The Right To Bear Arms

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"

And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional because the courts have determined those measures to be in compliance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people (see US v. Morrison (2000)).

And as long as government enacts firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law, they are perfectly legal, enforceable, and Constitutional.

 

[teddyearp]

The Barreled rifle wasn't much of a leap forward. As for the others, let's take a look at a couple.

Hahaha. I'll just stop right here. Even muskets were barrelled ace. Thank you for showing how right I was as well by explaining the details of the repeating arms of the day that I already descibed quite easily as not practical. It was rifling of the barrel, in case you do need to know.

As far as 'Gun Regulation', yes I realize that I am barking up a tree. I just thought maybe someone with a brain would stop and think, "Hmm, if gun regulation was what the founding fathers wanted, they may have written the second amendment different". Because, yes there is case law, etc., but where does it now stop?

But, I can see there's not many thinkers in this thread.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional because the courts have determined those measures to be in compliance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

They have INCORRECTLY determined that infringement is not infringement.

 

[progressive hunter]

The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.

so says the communist 230 yrs later


it was written to stand the test of time by men that saw tyranny for what it is,,,EVIL

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Barreled rifle wasn't much of a leap forward. As for the others, let's take a look at a couple.

Hahaha. I'll just stop right here. Even muskets were barrelled ace. Thank you for showing how right I was as well by explaining the details of the repeating arms of the day that I already descibed quite easily as not practical. It was rifling of the barrel, in case you do need to know.

As far as 'Gun Regulation', yes I realize that I am barking up a tree. I just thought maybe someone with a brain would stop and think, "Hmm, if gun regulation was what the founding fathers wanted, they may have written the second amendment different". Because, yes there is case law, etc., but where does it now stop?

But, I can see there's not many thinkers in this thread.

You ready to go back to school? Did I leave off that I am a Military Historian?

If you checked, the British used Smooth Bore for the most part. They primarily used the Brown Bess. Yes, there were a few experimental Ferguson Rifles but only 100 made it into special rifle squads starting in 1777 but were very expensive and were quickly removed from service due to Lord Ferguson dying in the Battle of the Mountain Kings. Very few made it to the Colonies. It wasn't until the early 1800s that the British had a large compliment of rifle barreled British Baker Rifles.

Meanwhile, the Colonies were much better off. The Jaeger or Pennsylvania Rifles was used by Colonial Snipers and light infantry. GW didn't care for them but he learned to live with it since those rifles turned many a sour battle to his advantage. Note the word Rifle in the name. Sometimes these get misnamed the Kentucky Long Rifle which was very popular for back woods due to their extra range and knockdown power. Funny, the Jeagers were not shown to the Brits. They were Colonial Made. They were kept hidden. Instead, the Brits were shown the home grown Brown Besses except there were any maker's mark like US or the like. The new Congress was very much aware of the Jaeger Rifle and funded heavily for them in spite of GWs protests. But made sure that the Brits were aware of the Brown Besses as well that they also funded.

One of the problems the British had was, they would form up past the distance of the Brown bess and prepare to engage at a safe distance thinking they were safe only to have their officers to be sniped by the Jaeger snipers. Don't think the Snipers got off scot free. The Artillery had more range and would start firing and they snipers would have to withdraw of die. The Brits learned to lay canon fire down while their troops were forming to stop the snipers. But once the closure happened. the Colonial Jaeger equipped Snipers could fire from elevated areas outside the canon or brown bess range and pick off the Officers which caused real havoc in the ranks.

Musket didn't have rifling. Otherwise, they would not have been called Muskets. They would have been called Rifles.

 

[teddyearp]

You ready to go back to school? Did I leave off that I am a Military Historian?

Thank you for the refresher. I love it when one implies that I am ignorant of various facts just because I do not go into all the details. Omission on my part by no means imparts ignorance. But I have noticed that those who feel the need to brag about how much they know and/or are educated never fail to flail it in others' faces. I was the kid who never had to study to get straight A's, always the first done with the tests, the first to get bored in class. But that means I know enough to know how little I really do know and have not one thing to brag about. But if you feel better now, good for you.

 

[teddyearp]

Firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional because the courts have determined those measures to be in compliance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

They have INCORRECTLY determined that infringement is not infringement.

The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.

so says the communist 230 yrs later


it was written to stand the test of time by men that saw tyranny for what it is,,,EVIL

Well, I take it back, there are a couple of thinkers in this thread.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

...and because a well-regulated militia is necessary.....the right of the people (meaning ALL people, not a particular militia or specifically defined group of people) shall not be infringed.

 

[teddyearp]

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

...and because a well-regulated militia is necessary.....the right of the people (meaning ALL people, not a particular militia or specifically defined group of people) shall not be infringed.

To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.

Actually, it is asinine to assume that 'militia' in the second amendment refers only to say the National Guard or military. Why would a government need to make sure that their military's right to keep and bear arms was not infringed? That flies in the face of all logic and common sense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.

To elaborate even further, the militia included able-bodied men. The People included every man, woman, or child. The right of the PEOPLE was preserved, not the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

There is nothing ambiguous about it.

Just lousy right wing comprehension.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

...and because a well-regulated militia is necessary.....the right of the people (meaning ALL people, not a particular militia or specifically defined group of people) shall not be infringed.

No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.

To elaborate even further, the militia included able-bodied men. The People included every man, woman, or child. The right of the PEOPLE was preserved, not the militia.

Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.

I agree.

But, "militia" has always referred to able-bodied men. Not women. Not disabled.

That's why "people" is distinct from "militia."

The PEOPLE have the right. Not the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.

I agree.

But, "militia" has always referred to able-bodied men. Not women. Not disabled.

That's why "people" is distinct from "militia."

The PEOPLE have the right. Not the militia.

not in our Constitution for the citizens in the several States.

 

[teddyearp]

To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.

To elaborate even further, the militia included able-bodied men. The People included every man, woman, or child. The right of the PEOPLE was preserved, not the militia.

Like I said, there are some thinkers in this thread after all.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

not in our Constitution for the citizens in the several States.

What are you trying to argue here, Dan?

Are you arguing that people are not people? Are you arguing that "people" doesn't mean people?

 

[danielpalos]

not in our Constitution for the citizens in the several States.

What are you trying to argue here, Dan?

Are you arguing that people are not people? Are you arguing that "people" doesn't mean people?

The People are the Militia.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You ready to go back to school? Did I leave off that I am a Military Historian?

Thank you for the refresher. I love it when one implies that I am ignorant of various facts just because I do not go into all the details. Omission on my part by no means imparts ignorance. But I have noticed that those who feel the need to brag about how much they know and/or are educated never fail to flail it in others' faces. I was the kid who never had to study to get straight A's, always the first done with the tests, the first to get bored in class. But that means I know enough to know how little I really do know and have not one thing to brag about. But if you feel better now, good for you.

Be careful who you talk down to. You may just be standing on your head.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The People are the Militia.

And the militia are the people?

who has the right?

.