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

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Excuse me you idiot leftist? Don't you ever question me you lowly piece of loon garbage. I don't give two shits who you think you are.

You're goddamn clueless on the Constitution...much like you are on nearly every topic. Now fug off

 

[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....

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

And the second thing they do is shut down the press...........

 

[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?

broken record gif - Bing images

 

[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....

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

There is a lot of mythology behind that actually, like with the Nazis.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust


Often one of the first things they do is seize control of the media and jail journalists.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Excuse me you idiot leftist? Don't you ever question me you lowly piece of loon garbage. I don't give two shits who you think you are.

You're goddamn clueless on the Constitution...much like you are on nearly every topic. Now fug off

Good grief. All I said was sure. Way over reaction there.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Excuse me you idiot leftist? Don't you ever question me you lowly piece of loon garbage. I don't give two shits who you think you are.

You're goddamn clueless on the Constitution...much like you are on nearly every topic. Now fug off

Good grief. All I said was sure. Way over reaction there.

You heard me.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Excuse me you idiot leftist? Don't you ever question me you lowly piece of loon garbage. I don't give two shits who you think you are.

You're goddamn clueless on the Constitution...much like you are on nearly every topic. Now fug off

Good grief. All I said was sure. Way over reaction there.

You heard me.

Get a grip lady. I don’t know what the hell your issue is.

I suspect I am as knowledgeable as YOU on the Constitution, enough to know each of the rights is important, and I had a grandfather who had guns, respected them but didn’t worship them like some folks here.

 

[Valerie]

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

There is a lot of mythology behind that actually, like with the Nazis.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust


Often one of the first things they do is seize control of the media and jail journalists.

They have taken over the media but they haven't jailed them because they are compliant. Do some research on the Church Committee hearings of the mid 70's.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Excuse me you idiot leftist? Don't you ever question me you lowly piece of loon garbage. I don't give two shits who you think you are.

You're goddamn clueless on the Constitution...much like you are on nearly every topic. Now fug off

Good grief. All I said was sure. Way over reaction there.

You heard me.

Get a grip lady. I don’t know what the hell your issue is.

I suspect I am as knowledgeable as YOU on the Constitution, enough to know each of the rights is important, and I had a grandfather who had guns, respected them but didn’t worship them like some folks here.

Each is important, cupcake. But the 2nd protects them all. And please do remember....hell will freeze before I ever take direction from a lowly leftist. So you get a grip...lady

 

[The Professor]

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?

The problem is gun grabbers hide banning inside of regulation, and make laws that are not designed to make sure a law abiding citizen is getting the firearm, but to make the process so time consuming and expensive that people either don't try or just give up. In NYC it takes 3-6 months and $600 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in your own home or apartment. That is not regulation, that is infringement.

And as usually is done, you misread the 2nd amendment. The 1st part guarantees the States the rights to keep their own armed forces. It's the 2nd part, that has ZERO to do wit the States that gives the PEOPLE the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

If mandating a regulated state militia is unconnected to the right to keep and bear arms why are they in the same Amendment? Or why not at least a separate sentence?

Because they are connected, as Scalia pointed out all adult citizens are members of the citizens militia, mandated by the 2nd Amendment as "well regulated ". Remember, Scalia expressly stated the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.

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)

Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right completely unrelated to membership in a militia. However the right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a reasonable restriction is a matter for the courts to decide. Anyone who is unaware of the SCOTUS decision needs to find different news sources.

I suggest you go to Google and research the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause. When you do, you will understand the SCOTUS ruling. The difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause is sort of like the difference between the “whereas” and “therefore” clauses in a motion. What follows the words, “therefore, be it resolved” is the binding part. It is binding whether the whereas portions are true or not. Although the Constitution does not use terms such as “whereas” and “therefore”, legal scholar know which provisions merely state a purpose and which parts are binding.

Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

What bothers me the most is that the SCOTUS ruling was way back in 2008 and far too many people are still completely unaware of it. It makes me wonder where they get their news from.

PS: I have a doctorate in law and I understand the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision. You don't have to understand it; you merely have to accept it.

 

[Rigby5]

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian

That is NOT gun control.
All the citizens and permanent residents were allowed to be armed.
Basically it was just visitors from cattle drives who came to town for Saturday night that had to temporarily turn in their guns while they were drinking.

And stop misusing the word "regulated".
Regulated when used on law means facilitated.
Like when the federal government is authorized to regulate interstate trade, that meant the federal government was supposed to ensure no state impeded it, and that the federal government was to help build roads, bridges, etc.
Regulate does NOT mean restrict, by any means.
The town of Tombstone restricted, not regulated, firearms.

 

[Valerie]

restricting guns is not gun control?

 

[Nosmo King]

I have the right to protect myself. You have the right to be a victim if you so choose.

Do you think a criminal gives a shit about the law?

Your right to protect yourself with a revolver, shotgun or bolt action rifle must never be infringed.

You do not, however, enjoy a "right" to an assault weapon.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

There is a lot of mythology behind that actually, like with the Nazis.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust


Often one of the first things they do is seize control of the media and jail journalists.

You know your link really is wrong.
The reality is that gun control really was strict and complete in Germany right after WWI.
The only reason that link is not totally and completely wrong is that it was the Weimar Republic that implemented total gun confiscation, not Hitler. The SA were immune because they had previously registered as a marksmanship club.
Then after all the enemies like the Spartacus League, the communists, socialist, labor organizers, etc., were all rounded up or dead, gun control was pretty much eliminated, except for Jews.
So many people get it wrong and don't think gun control played any part in Hitler's rise to power, and they that is incorrect. It was essential. And if only Jews had more weapons, perhaps the Warsaw ghetto uprising could have broken out and gotten to the forests? We will never know, and instead they all died.

 

[nat4900]

You do not, however, enjoy a "right" to an assault weapon.

Oooops, now you did it.......you'll soon have a whole cadre of the usual right wing, gun nuts asking you to "define" an assault weapon and having orgasmic episodes in them sharing all their vast knowledge of guns, calibers of ammo, etc. etc. etc. lol

 

[Marion Morrison]

Shall not be infringed.....

Infringed, not a synonym for regulation.

Shall not be infringed..regulation would be an infringement

Do you know what synonymous means?

Are you missing the point that "well regulated" means "working properly" or what?

Do I have to repost the 80-year old dictionary pic I posted earlier?

Would it even crack your thick skull?

Nah, go 'on 'head, I'll poke fun atcha in a post or two.

 

[Nosmo King]

You do not, however, enjoy a "right" to an assault weapon.

Oooops, now you did it.......you'll soon have a whole cadre of the usual right wing, gun nuts asking you to "define" an assault weapon and having orgasmic episodes in them sharing all their vast knowledge of guns, calibers of ammo, etc. etc. etc. lol

Such arguments are akin to saying if you don't hold a degree in Architecture you should not comment on the collapse of the World Trade Center. Or if you don't know the correct timing sequence of a 305 small block V-8, you should not comment on automobile safety.

They love to bog down discussin in the semantic swamp. Much as they did the debate over the last assault weapons ban. Stocks, grips and flash suppressor said are cosmetics and have no bearing on the essential problem, the rate of fire.

 

[Rigby5]

I have the right to protect myself. You have the right to be a victim if you so choose.

Do you think a criminal gives a shit about the law?

Your right to protect yourself with a revolver, shotgun or bolt action rifle must never be infringed.

You do not, however, enjoy a "right" to an assault weapon.

First of all, whether or not you have a right to own an assault weapon, is up to states and municipalities.
The 2nd amendment totally denies any federal jurisdiction over any weapons at all.
Second is that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".
That is a use description, not an classification or description of any item.
Any weapon can be used as an assault weapon.
And assault weapon is anything that can be effective against multiple enemies at close range.
For example, the first assault weapon and the most commonly used assault weapon by police and the military is the pump shotgun. In WWI it was known as the the trench sweeper.
The second most common are pistols with large magazines, like the Uzi.
ARs are not at all all assault weapons because they are semi automatic only.

So first you need to learn law, and second you need to learn what an assault weapon is.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I have the right to protect myself. You have the right to be a victim if you so choose.

Do you think a criminal gives a shit about the law?

Your right to protect yourself with a revolver, shotgun or bolt action rifle must never be infringed.

You do not, however, enjoy a "right" to an assault weapon.

Oh? So I can't use my model 60, right? Nobody told me that in 1994 when I was getting home invaded, so I did.

A model 60 is an 18-round semiautomatic weapon that fires as fast as you can pull the trigger.

There's probably (I'd guess) more than 200K of them in possession by US citizens.

I haven't done any research..yet.

Mine was teh awesome! It could plant bullet upon bullet.

I used to set shotgun shells up on saplings with finishing nails and set them off with my model 60. It blows them up.