Right to BEAR arms upheld in Federal Appeals Court

[OODA_Loop]

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.

Provable how ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. My argument is that SCOTUS directly contradicts you assertion. And provided the affirmation.

Do you have an argument why SCOTUS is wrong ?

OKAY FINE. NOW GO FUCKING PROVE YOU ARGUMENT. Fucking hell, it's not that difficult is it?

Yes, I have an argument of why it's wrong, but you said I was wrong, and you haven't proven shit yet, so I'm waiting for your argument BEFORE anything else, seeing how that is the logical progression.

So what more proof do you need than SCOTUS ruling?

My argument is you are wrong when you say the 2A doesn’t provide for self defense and here is the SCOTUS ruling and language which supports it.

Well, I'll take it as you don't actually have much of an argument then. So.... I win.

Thanks

Bye.

Not according to the SCOTUS. Sorry you’re beat by facts not conjecture. Nothing better than making a liberal eat its words.

Nothing better than people thinking they've won an argument they never actually made.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,


As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

-Heller vs Dc

What you posted before.

A ban on gun ownership is against the right to keep arms.

" as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,"

So, the Supreme Court is saying you can ONLY defend yourself with a firearm? Nothing else can ever be used for self defense?

Also, you might notice that they didn't connect this sentence with the Second Amendment. They merely said it violated the right to self defense.

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."

So, what quotations?

"We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”"

Here's what they wrote. This is bullshit and they know it. So, the DC side of the case, making a bad case, didn't show the evidence that is pretty clear that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty" as stated in the HOUSE during debates on the 2A.

See here Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

So, they basically said "no one's shown us anything, so we're going to ignore what we actually should know."

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

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

So, stool can mean wooden three or four legged seating device usually with no back. It can also mean "a shit".

So, if the doctor says "please, sit on the stool", we have to make it mean "sit on a shit" because it CAN MEAN "a shit". Fucking hell, all that legal training and they can't understand a word or phrase can have more than one meaning.

"bear" can also mean to give birth. Do we assume that the 2A MUST MEAN the right to GIVE BIRTH TO ARMS because it can mean this?

"In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. "

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".

"Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”"

And here it gets even worse. You have state clauses which clearly state that there is "defense of themselves" or "defense of himself" and yet the Second Amendment DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS in their clause. Right.

"It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."

Which is true. However it's not true that the Second Amendment says anything other than "render military service" and "militia duty".

So, basically the Supreme Court used some evidence, twisted it and were allowed to do so because the DC side of the case were trying for a different angle and were inept, beyond belief and were also being too political with it.

There's NOTHING to suggest the 2A provides a right to self defense at all. What they've got is other things which point to things which COULD, if you're really trying hard and you're twisting shit, be used in the SUpreme Court with biased justices, be used to get what the fuck you want.

And this is why elections matter.

Heller is as much the consequence of politics as the law, perhaps more so.

Your argument is part of the record in Heller, advanced by Justice Stevens, that the Second Amendment is a collective – not individual – right, related only to militia service to ensure the defense of the state, not the individual, and that the Second Amendment is in essence a meaningless anachronism.

The Second Amendment can be interpreted as either an individual or collective right – there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that would compel a jurist to hold that the Second Amendment is either; there is ample evidence in support of both a collective and individual right.

The issue was therefore decided the result of Republicans having won more presidential elections than Democrats during the second half of the 20th Century, and making more appointments to the Supreme Court during that time.

 

[2aguy]

OKAY FINE. NOW GO FUCKING PROVE YOU ARGUMENT. Fucking hell, it's not that difficult is it?

Yes, I have an argument of why it's wrong, but you said I was wrong, and you haven't proven shit yet, so I'm waiting for your argument BEFORE anything else, seeing how that is the logical progression.

So what more proof do you need than SCOTUS ruling?

My argument is you are wrong when you say the 2A doesn’t provide for self defense and here is the SCOTUS ruling and language which supports it.

Well, I'll take it as you don't actually have much of an argument then. So.... I win.

Thanks

Bye.

Not according to the SCOTUS. Sorry you’re beat by facts not conjecture. Nothing better than making a liberal eat its words.

Nothing better than people thinking they've won an argument they never actually made.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,


As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

-Heller vs Dc

What you posted before.

A ban on gun ownership is against the right to keep arms.

" as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,"

So, the Supreme Court is saying you can ONLY defend yourself with a firearm? Nothing else can ever be used for self defense?

Also, you might notice that they didn't connect this sentence with the Second Amendment. They merely said it violated the right to self defense.

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."

So, what quotations?

"We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”"

Here's what they wrote. This is bullshit and they know it. So, the DC side of the case, making a bad case, didn't show the evidence that is pretty clear that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty" as stated in the HOUSE during debates on the 2A.

See here Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

So, they basically said "no one's shown us anything, so we're going to ignore what we actually should know."

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

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

So, stool can mean wooden three or four legged seating device usually with no back. It can also mean "a shit".

So, if the doctor says "please, sit on the stool", we have to make it mean "sit on a shit" because it CAN MEAN "a shit". Fucking hell, all that legal training and they can't understand a word or phrase can have more than one meaning.

"bear" can also mean to give birth. Do we assume that the 2A MUST MEAN the right to GIVE BIRTH TO ARMS because it can mean this?

"In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. "

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".

"Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”"

And here it gets even worse. You have state clauses which clearly state that there is "defense of themselves" or "defense of himself" and yet the Second Amendment DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS in their clause. Right.

"It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."

Which is true. However it's not true that the Second Amendment says anything other than "render military service" and "militia duty".

So, basically the Supreme Court used some evidence, twisted it and were allowed to do so because the DC side of the case were trying for a different angle and were inept, beyond belief and were also being too political with it.

There's NOTHING to suggest the 2A provides a right to self defense at all. What they've got is other things which point to things which COULD, if you're really trying hard and you're twisting shit, be used in the SUpreme Court with biased justices, be used to get what the fuck you want.

And this is why elections matter.

Heller is as much the consequence of politics as the law, perhaps more so.

Your argument is part of the record in Heller, advanced by Justice Stevens, that the Second Amendment is a collective – not individual – right, related only to militia service to ensure the defense of the state, not the individual, and that the Second Amendment is in essence a meaningless anachronism.

The Second Amendment can be interpreted as either an individual or collective right – there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that would compel a jurist to hold that the Second Amendment is either; there is ample evidence in support of both a collective and individual right.

The issue was therefore decided the result of Republicans having won more presidential elections than Democrats during the second half of the 20th Century, and making more appointments to the Supreme Court during that time.

Wrong, they even go through the history of the Right as an individual Right going back to the English Monarchy and the colonies...... Stevens and the four remaining left wingers make up the law as they go, ignoring the rulings on this going back to the beginning of the country and the various Constitutions and laws from the colonies and then the states...

But thanks for putting your spin on it.....

 

[2aguy]

OKAY FINE. NOW GO FUCKING PROVE YOU ARGUMENT. Fucking hell, it's not that difficult is it?

Yes, I have an argument of why it's wrong, but you said I was wrong, and you haven't proven shit yet, so I'm waiting for your argument BEFORE anything else, seeing how that is the logical progression.

So what more proof do you need than SCOTUS ruling?

My argument is you are wrong when you say the 2A doesn’t provide for self defense and here is the SCOTUS ruling and language which supports it.

Well, I'll take it as you don't actually have much of an argument then. So.... I win.

Thanks

Bye.

Not according to the SCOTUS. Sorry you’re beat by facts not conjecture. Nothing better than making a liberal eat its words.

Nothing better than people thinking they've won an argument they never actually made.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,


As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

-Heller vs Dc

What you posted before.

A ban on gun ownership is against the right to keep arms.

" as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,"

So, the Supreme Court is saying you can ONLY defend yourself with a firearm? Nothing else can ever be used for self defense?

Also, you might notice that they didn't connect this sentence with the Second Amendment. They merely said it violated the right to self defense.

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."

So, what quotations?

"We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”"

Here's what they wrote. This is bullshit and they know it. So, the DC side of the case, making a bad case, didn't show the evidence that is pretty clear that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty" as stated in the HOUSE during debates on the 2A.

See here Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

So, they basically said "no one's shown us anything, so we're going to ignore what we actually should know."

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

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

So, stool can mean wooden three or four legged seating device usually with no back. It can also mean "a shit".

So, if the doctor says "please, sit on the stool", we have to make it mean "sit on a shit" because it CAN MEAN "a shit". Fucking hell, all that legal training and they can't understand a word or phrase can have more than one meaning.

"bear" can also mean to give birth. Do we assume that the 2A MUST MEAN the right to GIVE BIRTH TO ARMS because it can mean this?

"In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. "

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".

"Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”"

And here it gets even worse. You have state clauses which clearly state that there is "defense of themselves" or "defense of himself" and yet the Second Amendment DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS in their clause. Right.

"It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."

Which is true. However it's not true that the Second Amendment says anything other than "render military service" and "militia duty".

So, basically the Supreme Court used some evidence, twisted it and were allowed to do so because the DC side of the case were trying for a different angle and were inept, beyond belief and were also being too political with it.

There's NOTHING to suggest the 2A provides a right to self defense at all. What they've got is other things which point to things which COULD, if you're really trying hard and you're twisting shit, be used in the SUpreme Court with biased justices, be used to get what the fuck you want.

And this is why elections matter.

Heller is as much the consequence of politics as the law, perhaps more so.

Your argument is part of the record in Heller, advanced by Justice Stevens, that the Second Amendment is a collective – not individual – right, related only to militia service to ensure the defense of the state, not the individual, and that the Second Amendment is in essence a meaningless anachronism.

The Second Amendment can be interpreted as either an individual or collective right – there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that would compel a jurist to hold that the Second Amendment is either; there is ample evidence in support of both a collective and individual right.

The issue was therefore decided the result of Republicans having won more presidential elections than Democrats during the second half of the 20th Century, and making more appointments to the Supreme Court during that time.

The Law doesn't matter to Stevens....or the left wingers on the court.... they make things up depending on their social agenda, and for them, they hate guns.....regardless of the Right to own them....

 

[frigidweirdo]

You think you're pounding huh?

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

That'd be because we haven't even got there yet. We're still struggling with you trying to post something relevant.

 

[OODA_Loop]

That'd be because we haven't even got there yet. We're still struggling with you trying to post something relevant.

You don’t believe the exact words of highest court are relevant?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Provable how ?

Provable with documents.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I've already posted this.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They were discussing this clause as a potential part of the future Second Amendment in the House.

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; "

This is what Mr Gerry said about the Bill of Rights. He didn't say the Bill of Rights was designed to do anything else, like self defense etc.

So, here's the deal.

Either Mr Gerry thought the clause read:

1) but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry arms and defend themselves

or:

2) but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to be in the militia

Which sounds more plausible?

Then put in the context of this quote:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, preventing people from carrying arms around would give the people in power the chance to destroy the constitution.

Or preventing the people from being in the militia would give the people in power the chance to destroy the constitution.

Which one is more plausible?

Mr Gerry said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

So, Mr Gerry is either talking about self defense and carrying arms around.

Or he's talking about the militia.

Which do you think it is?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Is Mr Gerry talking about self defense, or about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, according to you, Mr Jackson wanted "No one, religiously scrupulous of defending himself, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

A few things there make no sense whatsoever.

Why would individuals who don't want to defend themselves have to pay an equivalent?

Why would people who don't want to defend themselves not be compelled to render military service?

In fact, they made various versions of this clause, and they switched between "bear arms" and "render military service".

Also, not one thing in this document points to self defense or "carrying arms" around. Not one. It's ALL about the militia.

Go figure.

 

[frigidweirdo]

OKAY FINE. NOW GO FUCKING PROVE YOU ARGUMENT. Fucking hell, it's not that difficult is it?

Yes, I have an argument of why it's wrong, but you said I was wrong, and you haven't proven shit yet, so I'm waiting for your argument BEFORE anything else, seeing how that is the logical progression.

So what more proof do you need than SCOTUS ruling?

My argument is you are wrong when you say the 2A doesn’t provide for self defense and here is the SCOTUS ruling and language which supports it.

Well, I'll take it as you don't actually have much of an argument then. So.... I win.

Thanks

Bye.

Not according to the SCOTUS. Sorry you’re beat by facts not conjecture. Nothing better than making a liberal eat its words.

Nothing better than people thinking they've won an argument they never actually made.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,


As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

-Heller vs Dc

What you posted before.

A ban on gun ownership is against the right to keep arms.

" as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,"

So, the Supreme Court is saying you can ONLY defend yourself with a firearm? Nothing else can ever be used for self defense?

Also, you might notice that they didn't connect this sentence with the Second Amendment. They merely said it violated the right to self defense.

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."

So, what quotations?

"We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”"

Here's what they wrote. This is bullshit and they know it. So, the DC side of the case, making a bad case, didn't show the evidence that is pretty clear that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty" as stated in the HOUSE during debates on the 2A.

See here Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

So, they basically said "no one's shown us anything, so we're going to ignore what we actually should know."

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

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

So, stool can mean wooden three or four legged seating device usually with no back. It can also mean "a shit".

So, if the doctor says "please, sit on the stool", we have to make it mean "sit on a shit" because it CAN MEAN "a shit". Fucking hell, all that legal training and they can't understand a word or phrase can have more than one meaning.

"bear" can also mean to give birth. Do we assume that the 2A MUST MEAN the right to GIVE BIRTH TO ARMS because it can mean this?

"In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. "

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".

"Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”"

And here it gets even worse. You have state clauses which clearly state that there is "defense of themselves" or "defense of himself" and yet the Second Amendment DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS in their clause. Right.

"It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."

Which is true. However it's not true that the Second Amendment says anything other than "render military service" and "militia duty".

So, basically the Supreme Court used some evidence, twisted it and were allowed to do so because the DC side of the case were trying for a different angle and were inept, beyond belief and were also being too political with it.

There's NOTHING to suggest the 2A provides a right to self defense at all. What they've got is other things which point to things which COULD, if you're really trying hard and you're twisting shit, be used in the SUpreme Court with biased justices, be used to get what the fuck you want.

And this is why elections matter.

Heller is as much the consequence of politics as the law, perhaps more so.

Your argument is part of the record in Heller, advanced by Justice Stevens, that the Second Amendment is a collective – not individual – right, related only to militia service to ensure the defense of the state, not the individual, and that the Second Amendment is in essence a meaningless anachronism.

The Second Amendment can be interpreted as either an individual or collective right – there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that would compel a jurist to hold that the Second Amendment is either; there is ample evidence in support of both a collective and individual right.

The issue was therefore decided the result of Republicans having won more presidential elections than Democrats during the second half of the 20th Century, and making more appointments to the Supreme Court during that time.

The problem is that they looked at individual or collective, but put a lot more stuff in there than just this.

The DC side of the case went collective, which is retarded, but they did it, they lost and they caused problems by opening up the 2A to be "interpreted" in a bad way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That'd be because we haven't even got there yet. We're still struggling with you trying to post something relevant.

You don’t believe the exact words of highest court are relevant?

I believe they have been wrong in the past and changed their opinions.

Dred Scott v. Sandford being one of the most famous.

Do you believe that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, this is the decision that will stand for the rest of eternity?

Do you believe the Supreme Court wouldn't make a political decision that is inherently wrong from a constitutional point of view?

 

[karpenter]

Right to BEAR arms:

 

[OODA_Loop]

Also, not one thing in this document points to self defense or "carrying arms" around. Not one. It's ALL about the militia.

Go figure.

But Heller affirms the individual right independent of the militia.

And that is all that matters. Stare decisis.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Provable how ?

Provable with documents.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I've already posted this.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They were discussing this clause as a potential part of the future Second Amendment in the House.

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; "

This is what Mr Gerry said about the Bill of Rights. He didn't say the Bill of Rights was designed to do anything else, like self defense etc.

So, here's the deal.

Either Mr Gerry thought the clause read:

1) but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry arms and defend themselves

or:

2) but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to be in the militia

Which sounds more plausible?

Then put in the context of this quote:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, preventing people from carrying arms around would give the people in power the chance to destroy the constitution.

Or preventing the people from being in the militia would give the people in power the chance to destroy the constitution.

Which one is more plausible?

Mr Gerry said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

So, Mr Gerry is either talking about self defense and carrying arms around.

Or he's talking about the militia.

Which do you think it is?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Is Mr Gerry talking about self defense, or about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, according to you, Mr Jackson wanted "No one, religiously scrupulous of defending himself, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

A few things there make no sense whatsoever.

Why would individuals who don't want to defend themselves have to pay an equivalent?

Why would people who don't want to defend themselves not be compelled to render military service?

In fact, they made various versions of this clause, and they switched between "bear arms" and "render military service".

Also, not one thing in this document points to self defense or "carrying arms" around. Not one. It's ALL about the militia.

Go figure.

You don't know what you are talking about.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

------

Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

-----

During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).

John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788),

----

Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

--------

ht it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution

 

[2aguy]

That'd be because we haven't even got there yet. We're still struggling with you trying to post something relevant.

You don’t believe the exact words of highest court are relevant?

I believe they have been wrong in the past and changed their opinions.

Dred Scott v. Sandford being one of the most famous.

Do you believe that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, this is the decision that will stand for the rest of eternity?

Do you believe the Supreme Court wouldn't make a political decision that is inherently wrong from a constitutional point of view?

Leftists constantly make the wrong decision on the Supreme Court...and since Dredd Scott also involved the Right to Bear arms, it is good that you brought up that case...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Also, not one thing in this document points to self defense or "carrying arms" around. Not one. It's ALL about the militia.

Go figure.

But Heller affirms the individual right independent of the militia.

And that is all that matters. Stare decisis.

No it doesn't. But I think you wrote wrong again.

The militia has no right.

But I type shit loads of stuff, and you don't even have the courtesy to reply to most of it.

Dude, you're a waste of my time.

It's like debating with a fucking brick.

Bye.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Do you believe that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, this is the decision that will stand for the rest of eternity?

Do you believe the Supreme Court wouldn't make a political decision that is inherently wrong from a constitutional point of view?

Yes when it applies to affirmation of Constitutionallly personal freedoms.

I have to take the credulity of the justices ar face value.

 

[2aguy]

Do you believe that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, this is the decision that will stand for the rest of eternity?

Do you believe the Supreme Court wouldn't make a political decision that is inherently wrong from a constitutional point of view?

Yes when it applies to affirmation of Constitutionallly personal freedoms.

I have to take the credulity of the justices ar face value.

frigid is an idiot... the anti gunners hate Heller and will get rid of it as soon as they get the majority on the court.

 

[OODA_Loop]

.


No it doesn't. But I think you wrote wrong again.

The militia has no right.

But I type shit loads of stuff, and you don't even have the courtesy to reply to most of it.

The individual right to self defense independent of the militia is the first holding of Heller.

You post conjecture....whats to respond to other than post SCOTUS desicion. Your premise is easily refuted with no conjecture required.

Bottom line = you think SCOTUS is wrong. Which means nothing.

 

[grainbely]

You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.

The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.

This is why state's rights are fucking important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free fucking health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)

Why do you need a gun?

Moose, black bears and grizzlies, wolves, lynx, stray dogs, and human predators.

It sounds like you live out in the wilderness. No one cares if you have guns out there or hunt. We care that the NRA destroys laws and enforcement that attempt to protect the majority population from abuses of these offensive weapons. And they do just that. The BATF is impotent. You might as well hand out biological weapons and tactical nukes to whomever wants them.

You fucked up progressives want to register all firearms so you have a list to confiscate all firearms

You are trying to tell me what I want and it's no where near correct..dude...stfu. just stop with your insanity. Turn off Alex Jones and take your aluminum hat off. Sick of your stupid childish shit.

 

[jon_berzerk]

registration = confiscation

always has always will

dont be fooled by the anti American leftists

 

[grainbely]

You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.

The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.

This is why state's rights are fucking important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free fucking health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)

Why do you need a gun?

Moose, black bears and grizzlies, wolves, lynx, stray dogs, and human predators.

It sounds like you live out in the wilderness. No one cares if you have guns out there or hunt. We care that the NRA destroys laws and enforcement that attempt to protect the majority population from abuses of these offensive weapons. And they do just that. The BATF is impotent. You might as well hand out biological weapons and tactical nukes to whomever wants them.

I live in the largest city in Alaska. Just that, unlike you destructive lower 48 urbanites we didn't willy-nilly pave the entire bough (county) Not that we could frankly, Federal bureaucrats also turned over half my state into a park in an effort to "make up" for their destruction of the lower 48's wild spaces so we don't get a choice about keeping the dangerous wild animals out of our city even if we wanted to; because of Federal interference in our ability to develop and grow.

You would use that same "one size fits all" federal law system to take away our ability to protect ourselves, our pets, and our children. You are selfish and inconsiderate of the survival and protection necessary by other Americans, rural American's all over this country. Maybe you should clean up the crime in your cities instead, this nations citizens have had guns from the very beginning and somehow it wasn't a fucking "safety problem" until the 1980s when Democrats started letting criminals in the city off easy, started letting the drug cartels into the nation wholesale - for votes and power.

All the NRA does is defend the 2nd from you anti-gun nuts. I actually wasn't a member until this year, but after seeing the lefts socialist, communist agenda come brazenly out into full daylight, I realized that we best contribute to their last ditch efforts to save our 2nd; at a minimum so that my family will be able to defend itself from the wave of domestic terrorists that have been frothed into a violet pack of wild animals by the DNC (and their media puppets) and unleashed upon Republicans (and Independents caught in the cross fire) all across the country. We fully intend to take out as many of the lefts brown shirts as possible before we're thrown in the gulags for being rich, or for being constitutionalist's; doesn't much matter, either one is a death sentence with the new DNC.

I don't know who you are describing but its not me. I don't care what rural and wilderness people do. They are a minority in this country and if they want to go point guns at each other down by the creek who cares. I care that the NRA supports illegal sale and trafficking of guns to the inner cities. They support criminal activity in the distribution and sale of firearms. They push over simplified slogans to warp people's understanding of reality and manipulate the voting bloc. The work to change the meaning of the 2nd amendmant to be super liberal and all encompassing, which it's not and was not intended to be.