The Right To Bear Arms

[M14 Shooter]

NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says
Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place? They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, back on topic:

NOBODY wanted to touch the 2A as it relates to the 14th. It would have opened the door for lots of chaos and a bunch of emergency action. They all preferred to let sleeping dogs lie.

Enter, the Heller decision.

Without the clumsy 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is strictly a limit on federal power. Nothing more. But, when States are required to give state citizens due process and the privileges and immunities of U.S. Citizens, the 2nd Amendment becomes a bar on State power too.

Now, nobody can regulate arms. Then, we have a huge constitutional show down on the 14th Amendment, which upsets 100+ years of jurisprudence and the whole fucking Union is hanging in the balance.

They should have let it happen and it would have made the Union stronger. But, people are chicken shit.

.

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Heller had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment – it was McDonald that made the states and local jurisdictions subject to Second Amendment case law, consistent with 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine.

Indeed, the McDonald Court reaffirmed 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine as the appropriate means by with to apply the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions – a reaffirmation Scalia himself agreed with:

‘I join the Court's opinion. Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court's incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights "because it is both long established and narrowly limited." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straight for ward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.’

McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521 | Casetext

Prior to McDonald, of course, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government – which is why Heller challenged the firearm regulatory measures of the District of Columbia, the District being a Federal entity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.

Funny. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time. It currently stands as a fossil.

Your opinion means nothing.

Just as your opinion means nothing.

The only opinion that matters belongs solely to the Supreme Court – opinions which become facts of law.

As a fact of law:

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’

Measures requiring universal background checks are not un-Constitutional

Measures limiting magazine capacity are not un-Constitutional

Measures placing limits and restrictions concerning firearms other than handguns are not un-Constitutional

Measures prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are not un-Constitutional

Measures designating certain individuals as prohibited persons are not un-Constitutional

Measures regulating the commercial sale of firearms are not un-Constitutional

Measures prohibiting firearms in schools are not un-Constitutional

Measures placing age restrictions on the purchasing of firearms are not un-Constitutional

Measures requiring waiting periods when purchasing a firearm are not un-Constitutional

Measures requiring licenses and permits are not un-Constitutional

Measures requiring the registration of firearms are not un-Constitutional

As a fact of law, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And as a fact of law, a given firearm regulatory measure does not violate the Second Amendment until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it does.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.

Funny. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time. It currently stands as a fossil.

Your opinion means nothing.

Just as your opinion means nothing.

Just as -your- opinion means nothing.

 

[hadit]

You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.

appealing to authority? we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.

Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?

as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.

Is it an authority on the Constitution or not?

we have our Ninth Amendment; it is express or it isn't.

Is the Supreme Court an authority on the Constitution? Just answer that. Then we can worry about the ninth amendment. Until then, not so much.

 

[hadit]

Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.

There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.

People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.

 

[danielpalos]

appealing to authority? we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.

Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?

as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.

Is it an authority on the Constitution or not?

we have our Ninth Amendment; it is express or it isn't.

Is the Supreme Court an authority on the Constitution? Just answer that. Then we can worry about the ninth amendment. Until then, not so much.

sure. however, they are not infallible.

 

[danielpalos]

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.

People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.

Our Ninth Amendment. The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment is in the first clause, not the second clause.

 

[sealybobo]

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.

Funny. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time. It currently stands as a fossil.

And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?

Seems like my right has been limited.

 

[WillPower]

And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?

Seems like my right has been limited.

Back in the day, Michigan required any weapon in your possession not be "at hand" to endanger an officer. In other words, it had to be locked, unloaded, in the glove box or trunk. Here in Phoenix, the law has a trap-door if the cops want to mess with you....you can't have a loaded gun in your possession within several hundred feet of a school zone. It's impossible to drive the city streets here without passing a school, and consequently committing a felony.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.

Funny. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time. It currently stands as a fossil.

And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?

Seems like my right has been limited.

Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’

Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ibid

 

[WillPower]

Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ibid

Try taking our firearms and see what happens.

 

[Wry Catcher]

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.

People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.

I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.

Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.

Funny. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time. It currently stands as a fossil.

And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?

Seems like my right has been limited.

Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’

Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ibid

case law clayton to the rescue,,,AGAIN,,,

and he still cant get it right

 

[hadit]

People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.

I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.

Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.

Daniel is a special case.

 

[Wry Catcher]

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.

I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.

Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.

Daniel is a special case.

Huh?

 

[hadit]

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.

I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.

Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.

Daniel is a special case.

Huh?

If you ever want to be entertained, look up what he's posted. He's dogmatic beyond belief and has about a dozen stock phrases he constantly recycles, no matter how many times he gets trounced.

 

[M14 Shooter]

People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.

I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.
Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.

You said:
It is about the security of our free States, not natural rights
He means:
The USSC says otherwise.

He is, of course, correct.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ibid

Try taking our firearms and see what happens.

Ask David Koresh.

 

[WillPower]

Try taking our firearms and see what happens.

Ask David Koresh.[/QUOTE]

Ask the families of the 4 ATF agents killed in the initial raid. Reno ordered a tank to pour flammable gas inside the compound and Cav helicopters to murder over 70 innocent Christians as they ran out the back from the inferno, a totally illegal act. The good that came from it was a message to Clinturd he couldn't continue to murder Americans with opposing political views. Reno is dead and burning in Hell for it and I hope to outlive Clinton so I can piss on his grave. I'm sure your smug response is based on the premise you communists will murder those who won't surrender their weapons sometime in the future. Try it.....the Military will win the first few days, and then take such horrific loses they'll turn on their officers, who in turn will rout the government that ordered it.