The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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

dear; 10USC311 is also, federal law. why not, "get legal" to federal law?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

its also based on lies calling them weapons of war

that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are

do we really Only need two classes of Arms?

one for the organized militia

and

one for the unorganized militia?

 

[Rustic]

its also based on lies calling them weapons of war

that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are

do we really Only need two classes of Arms?

one for the organized militia

and

one for the unorganized militia?

Frivolous gun control laws kill people… Fact

 

[easyt65]

'The Right To BEAR Arms'?




Cosmetic Surgery gone too far?!

What a stupid thread....

 

[hadit]

That's already happening.

Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.

Kim Davis.

She was in trouble for not doing her job.

Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution". She did, and did. You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".

Fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who infringes gets prosecuted. Also, she was working for the government. Has anyone been prosecuted who didn't work for the govt? No, probably not.

Prosecuted in what way? Business owners who refuse to serve homosexual customers have wound up in court and been fined heavily. Where are the goal posts moving next, to prison time only?

 

[Flash]

[Q

dear; 10USC311 is also, federal law. why not, "get legal" to federal law?

Speaking of getting legal to Federal law why didn't Obama require that the illegals "get legal" by enforcing the immigration laws of the US?

 

[hadit]

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....

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.


Problems with that:
It is plain that the "Bill of Rights" enumerated individual rights. Nowhere else are the Rights referred to considered communal rather individual. We have a free press but that by itself does not satisfy the individual's right of free speech.
"Militia" as it was known to the people of the time simply meant "armed civilian" so it is individual either way you look at it.

Who Were The Minute Men - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

According to Massachusetts colonial law, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to keep a serviceable firearm and serve in a part-time citizen army called the militia.

We really don't even have to explain that ourselves, since the SC already has.

 

[easyt65]

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

/---- Shut down the newspapers because the First Amendment is a relic too.

 

[2aguy]

‘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.

It is as valuable now as it was then...there is nothing legal in the decision by these judges........AR-15s all by themselves total over 8 million rifles...they are "in common use" as Heller points out..they are not weapons of war, and there is no right to limit magazine size since they are not a problem, therefore do not need a court to limit them....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.

Kim Davis.

She was in trouble for not doing her job.

Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution". She did, and did. You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".

Fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who infringes gets prosecuted. Also, she was working for the government. Has anyone been prosecuted who didn't work for the govt? No, probably not.

Prosecuted in what way? Business owners who refuse to serve homosexual customers have wound up in court and been fined heavily. Where are the goal posts moving next, to prison time only?

But those who refuse to serve homosexuals are breaking certain laws. These laws have been made to protect people's rights, however this isn't what is being spoken about here, as far as I can tell. The point was simply that if you infringed on someone's rights you'd get prosecuted. Rather than simply just breaking a law and being prosecuted for break such a law.

 

[hadit]

Kim Davis.

She was in trouble for not doing her job.

Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution". She did, and did. You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".

Fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who infringes gets prosecuted. Also, she was working for the government. Has anyone been prosecuted who didn't work for the govt? No, probably not.

Prosecuted in what way? Business owners who refuse to serve homosexual customers have wound up in court and been fined heavily. Where are the goal posts moving next, to prison time only?

But those who refuse to serve homosexuals are breaking certain laws. These laws have been made to protect people's rights, however this isn't what is being spoken about here, as far as I can tell. The point was simply that if you infringed on someone's rights you'd get prosecuted. Rather than simply just breaking a law and being prosecuted for break such a law.

If I hear you right, you're talking about violating a right that is not encoded into law. If that is the case, which rights are you talking about?

 

[Flash]

[



It is as valuable now as it was then...there is nothing legal in the decision by these judges........AR-15s all by themselves total over 8 million rifles...they are "in common use" as Heller points out..they are not weapons of war, and there is no right to limit magazine size since they are not a problem, therefore do not need a court to limit them....

Exactly!

I have 24 AR-15s and have never used them war. They are instruments for recreation and for defense as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

The one M-16 I have, which has been used by the military, is properly licensed under the NFA regulations. If I lived in Connecticut then the dumbass court would say that the filthy as state government could deny me the standard capacity magazines that are a part of the weapon platform. How dumb is that?

That was a terrible decision and in conflict with the intent of both Heller and McDonald not to mention Miller where the Supreme Court especially said the Second applies to military type weapons. . The Supreme Court said that that Miller's sawed off shotgun was not protected under the Second because it was not a weapon in general use by the military. They were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI but the Justices were unaware of that, mainly because Miller didn't show up for court that day to defend his position.

Dumbass Libtard Moon Bat judges. This country is crawling with the vermin.

 

[Lakhota]

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

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

 

[Flash]

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

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

No stupid Moon Bat. That was a terrible decision. It had no basis in fact. Go back and read some of the previous posts about the convoluted decision to that came out of the Libtard Court.

What is confusing is how you filthy ass Moon Bats have no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of liberty. We can't believe there are people as misinformed and low information as people like you. It is mind boggling.

 

[rich stacy]

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

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

The appeals court 2nd district was ruling on the constitutional objection, not the wisdom. We have seen the 2nd amendment go from protecting the militia, and through it all the able bodied citizens, to it eroding down to an individual right of defense.

Heller v DC saw the 2nd applied as an individual right of self defense, with a nod to existing gun laws as prudent acts of government. The 1968 gun control act took many if not all "weapons of war" out of the hands of individuals, but not retroactively.

 

[rich stacy]

The one M-16 I have, which has been used by the military, is properly licensed under the NFA regulations. If I lived in Connecticut then the dumbass court would say that the filthy as state government could deny me the standard capacity magazines that are a part of the weapon platform. How dumb is that?

It is long held law that states can set a wide variety of limits on the sporting use of weapons. From the type and size of ammunition used in hunting, to their load capacity. Yours becomes an argument the government shouldn't put limits on arms for non-sporting purposes. That someone should be able to defend their castle with whatever they want.

 

[Flash]

The one M-16 I have, which has been used by the military, is properly licensed under the NFA regulations. If I lived in Connecticut then the dumbass court would say that the filthy as state government could deny me the standard capacity magazines that are a part of the weapon platform. How dumb is that?

It is long held law that states can set a wide variety of limits on the sporting use of weapons. From the type and size of ammunition used in hunting, to their load capacity. Yours becomes an argument the government shouldn't put limits on arms for non-sporting purposes. That someone should be able to defend their castle with whatever they want.

My position is that the government (Federal State Local) should never infringe upon the possession of any firearm or weapon. They should regulate the illegal use of the firearm in a crime but never infringe upon the possession.

 

[turtledude]

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

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense. The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete. It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.

your attitude is why this issue will probably result in a civil war. The bannerrhoid movement is like cancer-a malignancy that will never stop until it is totally destroyed by patriots. And the good news is, when the shit hits the fan, the patriotic gun owners will win that battle decisively