The Right To Bear Arms

[BreezeWood]

Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
Please be sure to include the relevant text from Miller and Heller that supports said argument.

Amendment [II.]

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.

you can chose either: A well regulated Militia, or being necessary to the security of a free State, ...


my choice: "being necessary to the security of a free State,"


you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.

How about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... "being necessary to the security of a free State,"

not a contradiction - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[M14 Shooter]

The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.

Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
Please be sure to include the relevant text from Miller and Heller that supports said argument.

Amendment [II.]
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.

you can chose either: A well regulated Militia, or being necessary to the security of a free State, ...

my choice: "being necessary to the security of a free State,"

you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.

Thank you for illustrating that you cannot present a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution, taking into consideration Miller and Heller.

 

[Nemo]

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The prohibition against “infringement” does not preclude “regulation.” Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. American gun owners shall soon find themselves the more “well regulated”.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.

The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.

the second amendment did

The Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law.

Wrong. The Constitution exists despite case law. It is the supreme law of the land. It is easily accessible to anyone. There's nothing obtuse about it.

All case law that obfuscates the Constitution should be overturned immediately.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The prohibition against “infringement” does not preclude “regulation.”

It does if said regulation constitutes an infringement.

 

[Nemo]

The Second Amendment does not sanction armed rebellion; and even to advocate such action is punishable as a federal criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385. The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence. Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens. We would do well to learn from history than suffer repeating it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment does not sanction armed rebellion; and even to advocate such action is punishable as a federal criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385.

So?
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[Nemo]

Your right to have a gun for whatever purpose exists only by law. That's why it's important to have clarity on the subject. The decision of the Supreme Court is anything but clear - the decision raises more questions than it answers - it leaves us all in doubt. Without clear direction from the Supreme Court, we don’t know where we stand. The court has issued a decision that is unclear, even confusing; and, worse, as pointed out by the dissenting opinions of Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer, weakly premised. This "landmark" decision will spawn more gun laws (and even more litigation), which can only lead to the lessening of our rights. It's happening here and now.

 

[Katzndogz]

The liberal pathology is that we have moved beyond wanting to be a free people. The whole notion of freedom is obsolete.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your right to have a gun for whatever purpose exists only by law.

No... the right exists, period. It is protected by the constitution.

Beyond that, you're simply repeating issues that I've already addressed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The liberal pathology is that we have moved beyond wanting to be a free people. The whole notion of freedom is obsolete.

They believe the state shoud have a monopoly on force and recognize that an armed citizenry gets in the way of that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

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."

I personally disagree.

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous,"

I disagree again. The text seems clear enough to me. The right of an individual to own a firearm is secured.

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

I agree

 

[Nemo]

Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period. There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period. There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.

Incorrect.
All rights - life, liberty, property, self-determination and the derivatives thereof - pre-exist government, and are therefore do not depend on government for their existence. This is illustrated by the fact that nowhere in our system of government or law are these rights granted to us.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period. There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.

There are rights without law.

There is merely no ENFORCEMENT BY SOCIETY without law.

Without law, you're on your own for defending your rights. But that doesn't mean you don't have any.

It's always fun to see the leftist fanatics twist themselves into strange pretzel shapes, trying to follow their own philosophy to its "logical" conclusion, also known as "reductio ad absurdum", such as "there are no rights without law".

Won't be long before they decide that, since law protects life, there is no life without law.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period. There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.

There are rights without law.
There is merely no ENFORCEMENT BY SOCIETY without law.
Without law, you're on your own for defending your rights. But that doesn't mean you don't have any.

Indeed.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

[Nemo]

The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything. The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything. The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.

Fact:
All rights - life, liberty, property, self-determination and the derivatives thereof - pre-exist government, and are therefore do not depend on government for their existence.
This is illustrated by the fact that nowhere in our system of government or law are these rights granted to us.

Fact:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

[koshergrl]

The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything. The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.

I love how progressive nutbags work overtime to overthrow our government by revising history.

 

[Nemo]

No. It is the Cato Institute that is revising history. Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution. He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.