The Right To Bear Arms

[Daryl Hunt]

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

Good argument, but I disagree.
First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
Same is true with individuals. Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order. What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal. If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked. The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons. The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want. Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc. Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government. Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense. In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped. Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force? There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space. Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen. Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.

As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time. Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily. And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it. All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military. No arbitrary denial is legal.

You got a lot of living you need to do.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

Good argument, but I disagree.
First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
Same is true with individuals. Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order. What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal. If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked. The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons. The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want. Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc. Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government. Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense. In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped. Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force? There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space. Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen. Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.

As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time. Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily. And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it. All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military. No arbitrary denial is legal.

You got a lot of living you need to do.

Since I am 67, I guess I had better hurry up then.

You'd be surprised what one more year does for your opinions, kid.

 

[Lesh]

And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia

LOL. It doesn't say anything of the kind

 

[Lesh]

noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless. Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wrong. It clearly says:
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.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia. That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.

Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops? They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory. They bring it with them. Again, look at Texas. The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons. If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job. You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there. It's pretty straight forward and simple. The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds. The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening. The Weapons of War outgrew it.

We are not disagreeing.
I agree with you completely.

From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.

Using Heller V DC, you have the right to a serviceable handgun in your home for home protection as long as you are afforded a sane method of registration and licensing if the local government requires it. The only reason the Supreme Court got involved at all is that DC was so far out in left field that they had no choice and DC relies on the Federal Court System since it has no State Court Systems to fall back on. And that is as far as the Modern Supreme Court has ruled. SCOTUS avoids 2nd amendment rulings like a plague. It's not that they agree nor disagree with the lower courts. It's that they would be making laws instead of enforcing the Constitution.

"Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument

 

[Rigby5]

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office.

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Totally and completely wrong about Tombstone.
There was NO gun control in Tombstone for residents, and they never would have put up with it.
It was only those from outside of town, intending to drink and gamble, who had to surrender weapons.
And not only were the Earps totally corrupt, but they were fired and run out of town for killing the Clantons.

The part you said about weapons regulation being local is true however.
And there was never any significant attempt at gun control in any western town.
That is because weapons were almost always necessary for residents.
There really were no police presence anywhere.
The sheriff was only to deal with saloons really.
The sheriff could not protect banks from outlaws, could not protect stage coaches from highway men, could not protect ranchers from tribal attacks, could not protect anyone from snakes, wolves, etc.
The idea any one in the west, south, or anywhere rural would have accepted any weapons control, is just silly.
Again, remember that police essentially did not exist until around 1900 or so.

 

[SavannahMann]

You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.

Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists

Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.

It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.

Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.

So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Any other questions?

And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.

You gonna run with that?

That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs

Any questions?

As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.

 

[Rigby5]

And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia

LOL. It doesn't say anything of the kind

Yes it does.
There not only was no federal standing militia, but the word itself implies a local disposition.
There is nothing of federal connotation of the word militia.
And there is no intent in the Bill of Rights other than to strictly restrain and prohibit federal jurisdiction.
Clearly any mention of weapons at all in the Bill of Rights is to prevent any federal interference with weapons, in any way.

 

[Rigby5]

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wrong. It clearly says:
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.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia. That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.

Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops? They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory. They bring it with them. Again, look at Texas. The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons. If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job. You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there. It's pretty straight forward and simple. The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds. The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening. The Weapons of War outgrew it.

We are not disagreeing.
I agree with you completely.

From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.

Using Heller V DC, you have the right to a serviceable handgun in your home for home protection as long as you are afforded a sane method of registration and licensing if the local government requires it. The only reason the Supreme Court got involved at all is that DC was so far out in left field that they had no choice and DC relies on the Federal Court System since it has no State Court Systems to fall back on. And that is as far as the Modern Supreme Court has ruled. SCOTUS avoids 2nd amendment rulings like a plague. It's not that they agree nor disagree with the lower courts. It's that they would be making laws instead of enforcing the Constitution.

"Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument

Coupled or decouples makes no difference.
The result is the same, which is that in the end there can be no federal arms jurisdiction what so ever.
The right of every single individual to self defense is pre-existing because it is inherent, so clearly the 2nd amendment says the federal government shall not infringe, and there can be no federal weapons restrictions.

But I agree one can not look to the Bill of Rights at all in determining what state and local weapons regulations could be.
The Bill of Rights is focused entirely on stating how the federal government should be restrained.

 

[Rigby5]

You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.

Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists

Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.

It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.

Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.

So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Any other questions?

And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.

You gonna run with that?

That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs

Any questions?

As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.

Agreed, but we do not even have to bother.
When one reason is explicitly stated, that does not at all imply there are not others just not explicitly stated.
And I agree is there any way to pretend the National Guard is what maintains a free state.
Only armed general populations can do that.

 

[easyt65]

 

[Rustic]

 

[westwall]

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.

But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia

Sure there is. The militia has never gone away.

 

[SavannahMann]

You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.

Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists

Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.

It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.

Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.

So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Any other questions?

And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.

You gonna run with that?

That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs

Any questions?

As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.

Agreed, but we do not even have to bother.
When one reason is explicitly stated, that does not at all imply there are not others just not explicitly stated.
And I agree is there any way to pretend the National Guard is what maintains a free state.
Only armed general populations can do that.

Look at the Bill of Rights again. They were written like the Ten Commandments. Thou shall not. The First Amendment does not say. “The Supreme Court shall rule as Invalid and Unconstitutional any laws which having passed the Congress, and signed into law by the President, or in overriding a veto by a 2/3 majority, any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press,” etc. You get the point.

It says that Congress shall pass no law. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say that the Appeals Process shall rule as invalid any conviction gained by forcing a person to testify against themselves. It says that no one may be forced.

Thou shall not. They were intended as commandments. With few if any exceptions to them. When you view them this way, it makes sense. The language used, makes a lot of sense. When you view it as a vague instruction intended to be interpreted by generations to pass, then the rulings of the courts make a lot more sense. They view it as vague instructions instead of firm commandments. Thou probably shouldn’t generally speaking, unless you have a good reason.

We view them as all encompassing, secure in our person and papers includes our digital documents. Unless you are coming into the country, and someone is curious. Or if the cops can think of a really good excuse.

The exceptions we have used have taken the meat from the Bill of Rights, and left us with nothing but holes and exceptions. The Dick Act tried to redefine the amendment, to repeal it, but not by the process laid out in the Constitution, by a back handed and asinine watering down.

 

[Lesh]

You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.

Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists

Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.

It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.

Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.

So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Any other questions?

And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.

You gonna run with that?

That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs

Any questions?

As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.

Agreed, but we do not even have to bother.
When one reason is explicitly stated, that does not at all imply there are not others just not explicitly stated.
And I agree is there any way to pretend the National Guard is what maintains a free state.
Only armed general populations can do that.

Look at the Bill of Rights again. They were written like the Ten Commandments. Thou shall not. The First Amendment does not say. “The Supreme Court shall rule as Invalid and Unconstitutional any laws which having passed the Congress, and signed into law by the President, or in overriding a veto by a 2/3 majority, any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press,” etc. You get the point.

It says that Congress shall pass no law. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say that the Appeals Process shall rule as invalid any conviction gained by forcing a person to testify against themselves. It says that no one may be forced.

Thou shall not. They were intended as commandments. With few if any exceptions to them. When you view them this way, it makes sense. The language used, makes a lot of sense. When you view it as a vague instruction intended to be interpreted by generations to pass, then the rulings of the courts make a lot more sense. They view it as vague instructions instead of firm commandments. Thou probably shouldn’t generally speaking, unless you have a good reason.

We view them as all encompassing, secure in our person and papers includes our digital documents. Unless you are coming into the country, and someone is curious. Or if the cops can think of a really good excuse.

The exceptions we have used have taken the meat from the Bill of Rights, and left us with nothing but holes and exceptions. The Dick Act tried to redefine the amendment, to repeal it, but not by the process laid out in the Constitution, by a back handed and asinine watering down.

A. The Dick Act is Law

B. I never said that the Constitution takes away gun rights. It simply doesn't address them other than as needed by a "Well Regulated Militia"

Gun rights should be subject to state and local laws other than in that regard

 

[westwall]

Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.

It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.

Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.

So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Any other questions?

And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.

You gonna run with that?

That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs

Any questions?

As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.

Agreed, but we do not even have to bother.
When one reason is explicitly stated, that does not at all imply there are not others just not explicitly stated.
And I agree is there any way to pretend the National Guard is what maintains a free state.
Only armed general populations can do that.

Look at the Bill of Rights again. They were written like the Ten Commandments. Thou shall not. The First Amendment does not say. “The Supreme Court shall rule as Invalid and Unconstitutional any laws which having passed the Congress, and signed into law by the President, or in overriding a veto by a 2/3 majority, any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press,” etc. You get the point.

It says that Congress shall pass no law. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say that the Appeals Process shall rule as invalid any conviction gained by forcing a person to testify against themselves. It says that no one may be forced.

Thou shall not. They were intended as commandments. With few if any exceptions to them. When you view them this way, it makes sense. The language used, makes a lot of sense. When you view it as a vague instruction intended to be interpreted by generations to pass, then the rulings of the courts make a lot more sense. They view it as vague instructions instead of firm commandments. Thou probably shouldn’t generally speaking, unless you have a good reason.

We view them as all encompassing, secure in our person and papers includes our digital documents. Unless you are coming into the country, and someone is curious. Or if the cops can think of a really good excuse.

The exceptions we have used have taken the meat from the Bill of Rights, and left us with nothing but holes and exceptions. The Dick Act tried to redefine the amendment, to repeal it, but not by the process laid out in the Constitution, by a back handed and asinine watering down.

A. The Dick Act is Law

B. I never said that the Constitution takes away gun rights. It simply doesn't address them other than as needed by a "Well Regulated Militia"

Gun rights should be subject to state and local laws other than in that regard

The 2nd Amendment is the guarantee that the PEOPLE will have a last resort when their government becomes illegitimate, as the Founders KNEW all governments eventually become. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do to the people, and one final option.

 

[Lesh]

The 2nd Amendment is the guarantee that the PEOPLE will have a last resort when their government becomes illegitimate, as the Founders KNEW all governments eventually become.

Complete bullshit. Article 1 Section 8 describes that well Regulated Militia and what its duties are. Among those duties was to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections you're babbling about and in FACT the militia was called out to do exactly THAT in both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia

LOL. It doesn't say anything of the kind

That is exactly what it says. The first 10 amendments are showing the limits of the Federal Government. The 2nd amendment is no different.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wrong. It clearly says:
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.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia. That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.

Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops? They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory. They bring it with them. Again, look at Texas. The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons. If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job. You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there. It's pretty straight forward and simple. The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds. The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening. The Weapons of War outgrew it.

We are not disagreeing.
I agree with you completely.

From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.

Using Heller V DC, you have the right to a serviceable handgun in your home for home protection as long as you are afforded a sane method of registration and licensing if the local government requires it. The only reason the Supreme Court got involved at all is that DC was so far out in left field that they had no choice and DC relies on the Federal Court System since it has no State Court Systems to fall back on. And that is as far as the Modern Supreme Court has ruled. SCOTUS avoids 2nd amendment rulings like a plague. It's not that they agree nor disagree with the lower courts. It's that they would be making laws instead of enforcing the Constitution.

"Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument

No, the Military Clause is still there. But Scalia expanded on the protection of one home and was specific about the class of weapon allowed to do it. He did not overturn the Licensing and registration of the person nor the firearm by the local government. What he and the other 4 did was pretty well set things up for the most recent lower court rulings where a State, County or Municipality can regulate everything and even ban most guns. He upheld States Rights which is well within the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments. Too many gun crazies just argue the 2nd but forget the other two Amendments that cover states rights.

 

[westwall]

The 2nd Amendment is the guarantee that the PEOPLE will have a last resort when their government becomes illegitimate, as the Founders KNEW all governments eventually become.

Complete bullshit. Article 1 Section 8 describes that well Regulated Militia and what its duties are. Among those duties was to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections you're babbling about and in FACT the militia was called out to do exactly THAT in both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion...

Tell that to Thomas Jefferson. The person full of bull poo is you, cupcake.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia

LOL. It doesn't say anything of the kind

Yes it does.
There not only was no federal standing militia, but the word itself implies a local disposition.
There is nothing of federal connotation of the word militia.
And there is no intent in the Bill of Rights other than to strictly restrain and prohibit federal jurisdiction.
Clearly any mention of weapons at all in the Bill of Rights is to prevent any federal interference with weapons, in any way.

Go one step further. Any mention of weapons at all in the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal Interference but allow the State the ability to do so themselves.

 

[Pilot1]

"Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument

It doesn't matter if it is decoupled from the Militia or not as by U.S. Code the Unorganized Militia is THE PEOPLE. The theory was the private citizens, not the government, needed to be armed, and ready, and they were to provide their own ARMS.