The NRA.

[initforme]

Nobody has ever taken my guns away not ever will. I surely don't need to give one cent to the nra. I was a member for a long long time. Never again.

 

[Sahba]

Nobody has ever taken my guns away not ever will. I surely don't need to give one cent to the nra. I was a member for a long long time. Never again.

OK, good for you! I applaud you for either; 1.), living in a state that hasn't yet taken 'draconian' exception to the 2A, 2.) Defying your State's laws in not registering 3.), Living in a tentative 'hiatus' waiting for the proverbial 'shoe to drop'... OK, U're obviously the smart one by saving a few bucks (short term) and thinking only of yourself and not the Constitutional consequences that this Nation faces. I agree to some extent on minor quibbles with the NRA... at least support our 2A on the state level!!! "NH motto... 'live free or die'..." tks.

 

[initforme]

When I actually see a constitutional crisis here I will then think about it. Until then.....my guns are safe. Been hearing the same empty rhetoric for 50 years. Nothing has changed.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No, generally they don't lose their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

Generally people think some questions are stupid because they think they know everything, but then it turns out they actually don't.
Then they ridicule people because they think what's been said is stupid, when it's not.

Up until now I've been willing to entertain your position because you argue it well irrespective of whether or not I agree with it but in this case you and the other poster are simply wrong. And you never answered whether you are a citizen of the U.S. of not.

Infringing upon our Constitutional rights is what happens when law-abiding citizens without any formal accusation of a specific crime that they have committed have their firearm or other rights curtailed, restricted, etc. and or their privacy invaded. Those infringements are something that we as citizens have no control over other than to fight legislatively to prevent and/or overturn those laws passed that violate our rights in this manner.

Criminals on the other hand, with the exception of those railroaded by the sytem, do have control over whether or not they commit crimes. I don't know how any of you made it to adulthood without knowing that if you are a violent asshole preying upon members of society that you will be locked away and that some of your Constitutional/civil rights that most were born with with be stripped from you.

The proper word is forfeiture, not infringement. They made the choice to violate our laws and in many cases the rights of their fellow citizens, inflicting all manner of harm against them, some of who will never recover from the trauma.

So yes, in this case, the question/comment was momumentally stupid because how are you going to maintain control over violent criminals and keep them locked up if you arm them or allow them to be armed? Even with the existing prohibitions against weapons in our prisons, the inmates still manage to get their hands on a variety of them but you want them to have guns too?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Actually not.

It's an issue the Supreme Court needs to address.

There are right to carry cases the Court could have reviewed but refused to do so; that's the problem.

Are you an attorney because they're the only ones I know of that will take something that is plain on it's face and claim that it doesn't say what it does.

I restricted my comment to "keep and bear arms". Why do you believe that bear arms means anything other than to carry especially since the AND connects it to the word "keep" which from what I've seen has been determined to mean "posses" in short?

 

[Crixus]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

Maybe 40 years ago. But now all they are about is peddling super beats.

 

[Abatis]

Cruikshank used the term "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'" Because this is what was in front of it.

"The second avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the 'right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.'"

This is the second count which it talks about in that particular quote.

The thing with the Cruikshank case is that the men were formed together in a militia. No the state militia, but nonetheless it was, at the time, considered to be a militia.

Therefore bearing arms for a lawful purpose doesn't seem to be anything other than these people believing they were in their right to be in the militia.

There's nothing there about individuals just carrying arms around willy nilly.

SMH. The Court isn't talking about the rights of Cruikshank and the other KKK members who did the disarming, kidnapping and lynching; they were talking about the rights possessed and exercised by "Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color" who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched.

The incident that led to Cruikshank was an infamous Reconstruction conflict called The Colfax Massacre.

"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, . . . On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South."​

I'll hand feed you the facts of the case since you obviously need to fuck them up.

The 2nd count of the indictment of Cruikshank and other KKK members charged them with banding together and conspiring, having an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, the right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.

The Court said that this right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is IT in any manner dependent upon the Constituion for its existence. The second amendment declares that IT shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that IT shall not be infringed by Congress.

Now, does the 2nd Amendment in fact say that 'the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose shall not be infringed?

NO.

The Court obviously believes that -- the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose -- as exercised by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color -- that of carrying guns for self defense in public, is, in action and effect, completely and unequivocally legally interchangeable with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

In Presser the Court removed all doubt on this point.

The Presser opinion, written by Justice Woods, quotes Cruikshank and puts words in the mouth of Chief Justice Waite. The case-specific language of Cruikshank is excluded and Woods uses the familiar words of the 2nd Amendment instead:

"in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress."​

The right of the people to keep and bear arms = the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose = carrying guns for self defense in public.

I can see how you walk yourself into the goofy positions you hold; you have some very imaginative and selective reading ability.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, generally they don't lose their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

Generally people think some questions are stupid because they think they know everything, but then it turns out they actually don't.
Then they ridicule people because they think what's been said is stupid, when it's not.

Up until now I've been willing to entertain your position because you argue it well irrespective of whether or not I agree with it but in this case you and the other poster are simply wrong. And you never answered whether you are a citizen of the U.S. of not.

Infringing upon our Constitutional rights is what happens when law-abiding citizens without any formal accusation of a specific crime that they have committed have their firearm or other rights curtailed, restricted, etc. and or their privacy invaded. Those infringements are something that we as citizens have no control over other than to fight legislatively to prevent and/or overturn those laws passed that violate our rights in this manner.

Criminals on the other hand, with the exception of those railroaded by the sytem, do have control over whether or not they commit crimes. I don't know how any of you made it to adulthood without knowing that if you are a violent asshole preying upon members of society that you will be locked away and that some of your Constitutional/civil rights that most were born with with be stripped from you.

The proper word is forfeiture, not infringement. They made the choice to violate our laws and in many cases the rights of their fellow citizens, inflicting all manner of harm against them, some of who will never recover from the trauma.

So yes, in this case, the question/comment was momumentally stupid because how are you going to maintain control over violent criminals and keep them locked up if you arm them or allow them to be armed? Even with the existing prohibitions against weapons in our prisons, the inmates still manage to get their hands on a variety of them but you want them to have guns too?

Well if I'm wrong, then you'd be able to make that case well.

The problem with your argument is that you are saying the right to carry guns around is a right protected by the Second Amendment before you've even considered what the term "bear arms" means.

So what's the point then? I'm dealing with someone who has decided something exists and that I can only convince you as long as that thing you want to exist remains in existence.

A futile and pointless task for people who believe far more than they think.

What you don't seem to be able to understand is that the Second Amendment DOES NOT protect a right to carry guns around willy nilly.

In fact gun heavy states like Alaska don't even recognize a right or even a privilege to do such a thing.

But oh well, you keep on believing whatever crap you feel like making up, and then attack other people for knowing the truth.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Cruikshank used the term "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'" Because this is what was in front of it.

"The second avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the 'right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.'"

This is the second count which it talks about in that particular quote.

The thing with the Cruikshank case is that the men were formed together in a militia. No the state militia, but nonetheless it was, at the time, considered to be a militia.

Therefore bearing arms for a lawful purpose doesn't seem to be anything other than these people believing they were in their right to be in the militia.

There's nothing there about individuals just carrying arms around willy nilly.

SMH. The Court isn't talking about the rights of Cruikshank and the other KKK members who did the disarming, kidnapping and lynching; they were talking about the rights possessed and exercised by "Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color" who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched.

The incident that led to Cruikshank was an infamous Reconstruction conflict called The Colfax Massacre.

"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, . . . On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South."​

I'll hand feed you the facts of the case since you obviously need to fuck them up.

The 2nd count of the indictment of Cruikshank and other KKK members charged them with banding together and conspiring, having an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, the right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.

The Court said that this right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is IT in any manner dependent upon the Constituion for its existence. The second amendment declares that IT shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that IT shall not be infringed by Congress.

Now, does the 2nd Amendment in fact say that 'the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose shall not be infringed?

NO.

The Court obviously believes that -- the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose -- as exercised by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color -- that of carrying guns for self defense in public, is, in action and effect, completely and unequivocally legally interchangeable with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

In Presser the Court removed all doubt on this point.

The Presser opinion, written by Justice Woods, quotes Cruikshank and puts words in the mouth of Chief Justice Waite. The case-specific language of Cruikshank is excluded and Woods uses the familiar words of the 2nd Amendment instead:

"in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress."​

The right of the people to keep and bear arms = the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose = carrying guns for self defense in public.

I can see how you walk yourself into the goofy positions you hold; you have some very imaginative and selective reading ability.

The problem with your argument is that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms = the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose " isn't necessarily true.

The Supreme Court used this terminology because this is the terminology that had been given to the court in the Second count.

At no point did the Supreme Court make any ruling that "bear arms" = "bear arms for lawful purpose".

They didn't even consider this wording.

"I can see how you walk yourself into the goofy positions you hold; you have some very imaginative and selective reading ability."

You have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

You show a court case where "bear arms for lawful purpose" is present because it was given to the court and you jump from this to the Supreme Court saying this is "carrying guns for self defense"

Simple a massive leap of the imagination backed up with nothing.

Remember when we first started talking?

And you know how I know this is the case? Because half the people will simply insult me, rather than bother to even debate this, the other half will, at some point, just tell me they "believe" things to be the case.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Basically what you've posted is "believe".

To sum up your argument

1) US v Cruikshank said "bear arms for lawful purpose" because that's what appeared in the second count that was presented to them.

2) That there can't be a reason for the Second Amendment to exist because otherwise this would limit that Amendment. Regardless of the Supreme Court saying this isn't the case in Heller.

3) That because the militia act 1792 essentially forces people into the militia, that the right to bear arms cannot be the right to be in the militia.

4) That article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution concerning the militia does not give the feds any power to do anything to the militia

This appears to be about the limit of your arguments. We've debated a lot, and you've not said much. Most of the time you're fighting against my arguments, rather than presenting any of your own. The Cruikshank case seems to be your glory piece and that's from something that doesn't say anything at all.

In the process you've basically managed to ignore:

1) That in 1791 the founding fathers ONLY spoke about the right to bear arms in terms of "militia duty" and "render military service"

2) Any states who used the term "bear arms" with a little more added on that could potentially convey that it applied to individuals, actually had to add on additional information for that to hold true, and it's also so vague that it could mean militarily defending themselves from Native Americans.

3) That the militia act 1903 made an unorganized militia and the ONLY logical explanation is that they wanted to stop people demanding their right to be in the militia within the National Guard.

4) That the Heller case said that the Presser case did not go against the individual rights theory, which means that if an individual has the right to bear arms, then this right could not be the right to carry weapons.

5) That the NRA supports permits for carrying guns

6) That the anti-federalists got the Bill of Rights because they were worried about the power of the US federal govt

7) That article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution gave the feds the power to destroy the militia, as stated by the anti-federalists

8) That the Second Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia" and it was not put there for some random joke.

9) That for the militia to survive it needs arms and personnel independent of federal government power.

10) That the anti-federalists wanted to protect the independent supply of arms and personnel in the militia

11) That a clause in the future Second Amendment was taken out because they were worried that the feds could annul the right to be in the militia obtained in the clauses that did get passed.

12) That the Second Amendment could have been passed with the term "bear arms" replaced with "render military service"

Hell, there's so much evidence there and you are ignoring a lot of it and pushing one sentence that the Supreme Court didn't even write.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here we see the Weirdo once again insisting that the term bear arms refers only to military service when it can also mean to be equipped with or to carry weapons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually not.

It's an issue the Supreme Court needs to address.

There are right to carry cases the Court could have reviewed but refused to do so; that's the problem.

Are you an attorney because they're the only ones I know of that will take something that is plain on it's face and claim that it doesn't say what it does.

I restricted my comment to "keep and bear arms". Why do you believe that bear arms means anything other than to carry especially since the AND connects it to the word "keep" which from what I've seen has been determined to mean "posses" in short?

What I or anyone else believes is irrelevant.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means.

And the Court needs to hear both open and concealed carry cases so states and local jurisdictions can regulate the carrying of firearms consistent with the Second Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

Here we see the Weirdo once again insisting that the term bear arms refers only to military service when it can also mean to be equipped with or to carry weapons.

The left......they can make the word "is" appear complicated.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here we see the Weirdo once again insisting that the term bear arms refers only to military service when it can also mean to be equipped with or to carry weapons.

The left......they can make the word "is" appear complicated.....

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What I or anyone else believes is irrelevant.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means.

And the Court needs to hear both open and concealed carry cases so states and local jurisdictions can regulate the carrying of firearms consistent with the Second Amendment.

And absent a ruling that leaves us with what?

 

[2aguy]

What I or anyone else believes is irrelevant.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means.

And the Court needs to hear both open and concealed carry cases so states and local jurisdictions can regulate the carrying of firearms consistent with the Second Amendment.

And absent a ruling that leaves us with what?

Local circuits can make up anything they want.... the 9th and the 4th in particular have been ignoring the ruling in Heller since it was decided by the Court.... but because the court was made up of 4 anti gun Justices, 4 actual constitutional Justices and Kennedy, the swing vote, neither side of the gun debate wanted to take a chance on what Kennedy would do...so they just didn't vote to hear any gun cases..... So the 9th and the 4th did whatever they wanted regardless of all the Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd Amendment...

 

[Abatis]

Cruikshank used the term "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'" Because this is what was in front of it.

"The second avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the 'right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.'"

This is the second count which it talks about in that particular quote.

The thing with the Cruikshank case is that the men were formed together in a militia. No the state militia, but nonetheless it was, at the time, considered to be a militia.

Therefore bearing arms for a lawful purpose doesn't seem to be anything other than these people believing they were in their right to be in the militia.

There's nothing there about individuals just carrying arms around willy nilly.

SMH. The Court isn't talking about the rights of Cruikshank and the other KKK members who did the disarming, kidnapping and lynching; they were talking about the rights possessed and exercised by "Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color" who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched.

The incident that led to Cruikshank was an infamous Reconstruction conflict called The Colfax Massacre.

"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, . . . On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South."​

I'll hand feed you the facts of the case since you obviously need to fuck them up.

The 2nd count of the indictment of Cruikshank and other KKK members charged them with banding together and conspiring, having an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, the right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.

The Court said that this right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is IT in any manner dependent upon the Constituion for its existence. The second amendment declares that IT shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that IT shall not be infringed by Congress.

Now, does the 2nd Amendment in fact say that 'the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose shall not be infringed?

NO.

The Court obviously believes that -- the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose -- as exercised by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color -- that of carrying guns for self defense in public, is, in action and effect, completely and unequivocally legally interchangeable with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

In Presser the Court removed all doubt on this point.

The Presser opinion, written by Justice Woods, quotes Cruikshank and puts words in the mouth of Chief Justice Waite. The case-specific language of Cruikshank is excluded and Woods uses the familiar words of the 2nd Amendment instead:

"in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress."​

The right of the people to keep and bear arms = the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose = carrying guns for self defense in public.

I can see how you walk yourself into the goofy positions you hold; you have some very imaginative and selective reading ability.

The problem with your argument is that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms = the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose " isn't necessarily true.

The Supreme Court used this terminology because this is the terminology that had been given to the court in the Second count.

At no point did the Supreme Court make any ruling that "bear arms" = "bear arms for lawful purpose".

They didn't even consider this wording.

"I can see how you walk yourself into the goofy positions you hold; you have some very imaginative and selective reading ability."

You have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

You show a court case where "bear arms for lawful purpose" is present because it was given to the court and you jump from this to the Supreme Court saying this is "carrying guns for self defense"

Simple a massive leap of the imagination backed up with nothing.

Remember when we first started talking?

And you know how I know this is the case? Because half the people will simply insult me, rather than bother to even debate this, the other half will, at some point, just tell me they "believe" things to be the case.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Basically what you've posted is "believe".

To sum up your argument

1) US v Cruikshank said "bear arms for lawful purpose" because that's what appeared in the second count that was presented to them.

2) That there can't be a reason for the Second Amendment to exist because otherwise this would limit that Amendment. Regardless of the Supreme Court saying this isn't the case in Heller.

3) That because the militia act 1792 essentially forces people into the militia, that the right to bear arms cannot be the right to be in the militia.

4) That article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution concerning the militia does not give the feds any power to do anything to the militia

This appears to be about the limit of your arguments. We've debated a lot, and you've not said much. Most of the time you're fighting against my arguments, rather than presenting any of your own. The Cruikshank case seems to be your glory piece and that's from something that doesn't say anything at all.

In the process you've basically managed to ignore:

1) That in 1791 the founding fathers ONLY spoke about the right to bear arms in terms of "militia duty" and "render military service"

2) Any states who used the term "bear arms" with a little more added on that could potentially convey that it applied to individuals, actually had to add on additional information for that to hold true, and it's also so vague that it could mean militarily defending themselves from Native Americans.

3) That the militia act 1903 made an unorganized militia and the ONLY logical explanation is that they wanted to stop people demanding their right to be in the militia within the National Guard.

4) That the Heller case said that the Presser case did not go against the individual rights theory, which means that if an individual has the right to bear arms, then this right could not be the right to carry weapons.

5) That the NRA supports permits for carrying guns

6) That the anti-federalists got the Bill of Rights because they were worried about the power of the US federal govt

7) That article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution gave the feds the power to destroy the militia, as stated by the anti-federalists

8) That the Second Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia" and it was not put there for some random joke.

9) That for the militia to survive it needs arms and personnel independent of federal government power.

10) That the anti-federalists wanted to protect the independent supply of arms and personnel in the militia

11) That a clause in the future Second Amendment was taken out because they were worried that the feds could annul the right to be in the militia obtained in the clauses that did get passed.

12) That the Second Amendment could have been passed with the term "bear arms" replaced with "render military service"

Hell, there's so much evidence there and you are ignoring a lot of it and pushing one sentence that the Supreme Court didn't even write.

And your entire argument is grounded on the feeling that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon the words chosen to secure it.

And that's plainly in conflict with foundational constitutional principle and thus irrevocably wrong.

The 2nd Amendment is not a permission slip that delineates and circumscribes the fundamental, fully retained right to arms of the people.

You want to treat the right to arms differently than other fundamental rights and that is wrong. You ignore that without an express power being granted to limit the scope of the protection of our rights, what was understood to be "lawful use / lawful action" before the Constitution was enacted is recognized as the "right" . . . and must be included in the federal protection sphere of the right. You also ignore that the 14th Amendment and its enforcement on the states forces the Court to treat fundamental rights in a certain manner that doesn't contract just because YOU think that the right is of a lower value.

You can say that I'm over reading Cruikshank and Presser but the words are there . . . "bearing arms for lawful purpose", which was, in this case the carriage of arms for self defense in public, is the "it" that the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed". SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming this "pre-existing right" principle for going on 140 years for the right to arms and even longer as a general rights principle. There's no way to ignore that without looking like a disingenuous partisan.

You OTOH, are inventing a legal restriction on the protection of the right that has never been recognized, never been held by any court to be the enforceable legal circumstance, holding up as evidence one side of ratification debate and words that were discarded the proposed amendment ratified by the states.

Your theory is entirely a construction of your own mind, conjured into being by forcing yourself to ignore foundational constitutional principles and SCOTUS enforcing those principles.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Cruikshank used the term "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'" Because this is what was in front of it.

"The second avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the 'right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.'"

This is the second count which it talks about in that particular quote.

The thing with the Cruikshank case is that the men were formed together in a militia. No the state militia, but nonetheless it was, at the time, considered to be a militia.

Therefore bearing arms for a lawful purpose doesn't seem to be anything other than these people believing they were in their right to be in the militia.

There's nothing there about individuals just carrying arms around willy nilly.

SMH. The Court isn't talking about the rights of Cruikshank and the other KKK members who did the disarming, kidnapping and lynching; they were talking about the rights possessed and exercised by "Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color" who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched.

The incident that led to Cruikshank was an infamous Reconstruction conflict called The Colfax Massacre.

"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, . . . On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South."​

I'll hand feed you the facts of the case since you obviously need to fuck them up.

The 2nd count of the indictment of Cruikshank and other KKK members charged them with banding together and conspiring, having an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, the right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.

The Court said that this right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is IT in any manner dependent upon the Constituion for its existence. The second amendment declares that IT shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that IT shall not be infringed by Congress.

Now, does the 2nd Amendment in fact say that 'the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose shall not be infringed?

NO.

The Court obviously believes that -- the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose -- as exercised by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color -- that of carrying guns for self defense in public, is, in action and effect, completely and unequivocally legally interchangeable with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

In Presser the Court removed all doubt on this point.

The Presser opinion, written by Justice Woods, quotes Cruikshank and puts words in the mouth of Chief Justice Waite. The case-specific language of Cruikshank is excluded and Woods uses the familiar words of the 2nd Amendment instead:

"in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress."​

The right of the people to keep and bear arms = the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose = carrying guns for self defense in public.

I can see how you walk yourself into the goofy positions you hold; you have some very imaginative and selective reading ability.

The problem with your argument is that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms = the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose " isn't necessarily true.

The Supreme Court used this terminology because this is the terminology that had been given to the court in the Second count.

At no point did the Supreme Court make any ruling that "bear arms" = "bear arms for lawful purpose".

They didn't even consider this wording.

"I can see how you walk yourself into the goofy positions you hold; you have some very imaginative and selective reading ability."

You have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

You show a court case where "bear arms for lawful purpose" is present because it was given to the court and you jump from this to the Supreme Court saying this is "carrying guns for self defense"

Simple a massive leap of the imagination backed up with nothing.

Remember when we first started talking?

And you know how I know this is the case? Because half the people will simply insult me, rather than bother to even debate this, the other half will, at some point, just tell me they "believe" things to be the case.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Basically what you've posted is "believe".

To sum up your argument

1) US v Cruikshank said "bear arms for lawful purpose" because that's what appeared in the second count that was presented to them.

2) That there can't be a reason for the Second Amendment to exist because otherwise this would limit that Amendment. Regardless of the Supreme Court saying this isn't the case in Heller.

3) That because the militia act 1792 essentially forces people into the militia, that the right to bear arms cannot be the right to be in the militia.

4) That article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution concerning the militia does not give the feds any power to do anything to the militia

This appears to be about the limit of your arguments. We've debated a lot, and you've not said much. Most of the time you're fighting against my arguments, rather than presenting any of your own. The Cruikshank case seems to be your glory piece and that's from something that doesn't say anything at all.

In the process you've basically managed to ignore:

1) That in 1791 the founding fathers ONLY spoke about the right to bear arms in terms of "militia duty" and "render military service"

2) Any states who used the term "bear arms" with a little more added on that could potentially convey that it applied to individuals, actually had to add on additional information for that to hold true, and it's also so vague that it could mean militarily defending themselves from Native Americans.

3) That the militia act 1903 made an unorganized militia and the ONLY logical explanation is that they wanted to stop people demanding their right to be in the militia within the National Guard.

4) That the Heller case said that the Presser case did not go against the individual rights theory, which means that if an individual has the right to bear arms, then this right could not be the right to carry weapons.

5) That the NRA supports permits for carrying guns

6) That the anti-federalists got the Bill of Rights because they were worried about the power of the US federal govt

7) That article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution gave the feds the power to destroy the militia, as stated by the anti-federalists

8) That the Second Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia" and it was not put there for some random joke.

9) That for the militia to survive it needs arms and personnel independent of federal government power.

10) That the anti-federalists wanted to protect the independent supply of arms and personnel in the militia

11) That a clause in the future Second Amendment was taken out because they were worried that the feds could annul the right to be in the militia obtained in the clauses that did get passed.

12) That the Second Amendment could have been passed with the term "bear arms" replaced with "render military service"

Hell, there's so much evidence there and you are ignoring a lot of it and pushing one sentence that the Supreme Court didn't even write.

And your entire argument is grounded on the feeling that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon the words chosen to secure it.

And that's plainly in conflict with foundational constitutional principle and thus irrevocably wrong.

The 2nd Amendment is not a permission slip that delineates and circumscribes the fundamental, fully retained right to arms of the people.

You want to treat the right to arms differently than other fundamental rights and that is wrong. You ignore that without an express power being granted to limit the scope of the protection of our rights, what was understood to be "lawful use / lawful action" before the Constitution was enacted is recognized as the "right" . . . and must be included in the federal protection sphere of the right. You also ignore that the 14th Amendment and its enforcement on the states forces the Court to treat fundamental rights in a certain manner that doesn't contract just because YOU think that the right is of a lower value.

You can say that I'm over reading Cruikshank and Presser but the words are there . . . "bearing arms for lawful purpose", which was, in this case the carriage of arms for self defense in public, is the "it" that the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed". SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming this "pre-existing right" principle for going on 140 years for the right to arms and even longer as a general rights principle. There's no way to ignore that without looking like a disingenuous partisan.

You OTOH, are inventing a legal restriction on the protection of the right that has never been recognized, never been held by any court to be the enforceable legal circumstance, holding up as evidence one side of ratification debate and words that were discarded the proposed amendment ratified by the states.

Your theory is entirely a construction of your own mind, conjured into being by forcing yourself to ignore foundational constitutional principles and SCOTUS enforcing those principles.

Yes, it's like there's an acorn. I'm saying it's going to grow into an oak tree, and you're saying it's going to grow into a pine tree.

But no, my argument isn't based on feeling. It's based on fact and logic.

I never said the 2A was permission. But I guess trying to "win" by claiming things that weren't said is what you've got left.

No, I don't treat the right to bear arms any differently than any other amendment either.

Yes, the words are in Cruikshank. They're clearly not the words of the court, as they've put them in quotation marks. They come in the second count. Who makes the counts? Not the court.

Over reading is a bit of an understatement.

Look, the Supreme Court has NEVER, EVER taken a case on the right to bear arms other than whether it's individual or not.

Even in that court case they acknowledged that at the time "bear arms" was mostly used in terms of the military. Other times the meaning is rather vague as to whether it's militarily considered or not.

But what do you have? Before 1875 you don't seem to have a single piece of evidence to point to a single person saying what you think it is.

Not one. Nothing. Nada.

And even after this you have a quote from a case that they're quoting because they HAVE TO because it's one of the counts of the case they're looking at.

And then you've got a few arguments against things I didn't say.

We could go through this simply again and again. But like I said at the beginning, EVERYONE (well I think there have been two who haven't in about 20 years) basically IGNORES most of what I present in order to BELIEVE what they want to believe. You didn't believe me. Now you really should admit it, because it's what you're doing.

 

[Abatis]

I never said the 2A was permission. But I guess trying to "win" by claiming things that weren't said is what you've got left.

You say your position is arrived at by applying logic but you don't see that when you read "the right to keep and bear arms" and say that the framers did not intend or did not include any right to carry guns . . . Means you read the 2nd and apply the words as conditions and restrictions on the recognition and protection of the right to arms. To you, "bear arms" means the people, who did not part with any aspect of their right to arms, are only allowed to carry guns when they are exercising their right to be in the militia.

You say that for you to believe a right to carry guns exists, you need to see a specific delineation, a specific grant of such a "right". That sentiment, whether you want to accept it or not, is considering the 2nd Amendment to be a permission slip . . . and no permission can be found to allow the people to carry guns in public.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I never said the 2A was permission. But I guess trying to "win" by claiming things that weren't said is what you've got left.

You say your position is arrived at by applying logic but you don't see that when you read "the right to keep and bear arms" and say that the framers did not intend or did not include any right to carry guns . . . Means you read the 2nd and apply the words as conditions and restrictions on the recognition and protection of the right to arms. To you, "bear arms" means the people, who did not part with any aspect of their right to arms, are only allowed to carry guns when they are exercising their right to be in the militia.

You say that for you to believe a right to carry guns exists, you need to see a specific delineation, a specific grant of such a "right". That sentiment, whether you want to accept it or not, is considering the 2nd Amendment to be a permission slip . . . and no permission can be found to allow the people to carry guns in public.

So, where's the evidence from that time that points to a right to carry arms?

Your second paragraph is wrong. Again, trying to fight something which hasn't been said, it's not really worth it, is it? You're fighting ghosts.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The NRA is no friend of Individual liberty. It is no friend of the Constitution.

1st Amendment - Gone
2nd Amendment - Regulated
4th Amendment - gonje
5th Amendment - Gone
10th amendment - Gone

I could go on.

If ayone would like a specific explanation for why the NRA is no friend to any of these Amendments I've listed here, just whistle, I'll explain.