The Right To Bear Arms

[freedombecki]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

Bull.

It's not in the least confusing. It means citizens can carry the guns. And "shall not be infringed" means leave armed citizens alone. It's just that simple.

 

[Lakhota]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

Bull.

It's not in the least confusing. It means citizens can carry the guns. And "shall not be infringed" means leave armed citizens alone. It's just that simple.

Justice Scalia disagrees...

And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia

 

[Harry Dresden]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

no....its confusing to people like you.....the ones who want guns banned....and i guess if i was against guns as bad as you are,i would be confused too....and i would hate those fuckers for making it an amendment....like you do....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

no....its confusing to people like you.....the ones who want guns banned....and i guess if i was against guns as bad as you are,i would be confused too....and i would hate those fuckers for making it an amendment....like you do....

This^^^^^^^^^

 

[Lakhota]

Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned? That's a major flaw in their argument.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned? That's a major flaw in their argument.

Dumb ass it was the nazi's that supported gun control

 

[beagle9]

Not confusing at all if you know how to read.

And then to comprehend afterwards...It's really that simple, but when one is working an agenda as these people are, their hope's are that "confusion" is something that they can successfully sew into the fabric somehow, and this while they are going about trying to change things in which they have no business changing at all.

 

[Harry Dresden]

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

You're usually confused, but thanks for reminding folks.

Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...

yea he is so clear headed he ignores questions he brings up in his posts.....no doubt because he doesn't like the question....but hey....Dean and Dudley are the same way.....it's called a Character flaw....

 

[Lakhota]

You're usually confused, but thanks for reminding folks.

Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...

yea he is so clear headed he ignores questions he brings up in his posts.....no doubt because he doesn't like the question....but hey....Dean and Dudley are the same way.....it's called a Character flaw....

It's actually called not wasting time with retarded assholes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...

yea he is so clear headed he ignores questions he brings up in his posts.....no doubt because he doesn't like the question....but hey....Dean and Dudley are the same way.....it's called a Character flaw....

It's actually called not wasting time with retarded assholes.

You're chasing your asshole again aren't you? Go get that retarded asshole

 

[freedombecki]

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

Bull.

It's not in the least confusing. It means citizens can carry the guns. And "shall not be infringed" means leave armed citizens alone. It's just that simple.

Justice Scalia disagrees...

And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia

I read that one already.

I'm not Justice Scalia, as learned a man as he is, but I believe at the time it was written, people knew exactly what the Constitution said. It said leave people alone when they are armed, and they can arm when they feel threatened by oppressive government.

European governments have a different view than Americans.

Quit screwing with people's Bill of Rights, Lakota. It's a losing duel.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bull.

It's not in the least confusing. It means citizens can carry the guns. And "shall not be infringed" means leave armed citizens alone. It's just that simple.

Justice Scalia disagrees...

And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia

I read that one already.

I'm not Justice Scalia, as learned a man as he is, but I believe at the time it was written, people knew exactly what the Constitution said. It said leave people alone when they are armed, and they can arm when they feel threatened by oppressive government.

European governments have a different view than Americans.

Quit screwing with people's Bill of Rights, Lakota. It's a losing duel.

You are way to nice.

 

[Abatis]

Justice Scalia disagrees...

And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia

THIS POST EDITED TO CONFORM WITH MY REPLY IN THIS THREAD (#29)

Isn't that special.

I'll begin with an attack on the intellectual honesty of the blogger you cite / quote (and by extension, your intellectual honesty). Then I will turn to the premise of his statement; the conclusion he draws from what he "quotes" from "Heller".

So, even though he presents his "quote" as "From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling," and you bold that for dramatic effect in the OP, the link and the text he presents points to and directly copies from the Wikipedia article on DC v Heller.

Uhhhhh, that's not quite the same thing LOL.

If one was to actually refer to the actual case we would find the full paragraph as written by Scalia. I have highlighted in red what has been excised or significantly altered (and I was generous):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.​

Now, to address the basic premise of your blogger . . .

It is a mistake to read that paragraph (severely edited or original) divorced from its footnote. Scalia holds those laws as merely "presumptively lawful" . . . Because, 1) the Court was not undertaking an exhaustive historical analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment and 2) none of those laws were under review, thus having no doubt cast upon them).

But . . .

The many laws that have been challenged previously and upheld in state and lower federal courts were upheld using reasoning that Heller was invalidating (namely the "state's right" and "militia right" inventions of 1942).

Those laws that have only those crumbling blocks to rest on will fall and there are many, many many laws like that (example, pretty much the entire New Jersey gun control scheme is infirm, see Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968)).

So to the readers out there . . . who's the most disingenuous one, Lakhota or the asshole that put this deceitful garbage up originally?

My next task focuses on this question . . .

How many of the cited references in the real quote have you read?

Do you think they support your "vision" of the right to arms or mine?

I will post tomorrow with the cited excerpts for them but here are two, just as a tease:

Citation -- Rawle 123:

• "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

Citation -- Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251:

• "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!"

So how truthful is your blogger's closing statement? He said:

"There is no constitutional bar to some limitation and regulation of firearms. The real question — the only real question, to my mind — is whether there is the political will for it."​

Must you anti-Liberty twits lie about everything?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned? That's a major flaw in their argument.

because you say as much in your dam posts.....geezus LaKota read what you post.....AND dont give me that shit when YOU called anyone who disagrees with Obama....a Bigot....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...

yea he is so clear headed he ignores questions he brings up in his posts.....no doubt because he doesn't like the question....but hey....Dean and Dudley are the same way.....it's called a Character flaw....

It's actually called not wasting time with retarded assholes.

no its not.....you called many here bigots for disagreeing with Obama....even those who never call the President names......i was one of them.....you have ignored me 3-4 times back in the campaigning days when i simply asked you if someone can disagree with this President without it being considered racial.....you ignored that question and continued calling people bigots for doing it......so eat shit asshole....you dont have any Character LaKota.....your a phony.....your no Indian and you are not for "sane" Gun regulations.....your for no one having guns.....you have said this 3 or 4 times already in other threads....and i pointed that out to you then and of course you ignored that too instead of clarifying yourself.....its called Character.....something you lack.....

 

[Ernie S.]

Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned? That's a major flaw in their argument.

Reasonable gun control is 90 out of 100 at 100 yards.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why is it that radical nazicon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned? That's a major flaw in their argument.

reasonable gun control is 90 out of 100 at 100 yards.

how can anyone have a discussion with someone who supports gun control but calls those who are anti gun control nazi's?

 

[yidnar]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

can you believe the arrogance of this idiot !! he thinks he is wiser than James Madison !!

 

[Ernie S.]

There are several folks like Lakhota here. They have their talking points and whatever evidence you give to discredit them, they still see their premise as fact.
Lakhota, Rdweeb, luddley and a couple others, wouldn't know integrity if it bit them on the ass.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned? That's a major flaw in their argument.

Maybe because you guys and 'reasonable' are a couple of TIME ZONES apart?