The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea

Heller says otherwise.

 

[Lesh]

but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea

Heller says otherwise.

SCALIA says otherwise

 

[Lesh]

The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime

Not according to ANYTHING in the Constitution

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it. Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution. You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.


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

"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

You can post it all you want, it’s still irrelevant.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the Supreme Court – not that of one individual, including Jefferson.

And the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected to militia service – not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected Federal government reflecting the will of the majority of the people; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

How so very wrong. The Supreme court exists solely in the context of the case law of the Constitution, not the other way around. Outside of some real hairbrained 1800 rulings that have since been tossed out with the trash, the modern Supreme Court has really only made one 2nd amendment ruling and that was Heller V DC. And the only real thing that came out of that was that each home has the right to a handgun of moderate means in defense of the home and family. SCOTUS has pretty much left the other rulings for the lower courts and just won't rule on them one way or another. They may dissent on it but that's it. SCOTUS can only make rulings within the confines of the Constitution. They cannot make new laws.

 

[PredFan]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

View attachment 238747

I am in favor of arming all bears. Makes a Bear hunt more sporting when the bear can shoot back.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea

Heller says otherwise.

Here we go again. Exactly what does the ruling (not the rest of the crap that's in it) really say. How did it really affect the gun laws in DC? Be specific and leave out the ramblings of the old guys in black robes.

 

[Rigby5]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

I side with the way it came out. The system worked. The courts evened the playing field and protected the farmers. Farmers are not Lawyers. The Governor and his ilk were the lawyers. The Courts were used to correct a very vile and evil Governor and his crony government. What you have actually shown is if we give it a chance, the system does work and it doesn't take guns to do it.

Besides, the Organized Militia would last about an afternoon against the US Military. Outside of a local event that the Law Enforcement would handle, there won't be any Insurrections. It's kind of like John Wayne has an entire Marine Division and they are attacked by one lone Indian Brave armed with a spear. How do you think that will result? Will the Lone Injun win the day? Or will the Lone Injun do better if he takes his grevences to the court system. Yah, Yah, I know, any Marine with even a smidgen of indian blood will change sides right?

Wrong.
It did not work out right at all.
The whisky excise tax was way too large for small time, back woods distilleries.
Its intent was likely to put them out of business deliberately, and give the large distilleries monopolies.
It was awful, corrupt, wrong, and illegal.

And no, the US military has never once succeeded against an insurgency, and likely never would win against one.
The court system is already hopelessly corrupt, or else there would be no War on Drugs, no invasion of Iraq, no renditions, nor Guantanamo, etc. In fact, it is clear no federal weapons law is even remotely legal.

 

[Rigby5]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia. The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime. Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US. And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US. So we are way past having a illegal government. For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.

You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said. Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.

As long as the public safety stays within state lines,, it's the States responsibility. But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem. This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act. One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue. NO State was organized enough to stop this. And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea

Heller says otherwise.

SCALIA says otherwise

No, he didn't.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

I side with the way it came out. The system worked. The courts evened the playing field and protected the farmers. Farmers are not Lawyers. The Governor and his ilk were the lawyers. The Courts were used to correct a very vile and evil Governor and his crony government. What you have actually shown is if we give it a chance, the system does work and it doesn't take guns to do it.

Besides, the Organized Militia would last about an afternoon against the US Military. Outside of a local event that the Law Enforcement would handle, there won't be any Insurrections. It's kind of like John Wayne has an entire Marine Division and they are attacked by one lone Indian Brave armed with a spear. How do you think that will result? Will the Lone Injun win the day? Or will the Lone Injun do better if he takes his grevences to the court system. Yah, Yah, I know, any Marine with even a smidgen of indian blood will change sides right?

Wrong.
It did not work out right at all.
The whisky excise tax was way too large for small time, back woods distilleries.
Its intent was likely to put them out of business deliberately, and give the large distilleries monopolies.
It was awful, corrupt, wrong, and illegal.

And no, the US military has never once succeeded against an insurgency, and likely never would win against one.
The court system is already hopelessly corrupt, or else there would be no War on Drugs, no invasion of Iraq, no renditions, nor Guantanamo, etc. In fact, it is clear no federal weapons law is even remotely legal.

And enough people thought that that they bootleggers were given ample time to pick up and relocate outside of the jurisdiction of the Confederation. In order to have an Insurrection, you have to first have a side to have a violent insurrection with. The Militias showed up and they just weren't there. Therefore, no rebellion. Just Business or Capitalism if you will relocating to a more favorable tax area.

The United States is built so we just can't have an insurgency action here. If the local Cops can't handle it,, the State picks it up. If the State can't handle it, they can request Federal and the President can declare an emergency and the US Military will hand it. But the problem is, if the US Military is used, it's like swatting flies with a sledge hammer. Things are going to get broke, real broke. The last time the Fed Troops were used was in 1956 in Alabama because the State was so corrupt. The Locals knew better than to screw the the Korean Veteran Regular Forces and everything went smoothly. I am mixed on just how legal that was but Eisenhower declared an emergency since the state of Alabama was totally ignoring Federal Laws and Supreme Court Rulings as well as the Constitution of the United States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A

No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.

But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.

Nonsense.

Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.

 

[Rigby5]

but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea

Heller says otherwise.

Here we go again. Exactly what does the ruling (not the rest of the crap that's in it) really say. How did it really affect the gun laws in DC? Be specific and leave out the ramblings of the old guys in black robes.

{...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

Because laws of the District of Columbia are federal laws (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[3] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and the primary dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, are considered examples of the application of originalism in practice.
...}

Regardless of the limitations of Heller, is clearly established that the 2nd amendment was NOT about protecting some collective militia right, but an individual right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

clayton your case law argument is bullshit and you know it

lol

It’s not 'my' argument, it’s Scalia’s.

If you don’t like it, dig him up and argue with him about it.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

clayton your case law argument is bullshit and you know it

lol

It’s not 'my' argument, it’s Scalia’s.

If you don’t like it, dig him up and argue with him about it.

blaming a dead guy,,,what a cop out

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia. The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime. Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US. And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US. So we are way past having a illegal government. For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.

You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said. Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.

As long as the public safety stays within state lines,, it's the States responsibility. But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem. This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act. One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue. NO State was organized enough to stop this. And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

 

[2aguy]

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia. The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime. Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US. And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US. So we are way past having a illegal government. For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.

You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said. Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.

As long as the public safety stays within state lines,, it's the States responsibility. But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem. This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act. One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue. NO State was organized enough to stop this. And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

 

[Lakhota]

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia. The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime. Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US. And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US. So we are way past having a illegal government. For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.

You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said. Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.

As long as the public safety stays within state lines,, it's the States responsibility. But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem. This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act. One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue. NO State was organized enough to stop this. And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

Credible proof? Links?

 

[Rigby5]

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A

No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.

But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.

Nonsense.

Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.

You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.

What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.

{...
Incorporation Doctrine
A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the dueprocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.

Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
...}

Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.

 

[Rigby5]

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

I side with the way it came out. The system worked. The courts evened the playing field and protected the farmers. Farmers are not Lawyers. The Governor and his ilk were the lawyers. The Courts were used to correct a very vile and evil Governor and his crony government. What you have actually shown is if we give it a chance, the system does work and it doesn't take guns to do it.

Besides, the Organized Militia would last about an afternoon against the US Military. Outside of a local event that the Law Enforcement would handle, there won't be any Insurrections. It's kind of like John Wayne has an entire Marine Division and they are attacked by one lone Indian Brave armed with a spear. How do you think that will result? Will the Lone Injun win the day? Or will the Lone Injun do better if he takes his grevences to the court system. Yah, Yah, I know, any Marine with even a smidgen of indian blood will change sides right?

Wrong.
It did not work out right at all.
The whisky excise tax was way too large for small time, back woods distilleries.
Its intent was likely to put them out of business deliberately, and give the large distilleries monopolies.
It was awful, corrupt, wrong, and illegal.

And no, the US military has never once succeeded against an insurgency, and likely never would win against one.
The court system is already hopelessly corrupt, or else there would be no War on Drugs, no invasion of Iraq, no renditions, nor Guantanamo, etc. In fact, it is clear no federal weapons law is even remotely legal.

And enough people thought that that they bootleggers were given ample time to pick up and relocate outside of the jurisdiction of the Confederation. In order to have an Insurrection, you have to first have a side to have a violent insurrection with. The Militias showed up and they just weren't there. Therefore, no rebellion. Just Business or Capitalism if you will relocating to a more favorable tax area.

The United States is built so we just can't have an insurgency action here. If the local Cops can't handle it,, the State picks it up. If the State can't handle it, they can request Federal and the President can declare an emergency and the US Military will hand it. But the problem is, if the US Military is used, it's like swatting flies with a sledge hammer. Things are going to get broke, real broke. The last time the Fed Troops were used was in 1956 in Alabama because the State was so corrupt. The Locals knew better than to screw the the Korean Veteran Regular Forces and everything went smoothly. I am mixed on just how legal that was but Eisenhower declared an emergency since the state of Alabama was totally ignoring Federal Laws and Supreme Court Rulings as well as the Constitution of the United States.

The fact the abuse has not risen to the degree an insurrection is necessary, does not at all mean it won't.
In fact it is guaranteed.
All governments all go corrupt with time, and they eventually all need to be destroyed.
Those attempting insurrection too soon are wrong, but so are those who attempt to prevent insurrection after it is too late.
It is a fact of life, that this government will eventually need to be destroyed, and it will be destroyed.
History proves that.

Local cops, state cops, or even federal troops are insignificant compared to the whole population.
Things went well in 1956 because Eisenhower was in the right, but many presidents have since been in the wrong.
For example, the war on drugs, the 1994 federal crime bill, the invasion of Iraq, etc.
Whether or not there already is sufficient reason for an insurrection, eventually there will be no doubt at all.