So progressives want “sanctuary cities”, uh?

[busybee01]

However states are allowed to regulate guns as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Dumb ass...if you are “regulating guns” then you are running “afoul of the 2nd Amendment”.

.....shall not be infringed

Thanks for showing you are the DUMB ASS. States and the federal government can set reasonable age limits on who can own a gun. they can also ban any device that makes a semi-automatic rifle act like a automatic weapon.

"Congress shall make no law" is the same as "shall not be infringed". These are sacrosanct, and short of an amendment are the law of the United States.

States have their own constitutions, which must abide by the US Constitution. States may INCREASE the protections granted, but not DIMINISH them.

States can regulate firearms as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. The gist of the new regulations in Florida will be upheld by the courts. The only question is whether the law pertaining to the taking of guns contains sufficient protections to ensure this is not done in a arbitrary manner.

 

[busybee01]

Straighf out of the “careful what you wish for” pages...

Several conservative Illinois lawmakers have a taken a page from the progressive’s playbook to protect gun rights by creating “sanctuary” counties for gun owners.

The left was adamant about having a lawless society. Well, they are getting it.

More Illinois counties join Effingham County; pass ‘sanctuary’ resolutions to protect gun rights

Here is the problem. The Constitution does not require state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law. However states are allowed to regulate guns as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. Those officials can be charged by the state and removed.

There is no language in the constitution that allows guns to be regulated. looks you may be another one who doesn't know what "shall not be infringed means".

you are so ignorant. States are allowed to regulate guns. The courts have upheld certain restrictions on guns imposed by states.

Unconstitutional acts, all.

You are going to get a education courtesy of Florida.

 

[busybee01]

Straighf out of the “careful what you wish for” pages...

Several conservative Illinois lawmakers have a taken a page from the progressive’s playbook to protect gun rights by creating “sanctuary” counties for gun owners.

The left was adamant about having a lawless society. Well, they are getting it.

More Illinois counties join Effingham County; pass ‘sanctuary’ resolutions to protect gun rights

Here is the problem. The Constitution does not require state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law. However states are allowed to regulate guns as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. Those officials can be charged by the state and removed.

There is no language in the constitution that allows guns to be regulated. looks you may be another one who doesn't know what "shall not be infringed means".

you are so ignorant. States are allowed to regulate guns. The courts have upheld certain restrictions on guns imposed by states.

and they have struck down many regulations as well

They have upheld certain regulations and have struck certain ones down. That shows that states can within certain parameters regulate firearms.

 

[koshergrl]

However states are allowed to regulate guns as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Dumb ass...if you are “regulating guns” then you are running “afoul of the 2nd Amendment”.

.....shall not be infringed

Thanks for showing you are the DUMB ASS. States and the federal government can set reasonable age limits on who can own a gun. they can also ban any device that makes a semi-automatic rifle act like a automatic weapon.

"Congress shall make no law" is the same as "shall not be infringed". These are sacrosanct, and short of an amendment are the law of the United States.

States have their own constitutions, which must abide by the US Constitution. States may INCREASE the protections granted, but not DIMINISH them.

States can regulate firearms as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. The gist of the new regulations in Florida will be upheld by the courts. The only question is whether the law pertaining to the taking of guns contains sufficient protections to ensure this is not done in a arbitrary manner.

The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
So any *gun law* is by definition a violation of the 2A.

 

[koshergrl]

Straighf out of the “careful what you wish for” pages...
The left was adamant about having a lawless society. Well, they are getting it.

More Illinois counties join Effingham County; pass ‘sanctuary’ resolutions to protect gun rights

Here is the problem. The Constitution does not require state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law. However states are allowed to regulate guns as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. Those officials can be charged by the state and removed.

There is no language in the constitution that allows guns to be regulated. looks you may be another one who doesn't know what "shall not be infringed means".

you are so ignorant. States are allowed to regulate guns. The courts have upheld certain restrictions on guns imposed by states.

Unconstitutional acts, all.

You are going to get a education courtesy of Florida.

Every law that restricts our right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Every. Single. One.

 

[koshergrl]

It clearly says, well regulated militia of the whole People are necessary.

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.

“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.”

The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

Of course it doesn't.

But that won't stop them from lying, and when that doesn't work, just changing the definitions.

 

[danielpalos]

I had never thought of it like this, that they were referring to only the organized people's for the militia and not the general populace as a whole.

It is my understanding that, the intent of the framers was actually pertaining to the general populace, the idea of the militia being that, if needed, the people could form into a militia to ward off a tyrannical government, which includes a standing army that is following the orders of a tyrannical government. In other words, they were trying to protect the citizenry against a government that would use it's army against it's own citizens, and thus, every able bodied male between 18 and 45 was supposed to always keep certain provisions, such as rations, a nap sack, ammunition, and a weapon. Just in case they were needed on a moment's notice to stand against tyranny.

I had never really looked at it as separating people into organized and unorganized, though, I don't think that really applies to what the intent and meaning are.

As to the debate about the constitution allowing open carry or not, well, it really does, almost implicitly, state that open carry should be allowed. In the words "keep and BEAR arms...", it's actually implied in its own phraseology. To keep, meaning to own, and to bear, meaning to carry with you.

Anyway, it's interesting the different viewpoints. I'm going to have to take a more in depth look into the framers intent, and the federalist papers.

We really need to find out what exactly they meant by "the people", and by "the militia". Remembering that, words they used back then do not, sometimes, have the same meaning as they do today.

don't fall for right wing propaganda and rhetoric. all they have, is red herrings for their alleged, learn how to fish ethic from the Age of Iron.

The common law applies to the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Our Constitution is about Order over Chaos.

 

[danielpalos]

It clearly says, well regulated militia of the whole People are necessary.

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.

“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.”

The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

Of course it doesn't.

But that won't stop them from lying, and when that doesn't work, just changing the definitions.

the whole people are the militia, a few public officials, excepted.

 

[P@triot]

the whole people are the militia, a few public officials, excepted.

Not even remotely true, snowflake. The “whole people” cannot be forced into service of the militia. One can only be a member of the militia if they join.

I’m about 99% certain that you are a paid Russian troll. You just say stuff far too bizarre to be a real person (especially an American).

 

[danielpalos]

the whole people are the militia, a few public officials, excepted.

Not even remotely true, snowflake. The “whole people” cannot be forced into service of the militia. One can only be a member of the militia if they join.

I’m about 99% certain that you are a paid Russian troll. You just say stuff far too bizarre to be a real person (especially an American).

where does the right wing get their propaganda and rhetoric?
Congress has the authority to call out the militia. The People are the Militia.

 

[P@triot]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

If the Russians are paying that guy, it's no wonder that with such financial irresponsibility their econ is the size of Spain's.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

Yes, they do. The militia is callable to Arms.

 

[P@triot]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

Yes, they do. The militia is callable to Arms.

No they don't, my little Russian troll! Sorry.

 

[Auld Phart]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

Yes, they do. The militia is callable to Arms.

What militia?

 

[danielpalos]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

Yes, they do. The militia is callable to Arms.

No they don't, my little Russian troll! Sorry.

yes, they do; only Trolls, appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

Yes, they do. The militia is callable to Arms.

What militia?

The Militia of the United States.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

Yes, they do. The militia is callable to Arms.

I think that argument is flawed, I say this because, from what reading I've done in the framers comments, they were leaning toward the militia being a unified citizenry, formed by the citizens themselves, to ward off tyrannical government. The way I understand it, these are not people able to be called up by the government, because the idea of the militia was to be a stay against government should they get out if sorts.

This would lead me to believe that a militia is not something that would be under the control of Congress, but rather, the citizens forming under their own power, should the decide they've had enough of government corruption.

If you read the articles from the framers, it would lead you to believe that they wanted a way for the people to be able to protect themselves through the use of arms.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-t...d’-and-‘militia’-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

Found this while doing some searching. It has a lot of insightful comments regarding this very topic.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

Yes, they do. The militia is callable to Arms.

I think that argument is flawed, I say this because, from what reading I've done in the framers comments, they were leaning toward the militia being a unified citizenry, formed by the citizens themselves, to ward off tyrannical government. The way I understand it, these are not people able to be called up by the government, because the idea of the militia was to be a stay against government should they get out if sorts.

This would lead me to believe that a militia is not something that would be under the control of Congress, but rather, the citizens forming under their own power, should the decide they've had enough of government corruption.

If you read the articles from the framers, it would lead you to believe that they wanted a way for the people to be able to protect themselves through the use of arms.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-t...d’-and-‘militia’-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

Found this while doing some searching. It has a lot of insightful comments regarding this very topic.

We have a Constitution, not merely a Second Article of Amendment.

 

[Auld Phart]

Congress has the authority to call out the militia.

Yep. But they don’t have the “authority” to force citizens to join the militia, ya paid Russian troll.

Yes, they do. The militia is callable to Arms.

What militia?

The Militia of the United States.

Really?

They got a website?

headquarters?

membership list?

are you a member?