Right to BEAR arms upheld in Federal Appeals Court

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Oh, fucking hilarious. 2Aguy is so full of shit. He's a guy who likes to write "gun free Britain" even after I've told him MULTIPLE TIMES that Britain has 2.4 million guns in the hands of civilians. And then tells me that I don't follow the facts after dodging this fact, and many more, for a long time.

And then you pop up and tell me I've been whipped. Whipped by what? You don't FUCKING HAVE ANYTHING>

 

[OODA_Loop]

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?
?

Federal Government doesn't have the power to prevent you from bearing arms for personal self-defense outside of connection with the militia. Same for the States (McDonald incorporation)

 

[OODA_Loop]

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?

The law trumps opinion. My discussion ends and starts with: Here is the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The courts have already held that the carrying of concealed firearms is Constitutionally protected, having invalidated measures that prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms; as a consequence, the right to self-defense with regard to firearms clearly extends beyond the home as a matter of law.

And because the right to self-defense with a firearm extends beyond the home, measures prohibiting the open carrying of firearms should be struck down; ‘may issue’ concealed carry licensing policies should likewise be struck down as citizens cannot be compelled to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

It’s appropriate and understood that the Supreme Court should first allow the lower courts to develop a jurisprudence and allow that jurisprudence to evolve, and to not consider a given matter until ripe for review.

But the Hight Court needs to hear both matters to address the inconsistent regulation of the carrying of firearms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?
?

Federal Government doesn't have the power to prevent you from bearing arms for personal self-defense outside of connection with the militia. Same for the States (McDonald incorporation)

And why would they put this in the Bill of Rights?

Think about this logically.

Do you expect the Federal Govt to be hiding around every corner. They see a guy just about to defend himself and they come out in force and they're like "drop your weapon man in the hat, drop it now, let this man rob you."

Do you really think, when the Founding Fathers were discussing the Second Amendment, that they were thinking of situations like this? Really?

That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Now, here's the fun bit. Can you find me one bit of information where the Founding Fathers were discussing the future Second Amendment, where they discussed the Federal govt stepping in to stop people defending themselves?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

The law trumps opinion. My discussion ends and starts with: Here is the law.

And clearly mindless crap trumps debate because you can't debate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The courts have already held that the carrying of concealed firearms is Constitutionally protected, having invalidated measures that prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms; as a consequence, the right to self-defense with regard to firearms clearly extends beyond the home as a matter of law.

And because the right to self-defense with a firearm extends beyond the home, measures prohibiting the open carrying of firearms should be struck down; ‘may issue’ concealed carry licensing policies should likewise be struck down as citizens cannot be compelled to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

It’s appropriate and understood that the Supreme Court should first allow the lower courts to develop a jurisprudence and allow that jurisprudence to evolve, and to not consider a given matter until ripe for review.

But the Hight Court needs to hear both matters to address the inconsistent regulation of the carrying of firearms.

Except that people need to get permits to carry and conceal AND the NRA supports such permits.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Now, here's the fun bit. Can you find me one bit of information where the Founding Fathers were discussing the future Second Amendment, where they discussed the Federal govt stepping in to stop people defending themselves?

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.

• Tench Cox Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Now, here's the fun bit. Can you find me one bit of information where the Founding Fathers were discussing the future Second Amendment, where they discussed the Federal govt stepping in to stop people defending themselves?

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

• "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1. As quoted in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, A friend of James Madison, writing in support of the Madison's first draft of the Bill of Rights.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now, here's the fun bit. Can you find me one bit of information where the Founding Fathers were discussing the future Second Amendment, where they discussed the Federal govt stepping in to stop people defending themselves?

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.

• Tench Cox Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Which is nice, random stuff.

Where does it talk about the Second Amendment?

Oh, it doesn't. How inconvenient that you didn't bother to see that in the first place.

But what you've quoted isn't something we disagree on, but doesn't back up what I asked you to prove.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And clearly mindless crap trumps debate because you can't debate.

What exactly is there to debate ? Stare Decisis

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now, here's the fun bit. Can you find me one bit of information where the Founding Fathers were discussing the future Second Amendment, where they discussed the Federal govt stepping in to stop people defending themselves?

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

• "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1. As quoted in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, A friend of James Madison, writing in support of the Madison's first draft of the Bill of Rights.

Okay, and still has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

I've never said individuals can't own their own weapons, have I?

Stick to the point, rather than posting random stuff that doesn't prove your point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And clearly mindless crap trumps debate because you can't debate.

What exactly is there to debate ? Stare Decisis

Ah, if you don't know, why the fuck are you here?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Which is nice, random stuff.

Where does it talk about the Second Amendment?

Oh, it doesn't. How inconvenient that you didn't bother to see that in the first place.

But what you've quoted isn't something we disagree on, but doesn't back up what I asked you to prove.

It speaks to citizens keeping and bearing arms for militia and private defense which is what the 2nd came to be and is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which is nice, random stuff.

Where does it talk about the Second Amendment?

Oh, it doesn't. How inconvenient that you didn't bother to see that in the first place.

But what you've quoted isn't something we disagree on, but doesn't back up what I asked you to prove.

It speaks to citizens keeping and bearing arms for militia and private defense which is what the 2nd came to be and is.

The first part is right.

The right to keep arms so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
The right to bear arms, ie, be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.

That the individuals who own guns can do LAWFUL things with those guns is neither here nor there, really.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And clearly mindless crap trumps debate because you can't debate.

What exactly is there to debate ? Stare Decisis

Ah, if you don't know, why the fuck are you here?

Because you're like a little ball of string to a cat and I like pounding you with the rule of law like a fat kid likes cake.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The right to keep arms so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
The right to bear arms, ie, be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons

But it also includes protection of the individual right to bear arms outside of the militia. See: Heller

 

[frigidweirdo]

And clearly mindless crap trumps debate because you can't debate.

What exactly is there to debate ? Stare Decisis

Ah, if you don't know, why the fuck are you here?

Because you're like a little ball of string to a cat and I like pounding you with the rule of law like a fat kid likes cake.

You think you're pounding huh?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to keep arms so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
The right to bear arms, ie, be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons

But it also includes protection of the individual right to bear arms outside of the militia. See: Heller

No, it doesn't. Go read what the Founding Fathers said. To them, bear arms was "render military service" and "militia duty". That's PROVABLE FACT, of which you have nothing.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You think you're pounding huh?

You have posted nothing but conjecture. Not one word of law.