Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).just a shill for your Cause?
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Moving the goal posts?
I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited. I never claimed there should not be regulations. I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states. You disagreed. I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).Moving the goal posts?
I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited. I never claimed there should not be regulations. I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states. You disagreed. I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
It really is that simple, except to the Right.
why encourage the plague?Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
It really is that simple, except to the Right.
Completely irrelevant. Of course a state militia is exempt. But your claims that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
why encourage the plague?Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
It really is that simple, except to the Right.
Completely irrelevant. Of course a state militia is exempt. But your claims that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding. It really is that simple except to the right.Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
It really is that simple, except to the Right.
Completely irrelevant. Of course a state militia is exempt. But your claims that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding. It really is that simple except to the right.Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
It really is that simple, except to the Right.
Completely irrelevant. Of course a state militia is exempt. But your claims that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding. It really is that simple except to the right.Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
It really is that simple, except to the Right.
Completely irrelevant. Of course a state militia is exempt. But your claims that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
You have not claimed that there must be regulations. You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one. Nothing in the entire ruling supports that. Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding. It really is that simple except to the right.It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
It really is that simple, except to the Right.
Completely irrelevant. Of course a state militia is exempt. But your claims that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
You have not claimed that there must be regulations. You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one. Nothing in the entire ruling supports that. Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding. It really is that simple except to the right.The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
It really is that simple, except to the Right.
Completely irrelevant. Of course a state militia is exempt. But your claims that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
You have not claimed that there must be regulations. You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one. Nothing in the entire ruling supports that. Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
No appeal to ignorance needed. As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding. It really is that simple except to the right.Completely irrelevant. Of course a state militia is exempt. But your claims that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
You have not claimed that there must be regulations. You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one. Nothing in the entire ruling supports that. Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
No appeal to ignorance needed. As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding. It really is that simple except to the right.
You have not claimed that there must be regulations. You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one. Nothing in the entire ruling supports that. Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
No appeal to ignorance needed. As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours. You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim. But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
No one is completely ignoring the first clause. Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed. That was the intent of the founding fathers. That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.You have not claimed that there must be regulations. You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one. Nothing in the entire ruling supports that. Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
No appeal to ignorance needed. As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours. You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim. But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
No one is completely ignoring the first clause. Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed. That was the intent of the founding fathers. That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.
No appeal to ignorance needed. As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours. You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim. But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
No one is completely ignoring the first clause. Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed. That was the intent of the founding fathers. That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
Bullshit. Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia. Nothing at all.
I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.No appeal to ignorance needed. As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours. You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim. But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
No one is completely ignoring the first clause. Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed. That was the intent of the founding fathers. That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
Bullshit. Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia. Nothing at all.
I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.
Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours. You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim. But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
No one is completely ignoring the first clause. Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed. That was the intent of the founding fathers. That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
Bullshit. Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia. Nothing at all.
I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2). But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias. Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours. You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim. But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
No one is completely ignoring the first clause. Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed. That was the intent of the founding fathers. That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
Bullshit. Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia. Nothing at all.
I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2). But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias. Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
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.
LMAO! What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.
Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
Bullshit. Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia. Nothing at all.
I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2). But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias. Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
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.
LMAO! What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
LMAO! What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.Bullshit. Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia. Nothing at all.
I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2). But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias. Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
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.
LMAO! What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.LMAO! What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.
Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2). But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias. Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
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.
LMAO! What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.
""(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.
It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.LMAO! What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2). But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias. Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
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.
LMAO! What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.
""(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.
