The Right To Bear Arms

[elvis]

It's amazing to me that so many don't know about Heller.

May not matter. That may be ignored.

 

[hazlnut]

It's amazing to me that so many don't know about Heller.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.... and we know about Dred Scott too.

Dumb fuck.

 

[Si modo]

It's amazing to me that so many don't know about Heller.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.... and we know about Dred Scott too.

Dumb fuck.

And the SCOTUS was right. Their responsibility is not to legislate. Three branches...look it up.

Fuckwit.

 

[candycorn]

Very good post. Highest marks.

 

[asterism]

That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?

What it actually says is:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??

You're aware that the Supreme Court ruled differently right?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Quantum Windbag]

fyi; the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.

For those totally ignorant of history

The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments

At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day

It does? Is that how it worked in Venezuela? Because I can guarantee that all of the Hollywood Left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of Hugo Chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.

Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?

What it actually says is:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??

You are 100% wrong, The 2 phrases can be taken independently. The founders realized that militias aren't a permanent entity. They may be raised, disbanded and become necessary again at a later time.
When, in the future, a citizen militia may be needed again, it will need arms. A oppressive government isn't about to arm its opposition.

Stop trying to argue that the fact that the amendment mentions militias means something different now than it did then. The simple fact is that that sentence contains both a dominant and a dependent clause. The simplest way to handle this is to slit the clauses apart and see which stands on its own.

• A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

Umm, what? How is it necessary? What is a free state? Lots of questions, lots of ambiguity. Interesting concept, but it is not a complete sentence, so it has to be the dependent clause.

• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Gee, look at that, a complete sentence, no ambiguity, no confusion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments

At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day

A free press can inform the citizens, but is of no use to stop an oppressive government. What it CAN do, is call out the armed militia.

The Press is also free to support the oppression, kind of like MSNBC

An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun

That explains why oppressive governments always take the guns before they take the votes.

 

[rightwinger]

A free press can inform the citizens, but is of no use to stop an oppressive government. What it CAN do, is call out the armed militia.

The Press is also free to support the oppression, kind of like MSNBC

An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun

That explains why oppressive governments always take the guns before they take the votes.

They first move to dictatorships and abolish the vote

But guess what? The US is not a dictatorship regardless of what rightwing propaganda says.

 

[rightwinger]

fyi; the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.

For those totally ignorant of history

The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments

At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day

It does? Is that how it worked in Venezuela? Because I can guarantee that all of the Hollywood Left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of Hugo Chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.

Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.

You fail to point out where, in the history of THE UNITED STATES, gun ownership has protected our freedom

Personal security, yes
Freedom, never

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What it actually says is:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??

Fuck, you're stupid!! We ARE the 'militia'...

No you are not

You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns

Strange, Federal Law defines the militia as able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

FYI, that covers makes everyone under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.

Want to tell me again I am not in the militia?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun

That explains why oppressive governments always take the guns before they take the votes.

They first move to dictatorships and abolish the vote

But guess what? The US is not a dictatorship regardless of what rightwing propaganda says.

Iran has elections all the time, please tell me they aren't an oppressive government and/or a dictatorship.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments

at no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day

it does? Is that how it worked in venezuela? Because i can guarantee that all of the hollywood left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of hugo chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.

Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.

you fail to point out where, in the history of the united states, gun ownership has protected our freedom

personal security, yes
freedom, never

1776.

 

[rightwinger]

it does? Is that how it worked in venezuela? Because i can guarantee that all of the hollywood left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of hugo chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.

Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.

you fail to point out where, in the history of the united states, gun ownership has protected our freedom

personal security, yes
freedom, never

1776.

Even in 1776 it was the Continental Army which did the brunt of the fighting. We were als supported immensely by the French. But you are correct, that was the highwater mark of our militias. Our founding fathers even thought they could rely on militias to protect the country

They were wrong

 

[rightwinger]

Fuck, you're stupid!! We ARE the 'militia'...

No you are not

You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns

Strange, Federal Law defines the militia as able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

FYI, that covers makes everyone under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.

Want to tell me again I am not in the militia?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards

 

[Too Tall]

C_Clayton_Jones

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

SPOT ON!

 

[Too Tall]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

It doesn't say you have to belong to a militia. It does say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Too Tall]

Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

District of Columbia v. Heller:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

United States v. Miller

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

United States v. Miller

What weapons are in common use right now?

Here is an estimate on so-called assault rifles.

According to Sturm-Ruger’s 2011 annual report, sales of rifles accounted for $83.4 million in revenue that year out of $324.2 million in total net firearms sales—about 26 percent of revenue. Sturm-Ruger produced 1,114,700 firearms in 2011. Assuming that every gun cost the same amount—this is certainly incorrect, but we’re just making a back-of-the-envelope calculation here—26 percent of 1,114,700 is roughly 290,000 rifles. According to Overstreet, AR-15s accounted for 14.4 percent of rifles produced in 2007. If that statistic remains true, then Sturm-Ruger produced close to 42,000 AR-15-style rifles in 2011. Walk that number back through the years, and extrapolate it out to the other two manufacturers, and you’re possibly looking at anywhere from 500,000 to 700,000 more AR-15-style rifles. (Again, I must caution that there is a potentially huge margin of error in these calculations.)


Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading assault-style rifles make up around 1 percent of the total arsenal. And keep in mind, the AR-15 is just one of the many assault weapons on the market. Overstreet estimated that more than 800,000 Ruger Mini-14 rifles—the rifle that Anders Behring Breivik used in the Oslo summer camp shootings last year—had been produced since 1974. There are other types, too. This is only the tip of the gunberg.

Assault weapon stats: How many assault weapons are there in America?

 

[GuyPinestra]

No you are not

You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns

Strange, Federal Law defines the militia as able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

FYI, that covers makes everyone under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.

Want to tell me again I am not in the militia?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards

That is the ORGANIZED militia. There is also an UN-organized militia, the army of last resort, so to speak, which is defined above by QW.

 

[Dick Tuck]

it does? Is that how it worked in venezuela? Because i can guarantee that all of the hollywood left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of hugo chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.

Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.

you fail to point out where, in the history of the united states, gun ownership has protected our freedom

personal security, yes
freedom, never

1776.

??? Wrong year.