The NRA.

[Skull Pilot]

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.

For one No one has the right to military service, a fact evidenced by military policy where anyone can be denied acceptance in any branch of the military for one of many reasons

 

[Abatis]

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

I've read the Constitution many, many times and I have never read anything that says a power was granted to the federal government to allow it to dictate to the private citizen how his personal arms may be carried.

Your second paragraph is wrong . . .

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.

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

You don't seem to question that a right to "keep arms" exists. To me, your acceptance of that legal condition is a result of the lack of controversy about what "keep arms" means.

So, my question is, can you provide an alternate wording for the 2nd Amendment that would force you to extend a similar unqualified acceptance of the right of a private citizen to carry guns in public for self defense?

 

[2aguy]

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.

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.


You mean except for all the legal and historical examples they used in Heller....right? All of the examples in Heller where they show you are wrong or wrong and lying about it.... You have to lie in order to change the meaning of the word "bear" in order to prevent people from exercising the Right to carry a gun for self defense...you are willing to lie about a word, change it's meaning, and change the legal and historical evidence that keeps you from changing that word..... all because you hate gun owners....

 

[2aguy]

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.

From Heller....it took me 5 seconds to find two examples out of the many they use to show the history of "Bear Arms" that you are currently lying about...

State Constitutions.....tell me they were after 1875...... or the Pre-Civil war state courts....when was the Civil War again? You don't know what you are talking about, you are trying to use the dissent's desperate definition of "Bear" to lie about this Right.

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8
It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit.

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.”

----------

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.

---

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”

 

[2aguy]

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.

Lying about the word......wow...

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Com plete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

-------

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms- bearing 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, Intro duction 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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Frigid is lying about the word, "Bear" because he doesn't want people to be able to carry guns.........he is taking the dissent from Heller when they also lie about the word.....

From Heller and why this lying about the word, "bear" is stupid...

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petition ers and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (some times) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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

I don't need to make that case because others much more versed in constituional law have made it already and the Supreme Court has handed down it's determination so I'm really not sure why you're arguing about this. A SCOTUS ruling is the final say on the matter.

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.

I can not speak for the state of Alaska but I understand that you don't even need a permit to carry in Alaska, so what exactly is your complaint? With the exception of a handful of states, most people who are not a member of the group of those prohibited from possession of a firearm, can own ("keep) and carry ("bear") arms in accordance to their state's laws. My state actually reiterates in our state constitution what the 2nd amendment specifies, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so there is protection under both the U.S constitution and state constitution. Additionally, local governments are prohibited from passing more restrictive laws that those at the state level.

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

Calling an idiotic statement stupid is not an attack and in this particular case the poster in question has made many, many stupid and at times racist comments. My comment was not based solely on the idiocy of the belief that prohibiting incarcerated inmates from possessing firearms is an infringement of their 2nd amendment rights, it was based on the entirely of the person's posting history and conversations with me in other threads. If anyone on this board can be said to make stupid statements merely to be antagonistic, insulting and/or to pick a fight, that poster would be one of them that I've seen in my time here at USMB.

Lastly, at least 4 states have issued a concealed carry permit to me. Those licenses belie your statement of "keep on believing whatever crap you feel like making up". I actually live the truth I speak, so I have no idea what truth you think you know unless it's some of the Trump era "truth isn't truth.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

I've read the Constitution many, many times and I have never read anything that says a power was granted to the federal government to allow it to dictate to the private citizen how his personal arms may be carried.

Your second paragraph is wrong . . .

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.

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

You don't seem to question that a right to "keep arms" exists. To me, your acceptance of that legal condition is a result of the lack of controversy about what "keep arms" means.

So, my question is, can you provide an alternate wording for the 2nd Amendment that would force you to extend a similar unqualified acceptance of the right of a private citizen to carry guns in public for self defense?

Okay, if the founding fathers had no reason to fear the Federal government preventing them from carrying arms, or even dictating how arms would be carried, why would they put an explicit clause into the Constitution protecting this?

On the other hand, we have the anti-Federalists getting all tight in the knickers because they felt that the Federal government would take away people's right to be in the militia.

So, he's where we get to the logic part, right. You are telling me that you there's no logic to your argument. And then you expect me to agree with your argument. Why?

No, I don't seem to question the right to keep arms.

Look. If they wanted to protect the militia, they had to protect the arms and the personnel. So it make sense, logic here, that they'd protect the right to own guns and the right to be in the militia.



Okay, if the Second Amendment said "The US Federal government are a bunch of fuckers and don't give a damn about the people, the right of the people to keep arms and defend themselves with those arms shall not be infringed", you might be right.

But it didn't, did it?

I asked you for evidence of anything before 1875, and this is what you've given me? Nothing, nada, again.

Like I've said multiple times, this isn't the first time this has happened, maybe the 100th time it's happened. People with nothing coming to me and telling me I'm wrong when I have evidence and they have nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

I don't need to make that case because others much more versed in constituional law have made it already and the Supreme Court has handed down it's determination so I'm really not sure why you're arguing about this. A SCOTUS ruling is the final say on the matter.

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.

I can not speak for the state of Alaska but I understand that you don't even need a permit to carry in Alaska, so what exactly is your complaint? With the exception of a handful of states, most people who are not a member of the group of those prohibited from possession of a firearm, can own ("keep) and carry ("bear") arms in accordance to their state's laws. My state actually reiterates in our state constitution what the 2nd amendment specifies, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so there is protection under both the U.S constitution and state constitution. Additionally, local governments are prohibited from passing more restrictive laws that those at the state level.

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

Calling an idiotic statement stupid is not an attack and in this particular case the poster in question has made many, many stupid and at times racist comments. My comment was not based solely on the idiocy of the belief that prohibiting incarcerated inmates from possessing firearms is an infringement of their 2nd amendment rights, it was based on the entirely of the person's posting history and conversations with me in other threads. If anyone on this board can be said to make stupid statements merely to be antagonistic, insulting and/or to pick a fight, that poster would be one of them that I've seen in my time here at USMB.

Lastly, at least 4 states have issued a concealed carry permit to me. Those licenses belie your statement of "keep on believing whatever crap you feel like making up". I actually live the truth I speak, so I have no idea what truth you think you know unless it's some of the Trump era "truth isn't truth.

My first worry is that you don't understand what the Supreme Court has actually said.

Second my worry is that you don't know how the Supreme Court works. I think you'd struggle to find a single person who knows about US politics that thinks that once the Supreme Court has said something, it cannot be reversed.

Let's play a little game.

Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 1858

They basically said "Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Constitution."

Does this mean that no black person can ever again be a citizen of the US?

Clearly not.

In Alaska you don't need a permit in order to carry a firearm.
In Alaska prohibits guns in schools.

Gun laws in Alaska - Wikipedia

"Alaska prohibits any type of carry in schools, domestic violence shelters, courts, and correctional institutions. Carrying is also prohibited in any place where alcohol is served for on-site consumption, with an exception for restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as one is not consuming alcohol while carrying. "

Ah.

If there's a right to carry guns, then the right would not allow prohibition in schools, courts, alcohol serving places etc.

Simple as.

" My state actually reiterates in our state constitution what the 2nd amendment specifies, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so there is protection under both the U.S constitution and state constitution. "

That's nice. Now, what state are you from? You don't have to tell me, I respect people's privacy, however I might be able to enlighten you on things you cannot do with your guns in your state.

"Calling an idiotic statement stupid is not an attack "

Ah yes, people who think they can do attacks but "It's not an attack because [insert ludicrous argument]"

I'm not playing childish games, okay? I'm not here to talk to 13 year olds. There are places on the internet where I suppose people could go to talk to 13 year olds, I don't go to those places for a reason.

So, if you want to talk like adults, act like one. Humkay?

 

[2aguy]

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

I don't need to make that case because others much more versed in constituional law have made it already and the Supreme Court has handed down it's determination so I'm really not sure why you're arguing about this. A SCOTUS ruling is the final say on the matter.

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.

I can not speak for the state of Alaska but I understand that you don't even need a permit to carry in Alaska, so what exactly is your complaint? With the exception of a handful of states, most people who are not a member of the group of those prohibited from possession of a firearm, can own ("keep) and carry ("bear") arms in accordance to their state's laws. My state actually reiterates in our state constitution what the 2nd amendment specifies, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so there is protection under both the U.S constitution and state constitution. Additionally, local governments are prohibited from passing more restrictive laws that those at the state level.

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

Calling an idiotic statement stupid is not an attack and in this particular case the poster in question has made many, many stupid and at times racist comments. My comment was not based solely on the idiocy of the belief that prohibiting incarcerated inmates from possessing firearms is an infringement of their 2nd amendment rights, it was based on the entirely of the person's posting history and conversations with me in other threads. If anyone on this board can be said to make stupid statements merely to be antagonistic, insulting and/or to pick a fight, that poster would be one of them that I've seen in my time here at USMB.

Lastly, at least 4 states have issued a concealed carry permit to me. Those licenses belie your statement of "keep on believing whatever crap you feel like making up". I actually live the truth I speak, so I have no idea what truth you think you know unless it's some of the Trump era "truth isn't truth.

Read Frigid's post 229 and you will see why I often call he/she/it names.........

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

States within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are prohibited from banning the open carrying of firearms; those states are allowed to maintain their ‘may issue’ concealed carry licensing policies, however.

Outside of the Ninth Circuit, states may continue to prohibit the open carrying of firearms; and ‘may issue’ licensing policies likewise remain legal.

 

[sealybobo]

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

It wasn't enough.

The NRA Is A Crashed Car On Fire, Ready To Explode | HuffPost

The National Rifle Association is facing collapse. Membership is plummeting. Investigations are opening. And victims of gun violence are holding the organization accountable for deaths all across the country. All of this came to a head on Saturday during the NRA convention in Indianapolis, where a comedy of errors eventually led to the announcement that the gun group’s president, Oliver North, would not seek reelection.

Here’s how the NRA got to that point:

A Lack Of Fear Leads To A Lack Of Money

A Massive Report Shows Financial Misdeeds

An Attempted Overthrow Backfires

Everytown is calling on the IRS, Congress, and state charities regulators to investigate the [NRA], its officers and board members to determine if a pattern of financial mismanagement and self-dealing is so pervasive as to jeopardize their tax-exempt charity status

The New York attorney general’s office said it was also launching an investigation into the group, which could further threaten its tax-exempt status.

 

[miketx]

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

It wasn't enough.

The NRA Is A Crashed Car On Fire, Ready To Explode | HuffPost

The National Rifle Association is facing collapse. Membership is plummeting. Investigations are opening. And victims of gun violence are holding the organization accountable for deaths all across the country. All of this came to a head on Saturday during the NRA convention in Indianapolis, where a comedy of errors eventually led to the announcement that the gun group’s president, Oliver North, would not seek reelection.

Here’s how the NRA got to that point:

A Lack Of Fear Leads To A Lack Of Money

A Massive Report Shows Financial Misdeeds

An Attempted Overthrow Backfires

Everytown is calling on the IRS, Congress, and state charities regulators to investigate the [NRA], its officers and board members to determine if a pattern of financial mismanagement and self-dealing is so pervasive as to jeopardize their tax-exempt charity status

The New York attorney general’s office said it was also launching an investigation into the group, which could further threaten its tax-exempt status.

Fake news. You idiots get more nutty each day. Lol another witch hunt.