Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[The T]

Okay.....where is the "Well regulated Militia..." SCOTUS affirmed?

(You can't say NG or Reserves or Active Duty because.....well....that is painfully obvious...y

It goes beyond 'Well Regulated Militia'...or did you MISS the History lesson contained IN the Decision?

It's a matter of LIBERTY and the right of the individiual Citizen to defend it?

From Page 28 Of the Ruling:

Page 29: "Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen..." newly freed slaves. Freedmen, by the way, one word, it's an actual term used back then "... Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: 'Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.' 'The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South."

________________________

If you had BOTHERED to read the decision? It was very well thought out...cogent, and to the point of why the Second Amendment was crafted by our Forefathers to begin with. Liberty of the Individual was first and foremost in their minds.

There are many quoes btht pre and post ratification by the signers that brings their intent to bear. The Militia arguement goes back to the argument that stems from having a Standing ARMY that was in dispute.

ONE thing is clear as it relates to a Militia...*WE* all have a standing duty to defend our freedoms, our Liberties from foreign invaders, and even that of Domestic types, Even if it includes our own Government and practices that infringes on the freedoms they whittle away daily against our will.

Taka a gander at the Decision and HEED it well...[pdf Format]

LINK

I dare say that you refuse to shed your blinders as YOU seem to appluaud your own Liberty being removed piecemeal. That makes you dangerous to the rest of us that relish our own Liberty.

The Second amendment is a Front line, and even LAST RESORT to the preservation of Liberty against tyrants...even when the tyranny eminates within our own ranks.

~T

If you want to put this debate to bed, look at what the fathers themselves said.

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.", Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Alexander Hamilton: "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Alexander Hamilton: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped" – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967).

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

President James Madison: "...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;..." – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

James Madison: "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

William Rawle: "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest." – William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829)

Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." – Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic...”

Sir George Tucker: "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."


It is CLEAR that in their opinions , the PEOPLE made up the militia, and the militia was not some official outfit that one had to belong to to own a weapon.

Exactly. It is a matter of FREE MEN Defending their God Given right to Life, Liberty, And Persuit Of Happiness [Property] by whatever means.

And this scares the Shit out of the Statists...having the people with the power over THEM...and the Government they so proudly Hail...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

I do not agree with everything you said, but I like the reasoning behind al of it.

Wow! Thank you QW. So my question is what do you disagree with and why?

I believe that COTUS makes an exception to the general rule about not mentioning ownership of items with the second amendment for a couple of reasons.

You have to remember, the Founders were familiar with societies that took away the right to bear arms from its citizens. Noblemen routinely denied peasants the right to own swords, even though they needed these same peasants to fight the battles they were constantly getting into with their neighbors. I believe they deliberately phrased the second amendment as the right to keep and bear arms for that reason.

If they wanted this to simply be about the rights of citizens to form a militia it would have simply said the right to bear arms shall not be restricted, and we could have had centralized armories in communities to arm people as it was needed, and they could check them in every night.

Even if you are 100% correct about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the Constitution still protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. After the civil war laws were written that denied former slaves the right to own guns. It is quite clear from the debate surrounding the 14th amendment when it was written that it was intended to counter this erosion of rights, and give the individual freemen the right to protect themselves from state militias. The 14th amendment modified the rest of the constitution to protect the civil rights of every individual in America from encroachment from the states.

Slaughterhouse needs to be overturned ASAP.

 

[The T]

Obviously this was a victory, but realistcally nothing will stop Obama and his henchmen or others that follow from regulating your right to have a hand gun essentially away. I'm sorry, but it's true. You'd think the SCOTUS would rule less ambiguously if they really believed what they're saying.

*THEY* can keep trying...but they will have and create more problems to their own detriment. The People will prevail. And that is the point.

 

[daveman]

Exactly. It is a matter of FREE MEN Defending their God Given right to Life, Liberty, And Persuit Of Happiness [Property] by whatever means.

And this scares the Shit out of the Statists...having the people with the power over THEM...and the Government they so proudly Hail...

And this is their prayer:

The Government's Prayer

Our Government in D.C.,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy nanny state come.
Thy mandate be done
on flyover country as it is in the coasts.
Give us this month our monthly check,
and audit us our trespasses,
as we file suit against those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into liberty,
but deliver us from ourselves.
For thine is the oligarchy,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

 

[The T]

I do not agree with everything you said, but I like the reasoning behind al of it.

Wow! Thank you QW. So my question is what do you disagree with and why?

I believe that COTUS makes an exception to the general rule about not mentioning ownership of items with the second amendment for a couple of reasons.

You have to remember, the Founders were familiar with societies that took away the right to bear arms from its citizens. Noblemen routinely denied peasants the right to own swords, even though they needed these same peasants to fight the battles they were constantly getting into with their neighbors. I believe they deliberately phrased the second amendment as the right to keep and bear arms for that reason.

If they wanted this to simply be about the rights of citizens to form a militia it would have simply said the right to bear arms shall not be restricted, and we could have had centralized armories in communities to arm people as it was needed, and they could check them in every night.

Even if you are 100% correct about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the Constitution still protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. After the civil war laws were written that denied former slaves the right to own guns. It is quite clear from the debate surrounding the 14th amendment when it was written that it was intended to counter this erosion of rights, and give the individual freemen the right to protect themselves from state militias. The 14th amendment modified the rest of the constitution to protect the civil rights of every individual in America from encroachment from the states.

Slaughterhouse needs to be overturned ASAP.

Someone else that understands perfectly the decision and Originalist Intent.

 

[Charles_Main]

Wow! Thank you QW. So my question is what do you disagree with and why?

I believe that COTUS makes an exception to the general rule about not mentioning ownership of items with the second amendment for a couple of reasons.

You have to remember, the Founders were familiar with societies that took away the right to bear arms from its citizens. Noblemen routinely denied peasants the right to own swords, even though they needed these same peasants to fight the battles they were constantly getting into with their neighbors. I believe they deliberately phrased the second amendment as the right to keep and bear arms for that reason.

If they wanted this to simply be about the rights of citizens to form a militia it would have simply said the right to bear arms shall not be restricted, and we could have had centralized armories in communities to arm people as it was needed, and they could check them in every night.

Even if you are 100% correct about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the Constitution still protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. After the civil war laws were written that denied former slaves the right to own guns. It is quite clear from the debate surrounding the 14th amendment when it was written that it was intended to counter this erosion of rights, and give the individual freemen the right to protect themselves from state militias. The 14th amendment modified the rest of the constitution to protect the civil rights of every individual in America from encroachment from the states.

Slaughterhouse needs to be overturned ASAP.

Someone else that understands perfectly the decision and Originalist Intent.

make that 3

 

[ConHog]

do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?

 

[R.C. Christian]

I don't mean to rain on your parade but has nothing to do with who is wrong or who is right, just who has the power, the political will, and the number of partisans on the SCOTUS.

 

[Charles_Main]

do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?

all one has to do, to understand the intent of the 2nd amendment, is to read the writings of the people who wrote and passed the Bill of rights. There is a common theme, and it was that the people themselves must never be deprived the right to bare arms, because they were the best defense against the abuses of government. That people had a god given right to self defense whether it be from, the government or a home invasion their point is still just as valid.

any intellectually honest person has to admit at least that that was the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

 

[The T]

Exactly. It is a matter of FREE MEN Defending their God Given right to Life, Liberty, And Persuit Of Happiness [Property] by whatever means.

And this scares the Shit out of the Statists...having the people with the power over THEM...and the Government they so proudly Hail...

And this is their prayer:

The Government's Prayer

Our Government in D.C.,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy nanny state come.
Thy mandate be done
on flyover country as it is in the coasts.
Give us this month our monthly check,
and audit us our trespasses,
as we file suit against those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into liberty,
but deliver us from ourselves.
For thine is the oligarchy,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

You speak directly and succinctly to those that worship Momma Government...

As for the rest of us? We take our cue to be suspect to even those that we grant power over us...And ever mindful that *we* can remove that power despite their best effort.

 

[The T]

I don't mean to rain on your parade but has nothing to do with who is wrong or who is right, just who has the power, the political will, and the number of partisans on the SCOTUS.

Partisans or not. They got this one correct...by a SLIM margin...and it oughta scare the SHIT outta you. No offense intended.

 

[The T]

do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?

I've got plenty of Links to accentuate the point. The Founders were clear. The SCOTUS did a good thing...and it shows how important Elections for POTUS are...and why the Senate needs to show they have backbone...

The current entrant courtesy of His Hiney Obama...is as Dangerous as HE is...and a poor choice.

 

[R.C. Christian]

When are you gun lovers going to put up or shut up? Like you I love the 2nd but when will you stop quoting the fathers ad nauseum and start loading your own ammunition and prepare for the time to put your money where your big mouths are and turn your weapons against the government? What will it take? Another execution order by the puppet in chief against american citizens?

 

[R.C. Christian]

I don't mean to rain on your parade but has nothing to do with who is wrong or who is right, just who has the power, the political will, and the number of partisans on the SCOTUS.

Partisans or not. They got this one correct...by a SLIM margin...and it oughta scare the SHIT outta you. No offense intended.

Sure, but it's ambiguity scares me more. The gun grabbers have enough room to claim a similiar victory. I don't know about you but I'd die before I'd let those bastards take mine.

 

[The T]

I don't mean to rain on your parade but has nothing to do with who is wrong or who is right, just who has the power, the political will, and the number of partisans on the SCOTUS.

Partisans or not. They got this one correct...by a SLIM margin...and it oughta scare the SHIT outta you. No offense intended.

Sure, but it's ambiguity scares me more. The gun grabbers have enough room to claim a similiar victory. I don't know about you but I'd die before I'd let those bastards take mine.

The SCOTUS re-affirmed the intent and the Right. Take comfort in that...but no time to rest on the laurels...the fight will always continue...as every human throughout histroy knows that has yearned for Liberty over Tyranny...

We won this round. The fight continues against the perpetually stupid that have capitualted to the enemies of that Liberty.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Why don't you just say:

"Help me wave my pom poms please?"

Help me wave my pom poms please.

Now where's your legal argument? Still waiting.

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

I was going to give you a treatise on the original meaning of the words, but I can see I'm far too late in the game for that. Some VERY good work in that direction has already been done by several other on this thread, so while there is no kill like overkill, I'll dispense with the additional quotes demonstrating the meaning of terms like "well regulated" "militia" etc.

What must be understood is that the Amendment must be read with the same understanding as they were written at the time they were set down. Just because militia happens to mean something else today, you can't expect even a genius like George Mason to have known 220 years ago that the meaning of the word militia would undergo a chance 150 years in the future. That's asking a bit much don't you think? Therefore, you must review the writings of the day and determine the meaning of the words they wrote at the time they wrote them. Not a very difficult task, although those on the left act as if it's all but impossible. After the meaning for each word is derived and some research done on particular phases to determine the same, then give the words their common meaning at the time of the writing.

In this case, contra your assertion that nothing in the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own anything, that the right belongs to the state because of the word militia, when you understand that the term militia was meant to be all of the men of "military age" as a mass and that the reference to "well regulated" merely means that there should be training, then it is clear that the plain and unchanged statement that "the right of the people to keep...arms" is just about as clear as it can be that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was that all of us were to have the right to OWN weapons should we choose.

You practically have to stand on your head to find a different result. Now, while I agree with Justice Thomas that this is probably really a "privilege or immunity" under the 14th Amendment and that Slaughterhouse needs revisiting, I think that if Justice Alito had done that in this case people's heads would have exploded. Additionally, people need to realize that once you overturn Slaughterhouse, you open a Pandora's box as to what privileges might be. You might not like all of them.

 

[Tech_Esq]

When are you gun lovers going to put up or shut up? Like you I love the 2nd but when will you stop quoting the fathers ad nauseum and start loading your own ammunition and prepare for the time to put your money where your big mouths are and turn your weapons against the government? What will it take? Another execution order by the puppet in chief against american citizens?

When it's about 10 minutes past too late. That's what history tells us.

Don't worry. Nobody is going to go out grabbing anybodies guns or at least not too many people. There are 276 million privately owned firearms in this country. I know that if the government decided to go get them, there would be a lot of dead government people and being the guy whose job it is to get the guns would become a VERY unpopular job to have.

Virginia is a no registration state anyway. So, they don't know what I have or don't have. That said, I'm prepared either way.

 

[The T]

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Help me wave my pom poms please.

Now where's your legal argument? Still waiting.

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

I was going to give you a treatise on the original meaning of the words, but I can see I'm far too late in the game for that. Some VERY good work in that direction has already been done by several other on this thread, so while there is no kill like overkill, I'll dispense with the additional quotes demonstrating the meaning of terms like "well regulated" "militia" etc.

What must be understood is that the Amendment must be read with the same understanding as they were written at the time they were set down. Just because militia happens to mean something else today, you can't expect even a genius like George Mason to have known 220 years ago that the meaning of the word militia would undergo a chance 150 years in the future. That's asking a bit much don't you think? Therefore, you must review the writings of the day and determine the meaning of the words they wrote at the time they wrote them. Not a very difficult task, although those on the left act as if it's all but impossible. After the meaning for each word is derived and some research done on particular phases to determine the same, then give the words their common meaning at the time of the writing.

In this case, contra your assertion that nothing in the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own anything, that the right belongs to the state because of the word militia, when you understand that the term militia was meant to be all of the men of "military age" as a mass and that the reference to "well regulated" merely means that there should be training, then it is clear that the plain and unchanged statement that "the right of the people to keep...arms" is just about as clear as it can be that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was that all of us were to have the right to OWN weapons should we choose.

You practically have to stand on your head to find a different result. Now, while I agree with Justice Thomas that this is probably really a "privilege or immunity" under the 14th Amendment and that Slaughterhouse needs revisiting, I think that if Justice Alito had done that in this case people's heads would have exploded. Additionally, people need to realize that once you overturn Slaughterhouse, you open a Pandora's box as to what privileges might be. You might not like all of them.

And on this point? Tyranny has existed since Cain slew Able...The day that man could visit Tyranny on his brother. That hasn't changed throughout history...It still exists none the less.

The point of The Second Amendment was that this time the Founders in their wisdom knew directly what tyranny was and were living the nightmare.

They, if they succeeded (And they did)...granted a guarantee, a Promise to the people of any coming Tyranny in any form...they would have recourse that could not be taken away to ensure their liberty.

It was reaffirmed by the SCOTUS to the detriment of those that would visit Tyranny, and those that support the visitation. The argument was won this time...albiet by a slim margin.

ONE.

It's a wake up call. Elections have consequences. Time that which was bethrothed to us was finally taken seriously seeing that we have a POTUS with a Vandetta against the very same Liberties.

 

[CurveLight]

I was going to give you a treatise on the original meaning of the words, but I can see I'm far too late in the game for that. Some VERY good work in that direction has already been done by several other on this thread, so while there is no kill like overkill, I'll dispense with the additional quotes demonstrating the meaning of terms like "well regulated" "militia" etc.

What must be understood is that the Amendment must be read with the same understanding as they were written at the time they were set down. Just because militia happens to mean something else today, you can't expect even a genius like George Mason to have known 220 years ago that the meaning of the word militia would undergo a chance 150 years in the future. That's asking a bit much don't you think? Therefore, you must review the writings of the day and determine the meaning of the words they wrote at the time they wrote them. Not a very difficult task, although those on the left act as if it's all but impossible. After the meaning for each word is derived and some research done on particular phases to determine the same, then give the words their common meaning at the time of the writing.

In this case, contra your assertion that nothing in the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own anything, that the right belongs to the state because of the word militia, when you understand that the term militia was meant to be all of the men of "military age" as a mass and that the reference to "well regulated" merely means that there should be training, then it is clear that the plain and unchanged statement that "the right of the people to keep...arms" is just about as clear as it can be that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was that all of us were to have the right to OWN weapons should we choose.

You practically have to stand on your head to find a different result. Now, while I agree with Justice Thomas that this is probably really a "privilege or immunity" under the 14th Amendment and that Slaughterhouse needs revisiting, I think that if Justice Alito had done that in this case people's heads would have exploded. Additionally, people need to realize that once you overturn Slaughterhouse, you open a Pandora's box as to what privileges might be. You might not like all of them.

You pretty much glossed right over my post. One of my majors in school was the Study of Religion so I'm well into the habit of seeking contemporary comprehension for older texts and I examined the 2nd through that lens. There is absolutely no where near enough gap between the meanings of the key words in the 18th century and today.

You attempted to give your interpretation more strength by simply seeking synonyms that assuage the sharper meanings of the words. Ironically, you helped prove it was not about individuals by highlighting Militia as meaning military aged men. Let me put your distractions in context of the 2nd and show why you don't even stand by your own interpretation of those words:

Militia: military aged males.

By your interpretation the 2nd does not permit women nor younger or older men to own weapons.

Well regulated: training

Where is the place people go to get trained in order to be in compliance with the 2nd? If you say they don't have to get trained to own weapons you just contradicted your own interpretation. Your interpretation of the 2nd is so damn weak SCOTUS had to incorporate the 14th to try and justify their ruling. (Yes I'm aware amendments are often cross-referenced)

So do you plan on responding to the rest of my points or are you going to ignore them again?

 

[CurveLight]

Pffft. What do THEY know?


Did I get that right, CurveLight?

Holy fuck you are embarrassingly stoopid. I've been saying all along the Militia is made up of the people so all those quotes didn't accomplish a fucking thing. It may be best if you learn what my position entails before making an ass of yourself. Again.