Restoration of Civil Rights should include the 2nd Amendment

[Wayne Adams]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

No matter when you quote what the founders meant when they said a "well regulated militia" you will find people trying to put their own spin on the words.

Contrary to your opinion, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the regulation of firearms. The Second Amendment is about the regulation of people called the militia. And how, exactly were they to be regulated?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

This is the input from those who had a direct impact on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

If I understand you correctly, you think it is "idiotic" to have an unregulated right (sic) to be able to own a firearm. And yet this country was founded on that very premise. The FIRST time the Georgia Supreme Court considered this issue, this is their ruling:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

What can we say that will make the point any clearer to you?

 

[JoeB131]

Nonsense. The constitutional rule of law defines the nation. Half the people are fucked in the head at any given moment.

Oh, I agree, they are... Half the country are racist assholes, but the rest of us keep you in line.

1) You claim that most Americans are decent people. Then you have negative things to say about gun owners. You say they are decent people then insult them. What's up with that?

Because they are kind of stupid. The reasons most of you want guns are kind of stupid... they aren't useful for defense and they are useless for fighting off a government with tanks. But the 3% of you that own 50% of the guns and stock up like the Zombies are coming. Yeah, those people are idiots.

2) America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If it ain't froke, don't bix it. What you suggest is the way France operates. Perhaps you should pack your rags and go there

Um, first, I don't buy the whole "We are the greatest". We've accomplished some good things, we've done things we should be profoundly ashamed of (Slavery, McCarthyism, Electing Trump).

3) Adam Lanza was on SSRIs. ALL mass shooters are on either SSRIs or they are political jihadists.

Okay, he didn't kill those kids with pills, he killed them with bullets. the SSRI were to treat their crazy. We shouldn't give crazy people guns. This really isn't fucking complicated.

MAYBE the answer is to require people to go to counseling and then maybe live in one of those places where people work on a ranch and / or garden and go to workshops to see if they cannot be helped that way before giving them dangerous drugs. Did you ever think that might be an answer?

Nope... I think you need to stop reading websites sponsored by the Scientologists...

And don't give crazy people guns.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

It seems to me that you do not understand basic English grammar.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Nonsense. The constitutional rule of law defines the nation. Half the people are fucked in the head at any given moment.

Oh, I agree, they are... Half the country are racist assholes, but the rest of us keep you in line.

Surely you didn't mean to call me racist, did you?

1) You claim that most Americans are decent people. Then you have negative things to say about gun owners. You say they are decent people then insult them. What's up with that?

Because they are kind of stupid. The reasons most of you want guns are kind of stupid... they aren't useful for defense and they are useless for fighting off a government with tanks. But the 3% of you that own 50% of the guns and stock up like the Zombies are coming. Yeah, those people are idiots.

How many tanks does ISIS have? America was won by a handful of people with Arms against the mightiest superpower in the world to give you this Republic that you hate and despise so much

2) America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If it ain't froke, don't bix it. What you suggest is the way France operates. Perhaps you should pack your rags and go there

Um, first, I don't buy the whole "We are the greatest". We've accomplished some good things, we've done things we should be profoundly ashamed of (Slavery, McCarthyism, Electing Trump).

Today, I would agree we are not the greatest, but we definitely were. We sent out more missionaries than all other countries combined! We've been the leaders in fighting the world's wars... I could go and on, but what would the point be?

3) Adam Lanza was on SSRIs. ALL mass shooters are on either SSRIs or they are political jihadists.

Okay, he didn't kill those kids with pills, he killed them with bullets. the SSRI were to treat their crazy. We shouldn't give crazy people guns. This really isn't fucking complicated.

You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense. When drunk people wreck their cars, the driver is charged with DUI. We say the wreck is alcohol related. We don't advocate banning automobiles. But, when a person is killed by a firearm, it is the gun's fault?

MAYBE the answer is to require people to go to counseling and then maybe live in one of those places where people work on a ranch and / or garden and go to workshops to see if they cannot be helped that way before giving them dangerous drugs. Did you ever think that might be an answer?

Nope... I think you need to stop reading websites sponsored by the Scientologists...

And don't give crazy people guns.

1) Surely you didn't mean to call me racist, did you?


2) How many tanks does ISIS have? America was won by a handful of people with Arms against the mightiest superpower in the world to give you this Republic that you hate and despise so much. You do know we lost in Vietnam to a people that didn't even own a helicopter?

3) Today, I would agree we are not the greatest, but we definitely were. We sent out more missionaries than all other countries combined! We've been the leaders in fighting the world's wars... I could go and on, but what would the point be?


4) You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense. When drunk people wreck their cars, the driver is charged with DUI. We say the wreck is alcohol related. We don't advocate banning automobiles. But, when a person is killed by a firearm, it is the gun's fault?



5) This may come as a great big surprise to you, but I don't get my info from websites and I have zero knowledge about Scientology other than Tom Cruise was in it and another actress Lee Remini (?) left it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Nonsense. The constitutional rule of law defines the nation. Half the people are fucked in the head at any given moment.

Oh, I agree, they are... Half the country are racist assholes, but the rest of us keep you in line.

Tell that to the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Foisting firearms as a civil rights issue isn't the goal here. One can not compartementalize civil rights issues down to ONE, w/o consideration to all others.

~S~

True.

And the notion that the possession of firearms has anything to do with ‘protecting freedom’ is as ridiculous as it is wrongheaded.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens subjectively and incorrectly perceives that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

This is so wrong on EVERY level. I've cited case law on this very thread to the contrary of what is being said here.

Additionally, the founders of America had to take up arms against the government. It's how the fight for Independence was won. When liberals presume that arms cannot be used to preserve Liberty, they are simply out of touch with reality.

The founders, having used firearms in order to create this Republic would not then tell future generations that they should be deprived of weapons where they might have to live under a tyrannical government.

Subjective opinion, wrong and irrelevant.

Cite (provide a link) where in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment the Constitution authorizes a minority of citizens to overthrow a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the majority of the people, a government Constitutionally empowered at the behest of the majority of the people, because that minority incorrectly perceives the government to have become ‘tyrannical’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

A minority of armed citizens may not arbitrarily abridge the fundamental right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process by overthrowing a lawfully elected government through force of arms.

Hint: you find no such citation, but you’re at liberty to look regardless.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

Correct.

The Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – it is a right subject to regulation and restriction by government provided any measure authorizing the regulation or restriction of a firearm is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is perfectly consistent with Second Amendment case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

No matter when you quote what the founders meant when they said a "well regulated militia" you will find people trying to put their own spin on the words.

Contrary to your opinion, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the regulation of firearms. The Second Amendment is about the regulation of people called the militia. And how, exactly were they to be regulated?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

This is the input from those who had a direct impact on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

If I understand you correctly, you think it is "idiotic" to have an unregulated right (sic) to be able to own a firearm. And yet this country was founded on that very premise. The FIRST time the Georgia Supreme Court considered this issue, this is their ruling:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

What can we say that will make the point any clearer to you?

Wrong.

The Second Amendment in fact concerns the regulation of firearms, and authorizes government to enact measures to indeed regulate and restrict what firearms a citizen might possess and what firearms he may not possess:

“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.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[JoeB131]

1) Surely you didn't mean to call me racist, did you?

Yes, your side of the country are all racists.. Hate to break it to you, but that's how the one percent keeps you bent over asking for more. You cling to your guns and your bibles hoping the darkies won't get you, which is why you completely freaked the fuck out when Obama got elected.

2) How many tanks does ISIS have? America was won by a handful of people with Arms against the mightiest superpower in the world to give you this Republic that you hate and despise so much. You do know we lost in Vietnam to a people that didn't even own a helicopter?

Um, dummy, they didn't win.. we gave up. I promise you, the government won't "give up" when it's existence is threatened.

3) Today, I would agree we are not the greatest, but we definitely were. We sent out more missionaries than all other countries combined! We've been the leaders in fighting the world's wars... I could go and on, but what would the point be?

You are right, your stupidity is kind of pointless.

First and foremost, other countries had a lot more to do with winning the World Wars than we did. All we did was benefit from them. I guess that was clever, but not "Great". As far as missionaries, it will be a great day when we keep our religious stupidity to ourselves.

4) You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense. When drunk people wreck their cars, the driver is charged with DUI. We say the wreck is alcohol related. We don't advocate banning automobiles. But, when a person is killed by a firearm, it is the gun's fault?

We need autos.. we don't need guns. Other countries get by just fine without them.

5) This may come as a great big surprise to you, but I don't get my info from websites and I have zero knowledge about Scientology other than Tom Cruise was in it and another actress Lee Remini (?) left it.

Yeah, but you repeat their crazy bullshit about medications verbatim... and it's tiresome.

Pills aren't the problem, guns are. They probably have just as many crazy kids on SSRI's in Japan, but no mass shootings. Why? No guns.

This isn't fucking complicated.

 

[easyt65]

Why doesn't it? Do we want voters that cannot be trusted defend themselves?

Link to any story here?

 

[Wayne Adams]

Foisting firearms as a civil rights issue isn't the goal here. One can not compartementalize civil rights issues down to ONE, w/o consideration to all others.

~S~

True.

And the notion that the possession of firearms has anything to do with ‘protecting freedom’ is as ridiculous as it is wrongheaded.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens subjectively and incorrectly perceives that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

This is so wrong on EVERY level. I've cited case law on this very thread to the contrary of what is being said here.

Additionally, the founders of America had to take up arms against the government. It's how the fight for Independence was won. When liberals presume that arms cannot be used to preserve Liberty, they are simply out of touch with reality.

The founders, having used firearms in order to create this Republic would not then tell future generations that they should be deprived of weapons where they might have to live under a tyrannical government.

Subjective opinion, wrong and irrelevant.

Cite (provide a link) where in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment the Constitution authorizes a minority of citizens to overthrow a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the majority of the people, a government Constitutionally empowered at the behest of the majority of the people, because that minority incorrectly perceives the government to have become ‘tyrannical’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

A minority of armed citizens may not arbitrarily abridge the fundamental right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process by overthrowing a lawfully elected government through force of arms.

Hint: you find no such citation, but you’re at liberty to look regardless.

What a strawman argument! How absolutely ludicrous! The Second Amendment don't have squat to do with overthrowing a government.

OTOH, those foundational principles which caused us to go to war against King George are unequivocal. If such a Right had not existed (see the Declaration of Independence), you'd most likely be a slave.

 

[Wayne Adams]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

Correct.

The Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – it is a right subject to regulation and restriction by government provided any measure authorizing the regulation or restriction of a firearm is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is perfectly consistent with Second Amendment case law.

What the Second Amendment did was to discount all previous court precedents regarding unalienable Rights. Therein lies the real issue.

When the SCOTUS can over-rule their own decisions it negates the need for a legislature since the SCOTUS is now legislating from the bench. You should have read what the founders said about such a practice. I think it's on this thread at least once.

 

[Wayne Adams]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

No matter when you quote what the founders meant when they said a "well regulated militia" you will find people trying to put their own spin on the words.

Contrary to your opinion, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the regulation of firearms. The Second Amendment is about the regulation of people called the militia. And how, exactly were they to be regulated?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

This is the input from those who had a direct impact on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

If I understand you correctly, you think it is "idiotic" to have an unregulated right (sic) to be able to own a firearm. And yet this country was founded on that very premise. The FIRST time the Georgia Supreme Court considered this issue, this is their ruling:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

What can we say that will make the point any clearer to you?

Wrong.

The Second Amendment in fact concerns the regulation of firearms, and authorizes government to enact measures to indeed regulate and restrict what firearms a citizen might possess and what firearms he may not possess:

“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.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You cannot read very well, can you?

I pointed out in post # 47:

"The Courts have had the POWER to reinterpret the Constitution since then, but they certainly lacked the AUTHORITY. So, legitimately a person cannot be deprived of a Right. Once they paid their debt to society and have been released, they should retain ALL their Rights... otherwise NO Right is safe. Either they are given by your Creator or they are doled out by government. Which is it?"

You are a dangerous individual. PRIOR decisions wholly disagreed with your position 100 percent:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Did you see that? The state courts said that the Second Amendment is ABSOLUTE. The word absolute is synonymous with unalienable. Now look at what the SCOTUS said just a few years later:

“The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right; however, it is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. The Right predated the Constitution.

“[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity” - (George Mason, founding father)

What Mason said with respect to these natural rights (sic) is the exact definition of unalienable Rights.

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” (Samuel Adams, founding father)

The Heller Court made an unconstitutional decision that attacked not only the Second Amendment, but the entire Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights served as a limitation on government, NOT on individuals.

In a very strict, lawyerly sense, you might be right. OTOH, unconstitutional acts, even according to the SCOTUS themselves, do not have to be obeyed. SCOTUS has the power to circumvent the Constitution, but they lack the AUTHORITY.

 

[Hum Dinger]

"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."

'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

Clearly they did. Their choices of the words “unalienable” , and “shall not be infringed” we’re neither arbitrary, or accidental...

No one suggests that well regulated right to bear arms be infringed.

Anyone with a brain knows that arms must be regulated. In the words of Judge Scalia:

Even the most notable conservative Supreme Court justice, the late Antonin Scalia, wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Foisting firearms as a civil rights issue isn't the goal here. One can not compartementalize civil rights issues down to ONE, w/o consideration to all others.

~S~

True.

And the notion that the possession of firearms has anything to do with ‘protecting freedom’ is as ridiculous as it is wrongheaded.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens subjectively and incorrectly perceives that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

This is so wrong on EVERY level. I've cited case law on this very thread to the contrary of what is being said here.

Additionally, the founders of America had to take up arms against the government. It's how the fight for Independence was won. When liberals presume that arms cannot be used to preserve Liberty, they are simply out of touch with reality.

The founders, having used firearms in order to create this Republic would not then tell future generations that they should be deprived of weapons where they might have to live under a tyrannical government.

Subjective opinion, wrong and irrelevant.

Cite (provide a link) where in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment the Constitution authorizes a minority of citizens to overthrow a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the majority of the people, a government Constitutionally empowered at the behest of the majority of the people, because that minority incorrectly perceives the government to have become ‘tyrannical’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

A minority of armed citizens may not arbitrarily abridge the fundamental right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process by overthrowing a lawfully elected government through force of arms.

Hint: you find no such citation, but you’re at liberty to look regardless.

What a strawman argument! How absolutely ludicrous! The Second Amendment don't have squat to do with overthrowing a government.

OTOH, those foundational principles which caused us to go to war against King George are unequivocal. If such a Right had not existed (see the Declaration of Independence), you'd most likely be a slave.

So you have nothing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

Correct.

The Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – it is a right subject to regulation and restriction by government provided any measure authorizing the regulation or restriction of a firearm is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is perfectly consistent with Second Amendment case law.

What the Second Amendment did was to discount all previous court precedents regarding unalienable Rights. Therein lies the real issue.

When the SCOTUS can over-rule their own decisions it negates the need for a legislature since the SCOTUS is now legislating from the bench. You should have read what the founders said about such a practice. I think it's on this thread at least once.

Still nothing.

 

[Hum Dinger]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

"Well regulated" does not mean what you think it means. In context, it means "In proper working order".

It doesn't mean disciplined or jackbooted military-ish people. It is the common man, each and every one of us.

You just make this up as you go along, don't you!

No, 'Well Regulated' means just what it says. In terms of the militia it means well organized and controlled.

In terms of arms, it means common sense laws to control those arms.

And what's with the whole jack-booted nonsense? Military people haven't worn jack-boots for many, many years. They are long time obsolete.

I'd worry more about full-body armor and heavy weapons nowadays.

 

[Pilot1]

Well regulated does not mean CONTROLLED, or restricted. It means well trained (well timed, synchronized, coordinated), and well equipped. Clocks used to be called regulators. Timed, synchronization, coordination. See?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

No matter when you quote what the founders meant when they said a "well regulated militia" you will find people trying to put their own spin on the words.

Contrary to your opinion, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the regulation of firearms. The Second Amendment is about the regulation of people called the militia. And how, exactly were they to be regulated?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

This is the input from those who had a direct impact on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

If I understand you correctly, you think it is "idiotic" to have an unregulated right (sic) to be able to own a firearm. And yet this country was founded on that very premise. The FIRST time the Georgia Supreme Court considered this issue, this is their ruling:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

What can we say that will make the point any clearer to you?

Wrong.

The Second Amendment in fact concerns the regulation of firearms, and authorizes government to enact measures to indeed regulate and restrict what firearms a citizen might possess and what firearms he may not possess:

“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.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You cannot read very well, can you?

I pointed out in post # 47:

"The Courts have had the POWER to reinterpret the Constitution since then, but they certainly lacked the AUTHORITY. So, legitimately a person cannot be deprived of a Right. Once they paid their debt to society and have been released, they should retain ALL their Rights... otherwise NO Right is safe. Either they are given by your Creator or they are doled out by government. Which is it?"

You are a dangerous individual. PRIOR decisions wholly disagreed with your position 100 percent:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Did you see that? The state courts said that the Second Amendment is ABSOLUTE. The word absolute is synonymous with unalienable. Now look at what the SCOTUS said just a few years later:

“The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right; however, it is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. The Right predated the Constitution.

“[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity” - (George Mason, founding father)

What Mason said with respect to these natural rights (sic) is the exact definition of unalienable Rights.

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” (Samuel Adams, founding father)

The Heller Court made an unconstitutional decision that attacked not only the Second Amendment, but the entire Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights served as a limitation on government, NOT on individuals.

In a very strict, lawyerly sense, you might be right. OTOH, unconstitutional acts, even according to the SCOTUS themselves, do not have to be obeyed. SCOTUS has the power to circumvent the Constitution, but they lack the AUTHORITY.

“The Heller Court made an unconstitutional decision…”

lol

Too funny.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

 

[Vastator]

"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."

'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

Clearly they did. Their choices of the words “unalienable” , and “shall not be infringed” we’re neither arbitrary, or accidental...

No one suggests that well regulated right to bear arms be infringed.

Anyone with a brain knows that arms must be regulated. In the words of Judge Scalia:

Even the most notable conservative Supreme Court justice, the late Antonin Scalia, wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Some contemporary waxing nostalgic about what the founders meant... Carries as much weight as my opinion...