The Right To Bear Arms

[depotoo]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Show me where it says that.

I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.

Am I wrong, Repeat?

.

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

That is the wrong interpretation. The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.

Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State." Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.

You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.

My interpritation requires no change.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.

Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite? Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely? Your interpretation has the exact same effect. Just say what you really mean. Quit lying.

.

 

[anynameyouwish]

10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

• U.S. Code
• Notes
• 
  

prev | next
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If this UNORGANIZED militia fights FOR the USA and defends ALL CITIZENS (including muslims and liberals and democrats) then fine.

But if this UNORGANIZED militia is a right wing paramilitary organization with its OWN agenda and is actively OPPOSED to most of the population and organized to FIGHT subsets of the population then they are NOT "militia".....they are terrorists.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Again, that is contrary to the plain language of the 2nd. It says the right belongs NOT to the militia, but to the people. And the right belonging to the people, not the militia, shall not be infringed.

Again, you want the 2nd to be meaningless and duplicative of Art 1 sec 8. If you knew anything about law or legal interpretation, you would know that no part will be interpreted to render another part redundant or meaningless.

So, why keep playing this game?

You want to be rid of the 2nd. Admit it. Stop lying.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If this UNORGANIZED militia fights FOR the USA and defends ALL CITIZENS (including muslims and liberals and democrats) then fine.

But if this UNORGANIZED militia is a right wing paramilitary organization with its OWN agenda and is actively OPPOSED to most of the population and organized to FIGHT subsets of the population then they are NOT "militia".....they are terrorists.

Okay.

Who gets to decide which group is fighting for the people and which group is not?

.

 

[Rigby5]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

 

[depotoo]

Actually, if you go back and read their writings, you will find it had to do with fighting off oppression from England, whereas they started confiscation of guns. They stated, an armed populace cannot be overcome by a tyrant government, when they are armed..

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

This is all correct. I agree with you.

The problem is that the intent of the 2nd was screwed up in 1868, when the clumsy 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment applicable to the States. It was one of the issues that Scalia should have addressed in Heller, but failed to do so.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually, if you go back and read their writings, you will find it had to do with fighting off oppression from England, whereas they started confiscation of guns. They stated, an armed populace cannot be overcome by a tyrant government, when they are armed..

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

He was referring strictly to the original meaning and effect of the 2nd Amendment. It was there ONLY to ban federal jurisdiction/authority over the issue of weapons. States were still free to do whatever the fuck they wanted.

The 14th Amendment, however, makes the 2nd apply to the States too.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

You have the right to be armed in your home. How you get maintain that right is up to the state down to the city. But in the end, all levels (except the Federals who have no say in it) must afford a reasonable method to allow you to have a reasonable weapon to defend your home. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. That falls under States Rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

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

The Supreme Court alone decides when the rights and protected liberties of the people have been infringed, and when they have not.

Government has the authority to place limits and restriction on our rights and protected liberties, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Provided government enacts measures consistent with Constitutional case law, no liberties have been infringed, no rights violated.

One may post as many out of context quotes from the Framers as he so desires, with the understanding that such quotes advance no argument and are in no manner compelling when addressing the issue of the regulation of firearms, absent Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Show me where it says that.

I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.

Am I wrong, Repeat?

.

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

That is the wrong interpretation. The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.

Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State." Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.

You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.

My interpritation requires no change.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.

Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite? Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely? Your interpretation has the exact same effect. Just say what you really mean. Quit lying.

.

Your ‘interpretation’ is ignorant, ridiculous, irrelevant, and wrong.

Only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Show me where it says that.

I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.

Am I wrong, Repeat?

.

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

That is the wrong interpretation. The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.

Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State." Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.

You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.

My interpritation requires no change.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.

Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite? Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely? Your interpretation has the exact same effect. Just say what you really mean. Quit lying.

.

Your ‘interpretation’ is ignorant, ridiculous, irrelevant, and wrong.

Only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Wrong. The Supreme Court has, for the most part, avoided making far reaching rulings on the 2nd like a plague. They have left it where it belongs. It belongs in the States and the States have been making the rulings for the most part. The only time the Supreme Court gets involved is when the State gets to vague on their laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Again, that is contrary to the plain language of the 2nd. It says the right belongs NOT to the militia, but to the people. And the right belonging to the people, not the militia, shall not be infringed.

Again, you want the 2nd to be meaningless and duplicative of Art 1 sec 8. If you knew anything about law or legal interpretation, you would know that no part will be interpreted to render another part redundant or meaningless.

So, why keep playing this game?

You want to be rid of the 2nd. Admit it. Stop lying.

.

This ‘plain language’ nonsense is as tedious as it is ignorant and wrong.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Constitution be subject to interpretation by the courts.

Indeed, Constitutional case law as determined by the courts is vital, as it provides guidance to the people as they enact laws and measures, to ensure those laws and measures do not violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

Absent Constitutional case law as determined by the courts, sound, responsible governance would be impossible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

Nonsense.

The Federal government, states, and local jurisdictions are all subject to the same Second Amendment case law.

The Federal government, states, and local jurisdictions are all at liberty to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with that case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, if you go back and read their writings, you will find it had to do with fighting off oppression from England, whereas they started confiscation of guns. They stated, an armed populace cannot be overcome by a tyrant government, when they are armed..

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

Then you’re clearly not reading their writings, or not understanding what they wrote.

The Framers would not have amended the Founding Document to ‘authorize’ the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had just created through force of arms, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment recognizes the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, if you go back and read their writings, you will find it had to do with fighting off oppression from England, whereas they started confiscation of guns. They stated, an armed populace cannot be overcome by a tyrant government, when they are armed..

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

Then you’re clearly not reading their writings, or not understanding what they wrote.

The Framers would not have amended the Founding Document to ‘authorize’ the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had just created through force of arms, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment recognizes the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

No, but they did recognize the right of the State to take up arms for exactly that same reason in the form of an Organized AND ARMED Militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

This is all correct. I agree with you.

The problem is that the intent of the 2nd was screwed up in 1868, when the clumsy 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment applicable to the States. It was one of the issues that Scalia should have addressed in Heller, but failed to do so.

.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see McDonald v. Chicago).

Prior to McDonald, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, in the case of Heller, the District of Columbia, a Federal entity.

It was not an issue Scalia could have addressed because the Second Amendment had yet to be incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call. Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.

You have the right to be armed in your home. How you get maintain that right is up to the state down to the city. But in the end, all levels (except the Federals who have no say in it) must afford a reasonable method to allow you to have a reasonable weapon to defend your home. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. That falls under States Rights.

Not quite.

Again, per Heller/McDonald, the Federal government, state governments, and local governments are all subject to the same Second Amendment jurisprudence, and may only enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with that jurisprudence.

States and local jurisdictions are at liberty to go beyond Federal regulatory measures, but are still limited by Second Amendment case law.

It therefore has everything to do with the Second Amendment, much less with states’ rights, as the states remain subject to the Federal Constitution and the rulings of Federal courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

• U.S. Code
• Notes
• 
  

prev | next
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

Wrong.

To understand the Constitution, one must read and understand its case law.

And for folks to understand what well-regulated means, all they need to do is read Heller.