Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[2aguy]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

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. 2–53.

(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. 2–22.

(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. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(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. Pp. 30–32.

(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. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 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. 47–54.

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.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
I previously posted this information on another thread but thought I should repeat it just for you. Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.

Wrong......the individual right has been part of our legal tradition since the founding...in fact...Ruth Bader Ginsberg cited that right in an earlier ruling on another case.......

 

[2aguy]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

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. 2–53.

(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. 2–22.

(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. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(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. Pp. 30–32.

(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. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 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. 47–54.

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.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
I previously posted this information on another thread but thought I should repeat it just for you. Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.

Yes...we understand....the actual law means nothing to the left...never has, never will........you can tell by the mass graves that circle the world in countries ruled by unfiltered leftism.........

 

[P@triot]

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.

So basically what you're saying is, since the American people overwhelmingly reject the disturbing liberal ideology, preventing you from getting the votes you need to amend the U.S. Constitution, you're going to ignore the will and the voice of the people and attempt to achieve your oppressive views unconstitutionally through 9 unelected bureaucrats? Awesome...

Here's the bottom line junior - all you're going to do is kick off another Civil War with your radical and unhinged stupidity. The American people have spoken. The U.S. Constitution has spoken. Our founders have spoken. 9 unelected bureaucrats are not going to strip the American people of their Constitutional rights. Ever. Even the U.S. military and law enforcement will overwhelmingly oppose that. The fact that you can't accept the will of the American people shows what an oppressive little asshole you are. The people have spoken. Deal with it. When the day comes that the American people agree with your fucked up oppressive ideology, they will give you the votes to amend the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Camp]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

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. 2–53.

(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. 2–22.

(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. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(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. Pp. 30–32.

(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. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 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. 47–54.

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.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
I previously posted this information on another thread but thought I should repeat it just for you. Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.

Wrong......the individual right has been part of our legal tradition since the founding...in fact...Ruth Bader Ginsberg cited that right in an earlier ruling on another case.......

DC vs Heller was about interpreting the definition of "militia" and the rights of the government to "regulate" the militia.

 

[Camp]

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.

So basically what you're saying is, since the American people overwhelmingly reject the disturbing liberal ideology, preventing you from getting the votes you need to amend the U.S. Constitution, you're going to ignore the will and the voice of the people and attempt to achieve your oppressive views unconstitutionally through 9 unelected bureaucrats? Awesome...

Here's the bottom line junior - all you're going to do is kick off another Civil War with your radical and unhinged stupidity. The American people have spoken. The U.S. Constitution has spoken. Our founders have spoken. 9 unelected bureaucrats are not going to strip the American people of their Constitutional rights. Ever. Even the U.S. military and law enforcement will overwhelmingly oppose that. The fact that you can't accept the will of the American people shows what an oppressive little asshole you are. The people have spoken. Deal with it. When the day comes that the American people agree with your fucked up oppressive ideology, they will give you the votes to amend the U.S. Constitution.

No, basically I am saying that we will lose our rights and assorted privileges because fools like you object to even the most reasonable adjustments and have managed to piss off so many Americans with your refusal to adjust that the wave is turning and the control folks are gaining support. Your jackassery does more harm than good.

 

[P@triot]

DC vs Heller was about interpreting the definition of "militia" and the rights of the government to "regulate" the militia.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say militia. Furthermore, our founders wrote extensively that the right was of the people and not a "militia".

There is nothing to "interpret". The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says.

 

[Camp]

DC vs Heller was about interpreting the definition of "militia" and the rights of the government to "regulate" the militia.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say militia. Furthermore, our founders wrote extensively that the right was of the people and not a "militia".

There is nothing to "interpret". The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says.

What a phony jerk you are. You have never even read the 2nd Amendment. If you had you would not be making such a stupid statement.

 

[P@triot]

DC vs Heller was about interpreting the definition of "militia" and the rights of the government to "regulate" the militia.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say militia. Furthermore, our founders wrote extensively that the right was of the people and not a "militia".

There is nothing to "interpret". The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says.

What a phony jerk you are. You have never even read the 2nd Amendment. If you had you would not be making such a stupid statement.

I just quoted it junior - without looking it up. You're pissed off because you can't argue and it proves that you're disturbed ideology is wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations.

Untrue.
Heller did not overturn a single precept of any prior ruling by the SCotUS.

That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled...

Yes. Just like Roe v Wade, the Obamacare rulings, and same-sex marriage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, basically I am saying that we will lose our rights and assorted privileges because fools like you object to even the most reasonable adjustments...

"Reasonable" adjustments do not include further restrictions on the rights of the law abiding that do noting to prevent criminals from getting guns.

 

[P@triot]

This shows the child-like rational of the best & brightest that the Dumbocrats have to offer...

In April, Obama posed the question, “If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?”

Um....because my life doesn't hinge on being able to unlock my phone. And because tech companies realize the dangers of having a locked phone, they make it so that 911 can be dialed even when the phone is locked. Is Obama going to make legislation so that smart guns fire even when "locked"? And if so, then what in the hell is the point of the smart gun?!?!

Smart Gun Push Could Conflict With Constitutional Rights

 

[P@triot]

And another flaw in the liberal "smart gun" fantasy....

“This [smart gun policy] could compel someone to incriminate themselves,” Greenlee told The Daily Signal. “The Fifth Amendment prevents someone from being compelled. But it seems smart gun owners might have to give up that right.”

The point would be that if only the owner of the gun could use the gun, and police could compel him to identify the weapon, then—so the argument goes—you are requiring him to incriminate himself.

“A good argument here is that you can catch more criminals. But the system is not set up just to catch as many criminals as possible. It’s also to protect the rights of the accused,” Greenlee said.

Smart Gun Push Could Conflict With Constitutional Rights

 

[2aguy]

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.

So basically what you're saying is, since the American people overwhelmingly reject the disturbing liberal ideology, preventing you from getting the votes you need to amend the U.S. Constitution, you're going to ignore the will and the voice of the people and attempt to achieve your oppressive views unconstitutionally through 9 unelected bureaucrats? Awesome...

Here's the bottom line junior - all you're going to do is kick off another Civil War with your radical and unhinged stupidity. The American people have spoken. The U.S. Constitution has spoken. Our founders have spoken. 9 unelected bureaucrats are not going to strip the American people of their Constitutional rights. Ever. Even the U.S. military and law enforcement will overwhelmingly oppose that. The fact that you can't accept the will of the American people shows what an oppressive little asshole you are. The people have spoken. Deal with it. When the day comes that the American people agree with your fucked up oppressive ideology, they will give you the votes to amend the U.S. Constitution.

I like to say, 9, politically appointed, lawyers......

 

[M14 Shooter]

This shows the child-like rational of the best & brightest that the Dumbocrats have to offer...

In April, Obama posed the question, “If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?”

Um....because my life doesn't hinge on being able to unlock my phone. And because tech companies realize the dangers of having a locked phone, they make it so that 911 can be dialed even when the phone is locked. Is Obama going to make legislation so that smart guns fire even when "locked"? And if so, then what in the hell is the point of the smart gun?!?!

Smart Gun Push Could Conflict With Constitutional Rights

When the police issue 'smart guns', I might believe its a good idea.

 

[Lakhota]

Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

What does God have to do with it? God isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

What does God have to do with it? God isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.

 

[Lakhota]

Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

What does God have to do with it? God isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.

Just trying to make a factual point. Sorry if it confuses you...

 

[The Professor]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

I've already posted a link showing that the SCOTUS ruled the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, unrelated to service in a militia; however, I am not through with you.

You accuse others of ignoring or not knowing the meaning of the term “well regulated militia” as those words appear in the Constitution. Well, sir, I know what they mean as do many others on this forum. If you want to see someone who is uniformed about the legal meaning (the only one that counts) I suggest you look in the mirror.

I have a few questions for you (don't bother to answer, I am just being rhetorical). In the entire history of the United States, from Canada to Mexico and from sea to shining sea how many people were ever arrested for carrying a gun because they were not members of a militia? I am going to guess that the total number was: zero. It appears you think you know more than the members of the Supreme Court and more than all the prosecutors and law enforcement personal in the country. C,mon now, if the law really says only members of the militia can keep and bear arms, why is no one enforcing this? I don't think it's because you know something they don't; rather, it's about something they all know that you don't

In fact, I believe you called Obama stupid, unknowingly of course. If Obama was as smart as you are, he could achieve complete gun control with a stroke of his pen and he could do it with just one sentence: “It shall be a felony for any person to sell [describe weapons here] unless the purchaser has submitted proper documentation proving he/she is a member of the militia in good standing.” Perhaps Obama just doesn't know. Perhaps you should tell him. I'm sure you'll be rewarded with a cabinet position. OK, I'm being facetious; the only reason Obama won't do it is because he knows better.

You accused those who disagree with you as being indifferent and ignorant; however, it is apparent that every one of these people are more concerned and better informed than you are. It is also likely they are more intelligent than you are since really intelligent people do not express strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about. As a member of the large class of people you insulted, I accept your apology. Now I am through with you and this thread.

 

[Camp]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

I've already posted a link showing that the SCOTUS ruled the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, unrelated to service in a militia; however, I am not through with you.

You accuse others of ignoring or not knowing the meaning of the term “well regulated militia” as those words appear in the Constitution. Well, sir, I know what they mean as do many others on this forum. If you want to see someone who is uniformed about the legal meaning (the only one that counts) I suggest you look in the mirror.

I have a few questions for you (don't bother to answer, I am just being rhetorical). In the entire history of the United States, from Canada to Mexico and from sea to shining sea how many people were ever arrested for carrying a gun because they were not members of a militia? I am going to guess that the total number was: zero. It appears you think you know more than the members of the Supreme Court and more than all the prosecutors and law enforcement personal in the country. C,mon now, if the law really says only members of the militia can keep and bear arms, why is no one enforcing this? I don't think it's because you know something they don't; rather, it's about something they all know that you don't

In fact, I believe you called Obama stupid, unknowingly of course. If Obama was as smart as you are, he could achieve complete gun control with a stroke of his pen and he could do it with just one sentence: “It shall be a felony for any person to sell [describe weapons here] unless the purchaser has submitted proper documentation proving he/she is a member of the militia in good standing.” Perhaps Obama just doesn't know. Perhaps you should tell him. I'm sure you'll be rewarded with a cabinet position. OK, I'm being facetious; the only reason Obama won't do it is because he knows better.

You accused those who disagree with you as being indifferent and ignorant; however, it is apparent that every one of these people are more concerned and better informed than you are. It is also likely they are more intelligent than you are since really intelligent people do not express strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about. As a member of the large class of people you insulted, I accept your apology. Now I am through with you and this thread.

You simply do not know the definition of militia when it was written into the 2nd Amendment. It meant every able-bodied man in the community, hence, almost every citizen (male at the time) was considered a member of the militia, hence, the individual right was established not for just any citizen, but rather for every individual that was qualified to be a member of the militia, which meant almost everyone. Obama could not make people prove that they are in a militia. Everyone, or at least almost everyone becomes a part of the militia at birth or upon becoming a citizen.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You simply do not know the definition of militia when it was written into the 2nd Amendment. It meant every able-bodied man in the community, hence, almost every citizen (male at the time) was considered a member of the militia, hence, the individual right was established not for just any citizen, but rather for every individual that was qualified to be a member of the militia, which meant almost everyone. Obama could not make people prove that they are in a militia. Everyone, or at least almost everyone becomes a part of the militia at birth or upon becoming a citizen.

The right of the people.
Not the right of the militia.
Not the right of the people in the militia.
The right of the people.

My wheelchair-bound grandmother has the same right to keep and bear arms as by 18yr old athlete son.