Right to BEAR arms upheld in Federal Appeals Court

[OODA_Loop]

The way you comment you sound like an attorney.

A very poor attorney.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Ah, they find one example of "bear arms" being used in a manner, so now they've decided ALL MEANINGS must mean this, even though there's DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE it means "render military service" and "militia duty". Not only this THE WHOLE DAMN FUCKING AMENDMENT is about "A well regulated militia".
.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. - DC vs Heller

 

[frigidweirdo]

That the Supreme Court would come up with this bullshit argument is telling.

Yes telling us that what you call bullshit is lawful self-defense is provided for and protected by the Second Amendment as incorporated by McDonald vs Chicago.

You aren't listening.

There's a right to self defense. But it's not in the Second Amendment. Why would it be?

The First Amendment. What's it for? Why's it in the Bill of Rights?

First you have the religious part. This is designed to stop religion being in Federal politics.

Then you have free speech which is designed so people could freely talk politics.

Then you have the protest part which is to protest the politicians.

Politics, politics, politics.

Third Amendment. Preventing the politicians putting soldiers in people's homes. Keeping politics out of people's homes.

Fourth Amendment is to stop the government from going into people's homes and doing with them what they wish.

Fifth Amendment is about stopping the govt charging people for crimes without a grand jury. Essentially to keep politics out of the courtrooms. People get tried by the laws as they are written, and not tried by a govt who wants them to be guilty.

Sixth Amendment is pretty similar.

Seventh Amendment is pretty similar.

Eighth Amendment is pretty similar.

So, you have eight Amendments in the Bill of Rights which are there to keep politics alive and out of people's homes.

It's about an interaction between the people and the Federal government.

This interaction in the 2A is there. It's about the govt not taking people's guns away, and not preventing them being in the Militia. Why? So the militia is the ultimate safeguard against government intrusion. If the 1st and 3rd to 8th have become worthless, there's the 2A.

Now. If we put in the right of people to defend themselves, what's this got to do with politics? What's this got to do with the Federal government? Nothing. There's no link there. Such a thing doesn't have a place in the Bill of Rights 1-8.

That doesn't mean there isn't a right to self defense. But you can defend yourself with a knife. With a TV. With fists.

And now you've brought up McDonald vs Chicago without saying why. Back to the old tricks of presenting nothing and hoping for what, exactly?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, they find one example of "bear arms" being used in a manner, so now they've decided ALL MEANINGS must mean this, even though there's DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE it means "render military service" and "militia duty". Not only this THE WHOLE DAMN FUCKING AMENDMENT is about "A well regulated militia".
.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. - DC vs Heller

Which is nice. No opinion.

Now. Here's the thing. Firstly, there's a right to own a weapon. It's the right to keep arms. Yes, it's unconnected with militia service.

The funny thing is, they said it's unconnected with militia service. Why? Why include this bit?

Maybe because the Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia...." Why's that there if it's all about self defense?

Here's the second problem. The whole "traditionally lawful purposes" is just guff. It sounds good. It makes people think something.

If something is ILLEGAL, it's not "traditionally lawful". So, you can own a gun, and they're saying that if you own a gun, you can do all the legal things with the gun. Oh, wow, thanks for telling me that I'm not breaking the law by NOT BREAKING THE LAW.

It's like saying you can use your gun to eat pancakes with because no one bothered to make eating pancakes with a gun illegal.

You have the RIGHT. The right to keep arms. The right to bear arms. Then you have things that aren't protected by the 2A, but that you can do with a gun anyway.

The problem is, people see the Second Amendment as "the gun Amendment", it's all about guns. It protects every fucking thing you could possibly think of with a gun. Er... no, it doesn't.

There's a right to self defense. Just as there's a right to privacy. Neither are written specifically in the Bill of Rights. Doesn't mean they're not recognized.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And now you've brought up McDonald vs Chicago without saying why. Back to the old tricks of presenting nothing and hoping for what, exactly?

McDonald incorporated Heller to the States

 

[OODA_Loop]

Which is nice. No opinion.

No need for an opinion i presented rule of law of the highest court.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And now you've brought up McDonald vs Chicago without saying why. Back to the old tricks of presenting nothing and hoping for what, exactly?

McDonald incorporated Heller to the States

Okay, and? Why the hell are you saying this.

Did you know that Kentucky Fried Boogers won the Superbowl in 1743?

See, I can just put random shit into posts too.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The problem is, people see the Second Amendment as "the gun Amendment", it's all about guns. It protects every fucking thing you could possibly think of with a gun. Er... no, it doesn't.
.

No its limited. See: Common use holding of Heller.

 

[2aguy]

Ah, they find one example of "bear arms" being used in a manner, so now they've decided ALL MEANINGS must mean this, even though there's DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE it means "render military service" and "militia duty". Not only this THE WHOLE DAMN FUCKING AMENDMENT is about "A well regulated militia".
.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. - DC vs Heller

Which is nice. No opinion.

Now. Here's the thing. Firstly, there's a right to own a weapon. It's the right to keep arms. Yes, it's unconnected with militia service.

The funny thing is, they said it's unconnected with militia service. Why? Why include this bit?

Maybe because the Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia...." Why's that there if it's all about self defense?

Here's the second problem. The whole "traditionally lawful purposes" is just guff. It sounds good. It makes people think something.

If something is ILLEGAL, it's not "traditionally lawful". So, you can own a gun, and they're saying that if you own a gun, you can do all the legal things with the gun. Oh, wow, thanks for telling me that I'm not breaking the law by NOT BREAKING THE LAW.

It's like saying you can use your gun to eat pancakes with because no one bothered to make eating pancakes with a gun illegal.

You have the RIGHT. The right to keep arms. The right to bear arms. Then you have things that aren't protected by the 2A, but that you can do with a gun anyway.

The problem is, people see the Second Amendment as "the gun Amendment", it's all about guns. It protects every fucking thing you could possibly think of with a gun. Er... no, it doesn't.

There's a right to self defense. Just as there's a right to privacy. Neither are written specifically in the Bill of Rights. Doesn't mean they're not recognized.

Yeah.... that whole "Keep and Bear Arms," part must really confuse you....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which is nice. No opinion.

No need for an opinion i presented rule of law of the highest court.

Look. I come on here expecting people to be able to discuss their views on things.

If you can't, then why the fuck do you bother coming on here? To post random shit that makes no sense to anyone?

The really bad bit here is that they let people with no fucking clue vote.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And now you've brought up McDonald vs Chicago without saying why. Back to the old tricks of presenting nothing and hoping for what, exactly?

McDonald incorporated Heller to the States

Okay, and? Why the hell are you saying this.

Did you know that Kentucky Fried Boogers won the Superbowl in 1743?

See, I can just put random shit into posts too.

It incorporates right to self-defense to the States.

 

[2aguy]

And now you've brought up McDonald vs Chicago without saying why. Back to the old tricks of presenting nothing and hoping for what, exactly?

McDonald incorporated Heller to the States

He knows you are right, which is why he is posting nonsense in response to your use of Heller and MacDonald...... Scalia goes through the entire wording of the Second Amendment in Heller, it is there, he has been shown the relevant parts.....and so he/she/it has to pretend it doesn't say what it says....

 

[OODA_Loop]

Which is nice. No opinion.

No need for an opinion i presented rule of law of the highest court.

Look. I come on here expecting people to be able to discuss their views on things.

If you can't, then why the fuck do you bother coming on here? To post random shit that makes no sense to anyone?

The really bad bit here is that they let people with no fucking clue vote.

My discussion = the law supports the right to self-defense as protected by the 2A

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is, people see the Second Amendment as "the gun Amendment", it's all about guns. It protects every fucking thing you could possibly think of with a gun. Er... no, it doesn't.
.

No its limited. See: Common use holding of Heller.

"No its limited." Am I supposed to know what this means. Somewhere you got your grammar fucked up, because that sentence doesn't mean anything.

"It's not limited" would be the correct way of writing what you just wrote. But I have the feeling this isn't what you wanted to say. How about "No, it's limited"???? Not sure.

"See: Common use holding of Heller." Am I supposed to know what this means either?

Fuck me.

 

[OODA_Loop]

He knows you are right, which is why he is posting nonsense in response to your use of Heller and MacDonald...... Scalia goes through the entire wording of the Second Amendment in Heller, it is there, he has been shown the relevant parts.....and so he/she/it has to pretend it doesn't say what it says....

Yes. Whipped.

 

[OODA_Loop]

2nd AM is limited.

 

[2aguy]

That the Supreme Court would come up with this bullshit argument is telling.

Yes telling us that what you call bullshit is lawful self-defense is provided for and protected by the Second Amendment as incorporated by McDonald vs Chicago.

There is no mention....at all.... in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that allows someone to kill a baby in the womb...yet frigid and his anti gunners see it like it is plain as day...... the 2nd Amendment? For some reason, even with the Heller decision, it doesn't mean what it plainly means......

They have reality dyslexia.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

And now you've brought up McDonald vs Chicago without saying why. Back to the old tricks of presenting nothing and hoping for what, exactly?

McDonald incorporated Heller to the States

Okay, and? Why the hell are you saying this.

Did you know that Kentucky Fried Boogers won the Superbowl in 1743?

See, I can just put random shit into posts too.

It incorporates right to self-defense to the States.

Except it doesn't.

Did no one ever tell you what the US Constitution is? Okay, you didn't get an education, that's fine. You can learn here.

The US Constitution is about the POWERS the US Federal Government has, or doesn't has.

Mostly the bit not including the Amendments is powers that the govt has.

The Bill of Rights were LIMITS ON FEDERAL POWER.

Now, you're telling me that the Federal Govt doesn't have the power to self defense? That the Federal Govt doesn't have the power to do what with Self Defense, exactly?

You want the 2A to GRANT a right to self defense, don't you? But the Bill of Rights DOESN'T GRANT rights. It merely LIMITS the powers the Federal Govt has.

Okay, then incorporation means the States are also limited.

What do you think they're limited in doing, exactly?

 

[OODA_Loop]

And now you've brought up McDonald vs Chicago without saying why. Back to the old tricks of presenting nothing and hoping for what, exactly?

McDonald incorporated Heller to the States

Okay, and? Why the hell are you saying this.

Did you know that Kentucky Fried Boogers won the Superbowl in 1743?

See, I can just put random shit into posts too.

It incorporates right to self-defense to the States.

Except it doesn't.

Start your journey to enlightenment here:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which is nice. No opinion.

No need for an opinion i presented rule of law of the highest court.

Look. I come on here expecting people to be able to discuss their views on things.

If you can't, then why the fuck do you bother coming on here? To post random shit that makes no sense to anyone?

The really bad bit here is that they let people with no fucking clue vote.

My discussion = the law supports the right to self-defense as protected by the 2A

Yes, I got that. You made that clear in the first post. But since then you've set about NOT PROVING that to be the case. You simple write shit that doesn't mean anything.

If you can discuss shit, then why come on here?