Right to BEAR arms upheld in Federal Appeals Court

[OODA_Loop]

Heller upholds the right to bear arms for personal defense outside of connection with a militia.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Does it?

You haven't shown this.

No?

Fucking hell, this is slow work. No, you've shown nothing, in fact. Not one single word from the case you're trying to use for your argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

I mean, you went to school, I assume, and they didn't tell you how to make a simple argument? That's really fucking depressing.

So if I pull Heller, cite the line and verbiage and prove that both I and the wiki page are right, then what ? You assert Heller is wrong or you are wrong?

Yes, Heller/McDonald is the law of the land – there is an individual right to possess a firearm, there is a right to self-defense.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.

The problem is that you and others on the right seem to forget that fact when that same Supreme Court rules that there is a right to privacy, and that gay Americans have a right to equal protection of the law.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Argument = Your assertion there is nothing supporting the 2A is for self-defense is unmitigated, ingnorant bullshit which is easily disproved by following the link I provided from Wiki and read that Heller supports this. Then I went so far as to pull text from the Heller desicion in support.


So now you know The 2A does provide for personal self-defense.

No, an argument is where you make your case for what you've actually said.

I don't need to agree with your argument. But until you make an argument, I can't rip your argument to shreds, because I have no fucking clue what your argument actually is.

It took you like 10 posts to simple come out and post one thing that backed up your supposed argument, and then you didn't say WHY it backed up your argument.

I can't debate with nothing.

In fact I'm being NICE by trying to get the argument out of you. Most people would have insulted you a long time ago.

There is no more making a case than providing direct Supreme Court citations in support.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Does it?

You haven't shown this.

No?

Fucking hell, this is slow work. No, you've shown nothing, in fact. Not one single word from the case you're trying to use for your argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

I mean, you went to school, I assume, and they didn't tell you how to make a simple argument? That's really fucking depressing.

So if I pull Heller, cite the line and verbiage and prove that both I and the wiki page are right, then what ? You assert Heller is wrong or you are wrong?

Yes, Heller/McDonald is the law of the land – there is an individual right to possess a firearm, there is a right to self-defense.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.

The problem is that you and others on the right seem to forget that fact when that same Supreme Court rules that there is a right to privacy, and that gay Americans have a right to equal protection of the law.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Argument = Your assertion there is nothing supporting the 2A is for self-defense is unmitigated, ingnorant bullshit which is easily disproved by following the link I provided from Wiki and read that Heller supports this. Then I went so far as to pull text from the Heller desicion in support.


So now you know The 2A does provide for personal self-defense.

No, an argument is where you make your case for what you've actually said.

I don't need to agree with your argument. But until you make an argument, I can't rip your argument to shreds, because I have no fucking clue what your argument actually is.

It took you like 10 posts to simple come out and post one thing that backed up your supposed argument, and then you didn't say WHY it backed up your argument.

I can't debate with nothing.

In fact I'm being NICE by trying to get the argument out of you. Most people would have insulted you a long time ago.

There is no more making a case than providing direct Supreme Court citations in support.

That's fucking hilarious.

Your argument is "I don't have an argument".... but somehow you have a vote.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.

Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.

A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.

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.)

I suggest you stop being so partisan. So far, the courts have upheld the right to own handguns in the home. They have upheld the right to get a permit to carry. You have the right to protect your family, home and property. You want a pony too?

It is not partisan to expect that my 2nd amendment right, which the founders declared was NOT given to me by the government, not be fucked with.

It is however, quite partisan, to push your idealistic beliefs and fear of guns to the point that you would infringe and take away my rights, and the rights of others, in blatant disregard of the Constitution.

Ignorant nonsense.

No right is ‘unlimited,’ including the Second Amendment right, which is subject to regulations and restrictions by government consistent with case law.

And no one is ‘pushing’ any beliefs or fears on anyone; as long as lawmakers enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no rights are being ‘infringed,’ the Constitution is not being ‘disregarded’ – in fact, the Constitution is being followed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NRA-ILA | Federal Appeals Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action applauded (NRA-ILA) a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday [July 24, 2018] that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.

“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”

The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.
*****************************************************************************************

This court is the three-judge Ninth Circuit, and the decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is considered the furthest left appeals court in the country.

After that it presumably will be appealed to the Supreme Court at some point, because federal appeals courts have found both ways, for and against more freedom to bear arms.

This Hawaii case turned on the word "bear." The Constitution did not say we are free to "keep" arms, meaning inside the home, perhaps: it said we had the right to "bear" arms, meaning carry.

The word by itself has two equal meanings. One is to carry. The other is to keep. It appears our founding fathers meant the keep not the carry meaning. We have the right to Keep Arms.

"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."

KEEP and BEAR arms. Keep means to own, and Bear means to carry on your person. Learn some English.

Bear also means to keep. One thing I have always said about the 2nd amendment, it's too easy to interpret it any way you want to.

Fortunately we have a Supreme Court to correct any misinterpretations.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Your argument is "I don't have an argument".... but somehow you have a vote.

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

Do you have an argument why SCOTUS is wrong ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NRA-ILA | Federal Appeals Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action applauded (NRA-ILA) a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday [July 24, 2018] that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.

“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”

The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.
*****************************************************************************************

This court is the three-judge Ninth Circuit, and the decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is considered the furthest left appeals court in the country.

After that it presumably will be appealed to the Supreme Court at some point, because federal appeals courts have found both ways, for and against more freedom to bear arms.

This Hawaii case turned on the word "bear." The Constitution did not say we are free to "keep" arms, meaning inside the home, perhaps: it said we had the right to "bear" arms, meaning carry.

This ruling will likely be overturned by an en blanc court decision, as we saw with Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, and the Hawaii measure will continue to be enforced.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is a GREAT win for free America.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your argument is "I don't have an argument".... but somehow you have a vote.

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.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Your argument is "I don't have an argument".... but somehow you have a vote.

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I just got finished reading the whole ruling. If it is allowed to stand, all gun laws are thrown right out the window. No licenses, no CCW, nothing. Everyone can strap on a gun on their hip and go anywhere they want. This will include bars where they will get drunk. You are going to have a bar full of armed Drunks on your hands. That can't come out well.

Sounds like positive progress.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your argument is "I don't have an argument".... but somehow you have a vote.

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.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Your argument is "I don't have an argument".... but somehow you have a vote.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your argument is "I don't have an argument".... but somehow you have a vote.

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.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

It would seem that your beef is actually with the SCOTUS ruling moreso than with OODA_Loop? Because I've read the Heller rulings as well as my understanding matches that of OODA_Loop

128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) 554 U.S. 570
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Petitioners,
v.
Dick Anthony HELLER.
No. 07-290.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued March 18, 2008.
Decided June 26, 2008.

2785*2785 Syllabus[*]
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D.C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The 2786*2786 District Court dismissed the suit, but the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

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. 2788 - 2816.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2788 - 2799.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 2799 - 2803.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 2802 - 2804.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. P. 2804.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century, also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 2804 - 2812.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 2812 - 2816.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 2816 - 2817.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. 2787*2787 The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 2817 - 2822.

478 F.3d 370, affirmed.​

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

If you haven't noticed, much of the RNC has moved to the common sense gun regulations as have I. While you are playing your fiddle, Rome is burning.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Oohh,spread the fear, spread the fear. It isn't working anymore.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

It would seem that your beef is actually with the SCOTUS ruling moreso than with OODA_Loop? Because I've read the Heller rulings as well as my understanding matches that of OODA_Loop

128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) 554 U.S. 570
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Petitioners,
v.
Dick Anthony HELLER.
No. 07-290.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued March 18, 2008.
Decided June 26, 2008.

2785*2785 Syllabus[*]
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D.C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The 2786*2786 District Court dismissed the suit, but the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

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. 2788 - 2816.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2788 - 2799.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 2799 - 2803.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 2802 - 2804.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. P. 2804.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century, also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 2804 - 2812.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 2812 - 2816.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 2816 - 2817.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. 2787*2787 The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 2817 - 2822.

478 F.3d 370, affirmed.​

Well, I have a problem with both. One for being unable to have a conversation, the other for being deliberately misleading.

I'm not sure exactly why you posted part of the court case.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'm not sure exactly why you posted part of the court case.

The way you comment you sound like an attorney.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not sure exactly why you posted part of the court case.

The way you comment you sound like an attorney.

Do you have a point to make?

 

[OODA_Loop]

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.