The Right To Bear Arms

[Flash]

[


Ah, insults. Like I said, more shit and I'm done with you. I've not reached "I'm done with you" part. Bye.

You deserve insults because you don't understand the basic Liberties of which this country was founded upon.

Well that one got you on the ignore list. Grow up.

That is fine. No loss. You didn't post anything worthwhile and you sure as hell didn't answer the simple question I asked you.. Like all Moon Bats you are confused about a great many things.

 

[turtledude]

None of our rights are without restrictions.

that's a bullshit cop out. the federal government has no power to properly infringe on rights in areas that the government has no power delegated to it.

 

[turtledude]

I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:

"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."

The pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two separate statements.

The single statement:

"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."

Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.

There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.

But I'm not a linguistic expert....

uh you appear ignorant of many things including the fact that there is NO DOUBT that the founders believed that the right they RECOGNIZED with the second amendment is one that PRE-EXISTS government.

NOW HOW CAN YOU CLAIM that a right that pre-exists GOVERNMENT can only vest if you are a member of a government regulated entity?

 

[Marion Morrison]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Your gun-grabbing OP is duly noted and dismissed.

My next will be a Ruger American Predator, and I will put a suppressor on it.

 

[danielpalos]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

dears, our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our supreme law of the land. There is no thing, ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, including our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[turtledude]

dears, our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our supreme law of the land. There is no thing, ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, including our Second Article of Amendment.

its too bad your attempt to appear clever requires you to call the second amendment something other than what every legal scholar in the country calls it

of course you aren't a legal scholar nor do you have any training in legal scholarship. So you attempt to cover up your complete ignorance on the subject by pretending you have some secret knowledge by calling the second amendment the second article of amendment

go to Yale Law school and then get back to me-I get tired of listening to your ignorant bullshit that you post all over the net you stupid fraud

 

[Deleted member 61768]

[
Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime. Agree?

I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.

God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....

Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[
Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime. Agree?

I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.

God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....

Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.

Yes.

The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.

The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.

 

[turtledude]

Yes.

The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.

The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.

many bannerrhoids try to denigrate the second amendment by making this argument which is worthless. What is important is the scope of the second amendment and that scope is based on what the founders believed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes.

The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.

The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.

many bannerrhoids try to denigrate the second amendment by making this argument which is worthless. What is important is the scope of the second amendment and that scope is based on what the founders believed.

And what did the founders believe?

Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?

 

[turtledude]

And what did the founders believe?

Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?

the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.

 

[turtledude]

I know judge King and he's a hard core anti gun liberal appointed by Democrats. its a stupid decision and hopefully a trump supreme court will throw it out

 

[turtledude]

its also based on lies calling them weapons of war

that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are

 

[frigidweirdo]

And what did the founders believe?

Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?

the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.

You didn't answer my question.

Secondly the 2A has nothing to do with self defense, but don't let the facts get in the way.

 

[turtledude]

BREAKING: Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland Rifle, Magazine Ban - The Truth About Guns

idiotic decision. I suspect the supremes will overturn it

 

[turtledude]

And what did the founders believe?

Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?

the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.

You didn't answer my question.

Secondly the 2A has nothing to do with self defense, but don't let the facts get in the way.

you have a yale law degree and taught constitutional law?

I didn't think so, so shut the fuck up. You're an ignorant nobody and you are wrong

 

[Lakhota]

‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

An appeals court upheld a Maryland ban on a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons.

WASHINGTON ― A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a Maryland ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines isn’t subject to the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, reconsidered a divided ruling issued last year that found citizens have a “fundamental right” to own these weapons, and that laws restricting the right deserve the toughest level of constitutional scrutiny.

Writing for a nine-judge majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King said that weapons such as M-16s and the kind that “are most useful in military service” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. That ruling limited the right to ownership of handguns for self-defense within the home.

“Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

The court separately rejected claims that Maryland’s assault weapons ban violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

More: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

It'a about time! The 2nd Amendment is confusing and outdated. In fact - it's obsolete.

SCOTUS declines to review Connecticut ban on assault weapons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And what did the founders believe?

Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?

the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.

You didn't answer my question.

Secondly the 2A has nothing to do with self defense, but don't let the facts get in the way.

you have a yale law degree and taught constitutional law?

I didn't think so, so shut the fuck up. You're an ignorant nobody and you are wrong

I'm sorry, what the hell are you going on about?

You have no idea what I do have. Even if I did have such a degree and had taught that I wouldn't be telling you. Having those doesn't make an argument better or worse. So, why the hell bother bring something that has nothing to do with this topic up?

If I were ignorant and you were the scholarly one, you'd have more to say than "shut up".

 

[Flash]

[
Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime. Agree?

I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.

God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....

Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.

He doesn't even have to get a college level book. High school level would be fine.

 

[Flash]

BREAKING: Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland Rifle, Magazine Ban - The Truth About Guns

idiotic decision. I suspect the supremes will overturn it

That was one of the worst justifications ever for limiting the right to keep and bear arms.

To come to that conclusion they had to come up with a convoluted interpretation of Heller and to ignore Miller, which says that the Second Amendment protects civilians using weapons in general use by the military.

In addition to that the stupid Moon Bat judges don't understand the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16 and they forget to mention that the NFA allows civilians to own M-16s providing they pay that stupid $200 tax.