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms.’", didn't you? Are now backtracking from that statement?

Pretty straight forward, right?

No, I am not backtracking from that statement as your entire post fails to address that at all. It is CRYSTA CLEAR, you have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. No matter how much you try and deflect from that reality, it is not going to change.

The U.S. Congress defined ARMS......
[removed for brevity]
Notice the words "Mustard Gas"? Isn't that considered a WMD????

I also notice that you convienently left out the heading because it makes the entire attempt to tie this in with the arms in the second moot and a DIRECT attempt to misuse this section:

Whereas Section 2 of a Joint Resolution of Congress, entitled "Joint Resolution providing for the prohibition of the export of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to belligerent countries; the prohibition of the transportation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war by vessels of the United States for the use of belligerent States
[snip]
declare and proclaim that the articles listed below shall be considered arms, ammunition, and implements of war for the purposes of Section 2 of the said Joint Resolution of Congress:

So no, mustard gas is not an arm, even defined with your out of context quote and further, this quote is directly ties to another piece of legislation and is NOT for defining arms in the second amendment.