The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.

Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

As do individuals.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Which is supposed to be everyone.

The organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[TRFjr]

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

no, because the reason for the founding fathers acknowledging the god-given right to protect oneself and family is just as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago

 

[TRFjr]

Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law

so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment

 

[Lakhota]

Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law

so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time! It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future. There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.

Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
In WWII it was carbines.

There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.

If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.

So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week? That makes no sense at all.
Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.

An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines. Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds. No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons. Don't be a Dick.

You have that backwards.
The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
The founders had no police and did not want any.
In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.

As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
Magazines are trivial to modify. You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything. If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons. And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.

 

[Rigby5]

It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.

Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

If you look at who the founders considered the well regulated militia, it was essentially everyone.
Each state words it slightly differently, but there were no police or any standing army back then, so the unorganized militia had to do everything, when needed. The tradition was the shotgun over the mantel. Good for pirates, bandits, gangs, bears, coyotes, natives, snakes, rabid dogs, etc.

By the way, the phrase "well regulated" means well practiced, as in regular digestion, a well regulated clock, etc.

lol. no, it doesn't. you are either unorganized or well regulated and Organized.

Nonsense.
The Organized Militia is only supposed to be called up when the nation is attacked.
Until then, you are the unorganized militia, but have to still train in order to be ready.
And training to be ready is what makes the militia "well regulated".
Regulated does not mean restricted, it means practiced.

 

[Rigby5]

Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law

so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time! It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future. There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.

Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.

No, you are entirely wrong.
The SCOTUS opened the floodgate and can't back up now.
An assault weapons ban would mean 40 million people would become criminals and there would be a civil war the first time an innocent gun owner was murdered by a corrupt government in violation of the ex post facto article in the Constitution.
Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: on Ex Post Facto laws being illegal.

{... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ...}

Guide to the Constitution

That means that assault weapons have been legally purchased and owned, so now can not be made illegal and confiscated.

The SCOTUS can NOT at all do whatever it wants.
It has to remain true to the rules and basic premise of a democratic republic.
And if you can ban certain types of weapons, magazines, etc., from the general public, then the police, military, etc., must also be banned. The authority of public employees, like the SCOTUS, police, military, etc., comes from the inherent rights of individuals. They can not have authority above that of the general public, in a democratic republic.

 

[Lakhota]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
In WWII it was carbines.

There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.

If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.

So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week? That makes no sense at all.
Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.

An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines. Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds. No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons. Don't be a Dick.

You have that backwards.
The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
The founders had no police and did not want any.
In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.

As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
Magazines are trivial to modify. You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything. If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons. And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.

Do you still have fantasies of winning a gunfight with police and military forces? Funny...

 

[Rigby5]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
In WWII it was carbines.

There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.

If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.

So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week? That makes no sense at all.
Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.

An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines. Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds. No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons. Don't be a Dick.

You have that backwards.
The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
The founders had no police and did not want any.
In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.

As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
Magazines are trivial to modify. You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything. If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons. And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.

Do you still have fantasies of winning a gunfight with police and military forces? Funny...

The REALITY is that the police and military are always inherently corrupt, because they do what those who sign their paycheck tell them to do. Doesn't matter if it is ancient Rome, or the British regulars attempting to suppress the colonials.
All government become corrupt eventually and need to be destroyed.
Happens about every 400 years or so.
Anyone who prevents the general population from being able to revolt against a corrupt dictatorship, is a traitor.
And the police and military have NEVER won against a popular insurgency.
They could not even win in Vietnam or Afghanistan.
Corruption always loses because all you have to do is cut into their profits, and they will quit.

 

[Lakhota]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
In WWII it was carbines.

There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.

If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.

So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week? That makes no sense at all.
Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.

An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines. Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds. No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons. Don't be a Dick.

You have that backwards.
The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
The founders had no police and did not want any.
In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.

As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
Magazines are trivial to modify. You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything. If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons. And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.

Do you still have fantasies of winning a gunfight with police and military forces? Funny...

The REALITY is that the police and military are always inherently corrupt, because they do what those who sign their paycheck tell them to do. Doesn't matter if it is ancient Rome, or the British regulars attempting to suppress the colonials.
All government become corrupt eventually and need to be destroyed.
Happens about every 400 years or so.
Anyone who prevents the general population from being able to revolt against a corrupt dictatorship, is a traitor.
And the police and military have NEVER won against a popular insurgency.
They could not even win in Vietnam or Afghanistan.
Corruption always loses because all you have to do is cut into their profits, and they will quit.

Funny. They do what they were elected to do - good or bad. Voice your concerns at the ballot box.

 

[hadit]

It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.

Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

As do individuals.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Doesn't matter who complains about it.

 

[hadit]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

Don't be more stupid than you need to.

 

[hadit]

Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

As do individuals.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Which is supposed to be everyone.

The organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

As do individuals.

 

[hadit]

Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law

so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time! It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future. There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.

Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.

No, you are entirely wrong.
The SCOTUS opened the floodgate and can't back up now.
An assault weapons ban would mean 40 million people would become criminals and there would be a civil war the first time an innocent gun owner was murdered by a corrupt government in violation of the ex post facto article in the Constitution.
Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: on Ex Post Facto laws being illegal.

{... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ...}

Guide to the Constitution

That means that assault weapons have been legally purchased and owned, so now can not be made illegal and confiscated.

The SCOTUS can NOT at all do whatever it wants.
It has to remain true to the rules and basic premise of a democratic republic.
And if you can ban certain types of weapons, magazines, etc., from the general public, then the police, military, etc., must also be banned. The authority of public employees, like the SCOTUS, police, military, etc., comes from the inherent rights of individuals. They can not have authority above that of the general public, in a democratic republic.

If the second can be perverted by a mere court vote, so can the first. I wonder how keen the anti gun activists would be to have their internet ramblings carefully controlled so as not to offend anyone who supports Trump.

 

[hadit]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
In WWII it was carbines.

There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.

If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.

So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week? That makes no sense at all.
Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.

An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines. Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds. No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons. Don't be a Dick.

You have that backwards.
The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
The founders had no police and did not want any.
In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.

As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
Magazines are trivial to modify. You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything. If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons. And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.

Do you still have fantasies of winning a gunfight with police and military forces? Funny...

The don't have to. They simply need to make the cost high enough to prevent someone from trying.

 

[danielpalos]

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

no, because the reason for the founding fathers acknowledging the god-given right to protect oneself and family is just as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law

so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment

The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.

You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.

Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

If you look at who the founders considered the well regulated militia, it was essentially everyone.
Each state words it slightly differently, but there were no police or any standing army back then, so the unorganized militia had to do everything, when needed. The tradition was the shotgun over the mantel. Good for pirates, bandits, gangs, bears, coyotes, natives, snakes, rabid dogs, etc.

By the way, the phrase "well regulated" means well practiced, as in regular digestion, a well regulated clock, etc.

lol. no, it doesn't. you are either unorganized or well regulated and Organized.

Nonsense.
The Organized Militia is only supposed to be called up when the nation is attacked.
Until then, you are the unorganized militia, but have to still train in order to be ready.
And training to be ready is what makes the militia "well regulated".
Regulated does not mean restricted, it means practiced.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. Well regulated militia may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.

Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

As do individuals.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Doesn't matter who complains about it.

Yes, it does. The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Whomever says that natural rights are not protected by the U.S Constitution knows fuck-all about Constitutional Law.

.