The 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit regulation...

[toobfreak]

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

yeah, but the 2nd is the one that makes little nothing people feel powerful.

The right to bear arms is what puts an 89 pound old woman on an equal footing with a 230 pound 25 year old young man trying to rob or rape her. Maybe some day you'll be attacked, robbed, raped and murdered to find out how much you really wish you would've bought a firearm.

 

[Coyote]

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

 

[whitehall]

Why is it news mostly to the left that there are hundreds of regulations on the 2nd Amendment? People who access their 2nd Amendment rights accept them but apparently the crazy anti-gun faction of Americans would rather speak in cliches. While the left uses the shock and grief of kids to advance a political agenda I bet if you asked each (or adult escort) kid what they want to achieve regarding federal firearms regulations they would give you a blank look or some inane doubletalk.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Yes....he stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....those were the people that were regulated.......try to actually read Heller...

I did read Helle. you are clearly reading the NRA abridged version.

or perhaps you don't understand what you're reading given you get your con law lessons from the internet.

he made no such specific ruling. he couldn't have. it wasn't before him and the Supreme Court does not deal in hypotheticals.

all he said was a total ban is not permissible. and it isn't....

even though his "interpretation" (and let's face it, that's all it is) of the 2nd goes against more than 200 years of judicial thinking.

you think it's ok for domestic abusers to have guns? people who commit assault?

Since he cited 200 years of various rulings and the laws on the books From England and the colonies...you don't know what you are talking about....

dude, I don't need an NRA hack to tell me what he is pretending the caselaw is. I know what the (very limited) body of caselaw is on the subject. I also know that judges laughed their butts off at the idea of a private right of gun ownership. it was only ever supposed to be as part of a well-regulated militia.

until Scalia wrote his wacko decision. and even that did NOT say that guns couldn't be regulated.

you people are such liars. it's pathetic.

Moron......he goes through all of the history and the legal precedent....

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms

----

See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349–351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10
----

10See J. Brydall, Privilegia Magnatud apud Anglos 14 (1704) (Privilege XXXIII) (“In the 21st Year of King Edward the Third, a Proclamation Issued, that no Person should bear any Arms within London, and the Suburbs”); J. Bond, A Compleat Guide to Justices of the Peace 43 (1707) (“Sheriffs, and all other Officers in executing their Offices, and all other persons pursuing Hu[e] and Cry may lawfully bear arms”); 1 An Abridgment of the Public Statutes in Force and Use Relative to Scotland (1755) (entry for “Arms”: “And if any person above described shall have in his custody, use, or bear arms, being thereof convicted before one justice of peace, or other judge competent, summarily, he shall for the first offense forfeit all such arms” (quoting 1 Geo. 1, c. 54, §1)); Statute Law of Scotland Abridged 132–133 (2d ed. 1769) (“Acts for disarming the highlands” but “exempting those who have particular licenses to bear arms”); E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”); E. Roche, Proceedings of a Court-Martial, Held at the Council-Chamber, in the City of Cork 3 (1798) (charge VI: “With having held traitorous conferences, and with having conspired, with the like intent, for the purpose of attacking and despoiling of the arms of several of the King’s subjects, qualified by law to bear arms”); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in force in Kentucky 482 (1822) (“n this country the constitution guaranties to all persons the right to bear arms; then it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify people unnecessarily”).

---

The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of arms”—a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders eds. 1898) (emphasis added). Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such carrying would be required.1

----

State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083–3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910–2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

Plenty with the 2nd behind you. That was the intent

 

[jillian]

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

and let's not forget to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. the right to not be required to be a witness against yourself.

 

[toobfreak]

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Sorry Princess, you are consistently UNINFORMED. The ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is a document limiting the power of government. Don't take my word: it begins: WE, THE PEOPLE. I mean, what did they base the founding of the USA on? Breaking away from an unjust, overbearing and tyrannical Empire (the British). And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again. But we got fat, dumb and lazy (like you): it was Benjamin Franklin who said: We have given you a REPUBLIC--- --- --- if you can keep it.

Yep, we got apathetic and became waaaay too trusting. We stopped reading books and let TV raise our kids and we believed everything that was broadcasted on it. TV is the greatest propaganda tool ever created which is why I haven't owned on in six years.

We trusted the government itself to educate the people. Pretty foolish idea. Public school does nothing if not train little kids to be good, obedient little taxpayers and to stay in line. And keep paying those taxes.

 

[jillian]

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Yes....he stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....those were the people that were regulated.......try to actually read Heller...

I did read Helle. you are clearly reading the NRA abridged version.

or perhaps you don't understand what you're reading given you get your con law lessons from the internet.

he made no such specific ruling. he couldn't have. it wasn't before him and the Supreme Court does not deal in hypotheticals.

all he said was a total ban is not permissible. and it isn't....

even though his "interpretation" (and let's face it, that's all it is) of the 2nd goes against more than 200 years of judicial thinking.

you think it's ok for domestic abusers to have guns? people who commit assault?

Since he cited 200 years of various rulings and the laws on the books From England and the colonies...you don't know what you are talking about....

dude, I don't need an NRA hack to tell me what he is pretending the caselaw is. I know what the (very limited) body of caselaw is on the subject. I also know that judges laughed their butts off at the idea of a private right of gun ownership. it was only ever supposed to be as part of a well-regulated militia.

until Scalia wrote his wacko decision. and even that did NOT say that guns couldn't be regulated.

you people are such liars. it's pathetic.

Moron......he goes through all of the history and the legal precedent....

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms

----

See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349–351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10
----

10See J. Brydall, Privilegia Magnatud apud Anglos 14 (1704) (Privilege XXXIII) (“In the 21st Year of King Edward the Third, a Proclamation Issued, that no Person should bear any Arms within London, and the Suburbs”); J. Bond, A Compleat Guide to Justices of the Peace 43 (1707) (“Sheriffs, and all other Officers in executing their Offices, and all other persons pursuing Hu[e] and Cry may lawfully bear arms”); 1 An Abridgment of the Public Statutes in Force and Use Relative to Scotland (1755) (entry for “Arms”: “And if any person above described shall have in his custody, use, or bear arms, being thereof convicted before one justice of peace, or other judge competent, summarily, he shall for the first offense forfeit all such arms” (quoting 1 Geo. 1, c. 54, §1)); Statute Law of Scotland Abridged 132–133 (2d ed. 1769) (“Acts for disarming the highlands” but “exempting those who have particular licenses to bear arms”); E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”); E. Roche, Proceedings of a Court-Martial, Held at the Council-Chamber, in the City of Cork 3 (1798) (charge VI: “With having held traitorous conferences, and with having conspired, with the like intent, for the purpose of attacking and despoiling of the arms of several of the King’s subjects, qualified by law to bear arms”); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in force in Kentucky 482 (1822) (“n this country the constitution guaranties to all persons the right to bear arms; then it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify people unnecessarily”).

---

The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of arms”—a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders eds. 1898) (emphasis added). Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such carrying would be required.1

----

State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083–3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910–2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15

again, NRA shill... none of your BS has a thing to do with what is binding. no one gives a flying about some law in PA. it's irrelevant.

or do you not understand that the Federal Government isn't subservient to the states? if you knew anything other than what the NRA tells you to post, you'd know that PA law or any other state law DOESN'T CONTROL.

getting a little angry and desperate there, aren't you hack.

 

[2aguy]

And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again

Sure, moron.....the government is your worst "enemy".......and that is why right wing neo-fascists fight so damn hard to control their majority in that government?

Look who is calling anyone here a Moron.

A few stats on your "friend" the government:


Feudal Russia (possibly 1,066,000 murdered)


Mexico, 1900 – 1920 (possibly 1,417,000 murdered)


North Korea, creation to present day (possibly 1,663,000 murdered)


Yugoslavia, 1944 – 1987 (1,072,000 murdered)


Pakistan, 1969 – 1971 (1,503,000 murdered)


Poland, 1945 – 1950 (1,585,000 murdered)


Vietnam, 1945 – 1987 (1,670,000 murdered)


Turkey, 1900 – 1923 (1,883,000 murdered)


Cambodia, 1970 – 1980 (2,035,000 murdered)


Japan, 1937 – 1945 (5,964,000 murdered)


Chinese nationalists, 1927 – 1949 (10,214,000 murdered)


German national socialists, 1939 – 1945 (20,946,000 murdered)


Chinese communists, 1949 – 1987 (35,236,000 murdered)


Russian communists, 1917 – 1987 (61,911,000 murdered)

So far, our Constitution has kept our own government more or less in check.

Notice how many of those mass murders happened in the modern period......in Countries with the Rule of law, functioning courts, universities, modern science, and democratic institutions....which vanished in a short period of time, and led to the death of millions...all unarmed....

 

[Coyote]

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

Plenty with the 2nd behind you. That was the intent

If you can’t spread the word or convince others... you have nothing. If you can’t assemble, you have nothing. All of our rights are coequal.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....he stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....those were the people that were regulated.......try to actually read Heller...

I did read Helle. you are clearly reading the NRA abridged version.

or perhaps you don't understand what you're reading given you get your con law lessons from the internet.

he made no such specific ruling. he couldn't have. it wasn't before him and the Supreme Court does not deal in hypotheticals.

all he said was a total ban is not permissible. and it isn't....

even though his "interpretation" (and let's face it, that's all it is) of the 2nd goes against more than 200 years of judicial thinking.

you think it's ok for domestic abusers to have guns? people who commit assault?

Since he cited 200 years of various rulings and the laws on the books From England and the colonies...you don't know what you are talking about....

dude, I don't need an NRA hack to tell me what he is pretending the caselaw is. I know what the (very limited) body of caselaw is on the subject. I also know that judges laughed their butts off at the idea of a private right of gun ownership. it was only ever supposed to be as part of a well-regulated militia.

until Scalia wrote his wacko decision. and even that did NOT say that guns couldn't be regulated.

you people are such liars. it's pathetic.

Moron......he goes through all of the history and the legal precedent....

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms

----

See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349–351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10
----

10See J. Brydall, Privilegia Magnatud apud Anglos 14 (1704) (Privilege XXXIII) (“In the 21st Year of King Edward the Third, a Proclamation Issued, that no Person should bear any Arms within London, and the Suburbs”); J. Bond, A Compleat Guide to Justices of the Peace 43 (1707) (“Sheriffs, and all other Officers in executing their Offices, and all other persons pursuing Hu[e] and Cry may lawfully bear arms”); 1 An Abridgment of the Public Statutes in Force and Use Relative to Scotland (1755) (entry for “Arms”: “And if any person above described shall have in his custody, use, or bear arms, being thereof convicted before one justice of peace, or other judge competent, summarily, he shall for the first offense forfeit all such arms” (quoting 1 Geo. 1, c. 54, §1)); Statute Law of Scotland Abridged 132–133 (2d ed. 1769) (“Acts for disarming the highlands” but “exempting those who have particular licenses to bear arms”); E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”); E. Roche, Proceedings of a Court-Martial, Held at the Council-Chamber, in the City of Cork 3 (1798) (charge VI: “With having held traitorous conferences, and with having conspired, with the like intent, for the purpose of attacking and despoiling of the arms of several of the King’s subjects, qualified by law to bear arms”); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in force in Kentucky 482 (1822) (“n this country the constitution guaranties to all persons the right to bear arms; then it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify people unnecessarily”).

---

The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of arms”—a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders eds. 1898) (emphasis added). Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such carrying would be required.1

----

State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083–3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910–2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15

again, NRA shill... none of your BS has a thing to do with what is binding. no one gives a flying about some law in PA. it's irrelevant.

or do you not understand that the Federal Government isn't subservient to the states? if you knew anything other than what the NRA tells you to post, you'd know that PA law or any other state law DOESN'T CONTROL.

getting a little angry and desperate there, aren't you hack.

Yes....you make a dumb claim about what Scalia did or did not use to explain his ruling...when you are shown to be uninformed, you lash out........

 

[toobfreak]

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

The power to take back the right to free speech and assembly with your guns.

 

[2aguy]

In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.

The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia

Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.

Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

You really need to read the whole opinion...not just what the most recent anti gunner spewed about it...

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

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-----

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing 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 individualrights 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.
---

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

The point of thread went over your head.

Limits, regs, all constitutional.

We don't need the NRA to protect GUN rights. We have a perfectly good court system.

Yeah......tell us about the 9th and 4th circuits and the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges....

what is wrong with the rulings on the 4th? on the 9th?

come on pretend constitutionalist.... let's hear it.

Both circuits are ignoring Supreme Court Precedent on guns......on Heller, Miller, Caetano, as well as Murdoch.....which states you cannot tax a Right....

 

[2aguy]

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

And the only thing that protects those actions are the guns we own....otherwise, the government runs tanks over people....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

Plenty with the 2nd behind you. That was the intent

If you can’t spread the word or convince others... you have nothing. If you can’t assemble, you have nothing. All of our rights are coequal.

My late great grandfather came from Ireland, he lived under British oppression and he told me once if they ever try to take your guns don't you dare let them. They secure every right you have. I think I'll take his words on it

 

[Coyote]

And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again

Sure, moron.....the government is your worst "enemy".......and that is why right wing neo-fascists fight so damn hard to control their majority in that government?

Look who is calling anyone here a Moron.

A few stats on your "friend" the government:


Feudal Russia (possibly 1,066,000 murdered)


Mexico, 1900 – 1920 (possibly 1,417,000 murdered)


North Korea, creation to present day (possibly 1,663,000 murdered)


Yugoslavia, 1944 – 1987 (1,072,000 murdered)


Pakistan, 1969 – 1971 (1,503,000 murdered)


Poland, 1945 – 1950 (1,585,000 murdered)


Vietnam, 1945 – 1987 (1,670,000 murdered)


Turkey, 1900 – 1923 (1,883,000 murdered)


Cambodia, 1970 – 1980 (2,035,000 murdered)


Japan, 1937 – 1945 (5,964,000 murdered)


Chinese nationalists, 1927 – 1949 (10,214,000 murdered)


German national socialists, 1939 – 1945 (20,946,000 murdered)


Chinese communists, 1949 – 1987 (35,236,000 murdered)


Russian communists, 1917 – 1987 (61,911,000 murdered)

So far, our Constitution has kept our own government more or less in check.

Notice how many of those mass murders happened in the modern period......in Countries with the Rule of law, functioning courts, universities, modern science, and democratic institutions....which vanished in a short period of time, and led to the death of millions...all unarmed....

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

The power to take back the right to free speech and assembly with your guns.

Not if you don’t know what is going on.

 

[Coyote]

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

Plenty with the 2nd behind you. That was the intent

If you can’t spread the word or convince others... you have nothing. If you can’t assemble, you have nothing. All of our rights are coequal.

My late great grandfather came from Ireland, he lived under British oppression and he told me once if they ever try to take your guns don't you dare let them. They secure every right you have. I think I'll take his words on it

Sure.

 

[toobfreak]

And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again

Sure, moron.....the government is your worst "enemy".......and that is why right wing neo-fascists fight so damn hard to control their majority in that government?

Look who is calling anyone here a Moron.

A few stats on your "friend" the government:


Feudal Russia (possibly 1,066,000 murdered)


Mexico, 1900 – 1920 (possibly 1,417,000 murdered)


North Korea, creation to present day (possibly 1,663,000 murdered)


Yugoslavia, 1944 – 1987 (1,072,000 murdered)


Pakistan, 1969 – 1971 (1,503,000 murdered)


Poland, 1945 – 1950 (1,585,000 murdered)


Vietnam, 1945 – 1987 (1,670,000 murdered)


Turkey, 1900 – 1923 (1,883,000 murdered)


Cambodia, 1970 – 1980 (2,035,000 murdered)


Japan, 1937 – 1945 (5,964,000 murdered)


Chinese nationalists, 1927 – 1949 (10,214,000 murdered)


German national socialists, 1939 – 1945 (20,946,000 murdered)


Chinese communists, 1949 – 1987 (35,236,000 murdered)


Russian communists, 1917 – 1987 (61,911,000 murdered)

So far, our Constitution has kept our own government more or less in check.

Notice how many of those mass murders happened in the modern period......in Countries with the Rule of law, functioning courts, universities, modern science, and democratic institutions....which vanished in a short period of time, and led to the death of millions...all unarmed....

THE FIRST THING any tyrannical government does upon seizing power is to DISARM ITS PEOPLE. After that, the rest is easy.

 

[Coyote]

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

Without the ability to assemble, to convey a message, to speak freely, to call your government to account in the press and spread the word...what power do you have?

And the only thing that protects those actions are the guns we own....otherwise, the government runs tanks over people....

Guns are useless without the means to spread knowledge and uncover the truth. You can’t have a militia without assembling. They are intertwined.

 

[Dale Smith]

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Sorry Princess, you are consistently UNINFORMED. The ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is a document limiting the power of government. Don't take my word: it begins: WE, THE PEOPLE. I mean, what did they base the founding of the USA on? Breaking away from an unjust, overbearing and tyrannical Empire (the British). And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again. But we got fat, dumb and lazy (like you): it was Benjamin Franklin who said: We have given you a REPUBLIC--- --- --- if you can keep it.

Yep, we got apathetic and became waaaay too trusting. We stopped reading books and let TV raise our kids and we believed everything that was broadcasted on it. TV is the greatest propaganda tool ever created which is why I haven't owned on in six years.

We trusted the government itself to educate the people. Pretty foolish idea. Public school does nothing if not train little kids to be good, obedient little taxpayers and to stay in line. And keep paying those taxes.

Yep, nothing but indoctrination centers....teaching children on what to think instead of how to think. Charlotte Iserbyte's website "The intentional dumbing down of America.com coincides with the findings of Norman Dodd and the Reece Committee.