The Right To Bear Arms

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it is implicit in the Constitution that our rights are derived by law; which is the prerogative of the legislative power, and enforced by the executive and judicial powers. It is the law that provides our rights; it is the law that protects our rights. To say that you have extra-legal rights is simple nonsense.

It is? Which part?

 

[legaleagle_45]

You have the right to bear arms, so that you can work and make a living.
eg. Lets say a wealthy person wanted to make an example out of you for talking some shit.
He can't chop off your arms because you have the right to bear arms, instead, he can chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm, thus the right to bear arms.
It doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry.
The Bill of Rights .......... misread it is ..............

You have the right to prevent the government from using your house to cut soldiers into 4 equal pieces. However, and just to make sure you do not do anything unlawful, we are going to have two soldiers live in your home, rent free. You can clear out of the master bedroom tomorrow.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

Wow.

You'll tell any lie to support your failed aganda, won't you?

The DOI is the first law ever passed in the United States of America.

It remains as valid today as any law that has been passed since.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have not stated a single right that is not subject to law. You have no support for your position.

Hate to point out the obvious, but you cannot actually point out a right that is subject to law. The reason for that, believe it or not, is because rights are not under the authority of law. In fact, under US law, people are not actually subject to the authority of law. The government cannot tell me where or when to travel, and cannot even tell me not to travel. They can't even force me to leave an area if there is a massive storm coming, all they can do is advise me to do so.

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In U.S. V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (939) the Court upheld a federal law criminalizing the shipment of a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Concluding that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, the Court refused to strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds absent any evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Court added that without this evidence, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

What a softball...

Had the Court, in Miller, believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. You can say again and again that Miller did not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise.

The most you can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective. Thus, Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

Bottom line: if the NRA flunkies REALLY are into the Constitution to justify gun ownership, then they would have to JOIN A MILITIA...which is currently in the form of the NATIONAL GUARD....and abide by their rules. I don't think they could or want to do that.

Bottom line:
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

Then why the language of a "well regulated militia" at all if it means nothing?
Sorry, Nemo wins.

He wins because you don't know what something means?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The amendment means,

"Since a militia is necessary, the right of ordinary people shall not be infringed."

Even if somebody later proved that militias weren't necessary, the amendment would still mean that the right shall not be infringed.

BTW, the reason that the Miller opinion came out so stilted and strange-sounding, was because nobody showed up for the defense.

That's right. One side of the courtroom was completely empty. Defendent Miller wasn't there, his lawyer wasn't there, no defense team, no Friends of the Court, no nothing. Only the government lawyers for the prosecution were there.

Those govt lawyers took advantage of the incredible windfall, and read a number of flat lies into the record. Including such fibs as "The 2nd amendment only protects military-style weapons", and "Miller's shotgun is nothing like the weapons used in the military", and "You have to be in a military organization to be protected by the 2nd amendment".

The justices rubber-stamped those lies into an Opinion of the Court, since nobody came forward to refute them, and it stands to this day. And the Govt has been VERY careful to never, ever revisit that case.

In all reality, with the situation you describe, above, they got Miller right.

Not even close.

The essence of Miiler is that if you can show that a given weapon, particularly a fiream, is of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, and part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time, the 2nd protects it.

Miller did indeed say that.

But if you can show that a given weapon is NOT of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, the 2nd amendment would protect that one too, anyway. Miller disagrees with this fact... which is why the Supremes got Miller wrong.

The 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for weapons not useable in a militia, or weapons not in "common usage", or weapons that are painted pink. The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention such circumstances. It sinple says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it gives a reason... but the reason is unnecessary.

The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or useage of weapons. Period.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, one of the funniest things about the paranoid gun-haters and the US v. Miller case, is that although Miller clearly said that weapons like those used in the military are protected... those are exactly the weapons the gun-haters keep trying to ban! M-16s, AK-47s, etc., particularly the full-auto ones.

Those are used VERY commonly by individuals in the military, all over the world, and have been for generations. But the paranoid gun-haters will scream bloody murder and try to enact "assault weapons bans" right and left if you even THINK about buying or carrying one... despite the fact that their favorite Supreme Court 2nd amendment case said flatly they are protected!

Listenening to these fruitcakes insist they want to obey the Supreme Court and the 2nd amendment, is a hilarious interlude a times.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In point of fact, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the several states to control their militias,

There is absolutely no compelling evidence to back this claim.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Miller did indeed say that.

But if you can show that a given weapon is NOT of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, the 2nd amendment would protect that one too, anyway. Miller disagrees with this fact... which is why the Supremes got Miller wrong.

The 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for weapons not useable in a militia, or weapons not in "common usage", or weapons that are painted pink. The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention such circumstances. It sinple says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it gives a reason... but the reason is unnecessary.

The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or useage of weapons. Period.

I tend to agree with your analysis. Miller relied upon Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840). I have less problem with Aymette than with Miller. Miller altered the test adopted in Aymette from one carving out a limited exception for those weapons "which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin" to a general military usefull standard.

 

[petro]

Take the OP's flawed logic a step further and argue that the First Amendment is obsolete as the Founding Fathers never accounted for the development of worldwide instant media, the protection of pornography, and disgusting violent imagery in movies and games. I am quite sure that they would be shocked by what they would see in the media today as the "intention" was to protect an INDIVIDUALS right to politically speak out against the government and practice religion.

The Bill of Rights are individual rights and you can't pick and chose which apply to the modern world. So no Amendment is obsolete.

Our society should be more focused on the WHY of increased violence in the last couple of decades. Perhaps, the lack of personal responsibility, the violent imagery, a PC culture, broken mental health system would be a few places to start.

Easier for Libtards to blame a gun than admit being wrong.

 

[petro]

Take the OP's flawed logic a step further and argue that the First Amendment is obsolete as the Founding Fathers never accounted for the development of worldwide instant media, the protection of pornography, and disgusting violent imagery in movies and games. I am quite sure that they would be shocked by what they would see in the media today as the "intention" was to protect an INDIVIDUALS right to politically speak out against the government and practice religion.

The Bill of Rights are individual rights and you can't pick and chose which apply to the modern world. So no Amendment is obsolete.

Our society should be more focused on the WHY of increased violence in the last couple of decades. Perhaps, the lack of personal responsibility, the violent imagery, a PC culture, broken mental health system would be a few places to start.

Easier for Libtards to blame a gun than admit being wrong.

 

[BreezeWood]

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."

How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state? Is there something wrong with rifles that use revolving actions that makes them especially dangerous to free states? Is it remotely possible you don't know what you are talking about?

Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state?

by preventing the use of firearms as a threat to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". - against excessive force displayed by Firearms, when passed by the US Congress the restrictions are Constitutionally protected as "being necessary to the security of a free State,".


Edit - QW: How do lever or bolt action rifles ... - not "rifles": "All Firearms" - as bolt or lever action per round with non detachable magazines.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Miller did indeed say that.

But if you can show that a given weapon is NOT of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, the 2nd amendment would protect that one too, anyway. Miller disagrees with this fact... which is why the Supremes got Miller wrong.

The 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for weapons not useable in a militia, or weapons not in "common usage", or weapons that are painted pink. The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention such circumstances. It sinple says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it gives a reason... but the reason is unnecessary.

The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or usage of weapons. Period.

I tend to agree with your analysis. Miller relied upon Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840). I have less problem with Aymette than with Miller. Miller altered the test adopted in Aymette from one carving out a limited exception for those weapons "which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin" to a general military usefull standard.

Exceptions which, again, are found nowhere in the 2nd amendment nor anywhere else in the Consitution.

The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or usage of weapons. Period.

BTW, Aymette is based on state law, not the U.S. Constitution, which trumps state law. It was an older version of the Tennessee constitution which has since been thrown out in its entirety by the people of Tennessee, and replaced. It was expressly designed to keep guns out of the hands of black people. No wonder today's Democrats keep citing it as valid.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

All of you are failing to understand the true nature of gun confiscation, it's about cheap labor, CHEAP LABOR, and being in control of the shit, that's what it's all about.
eg. Lets say I own a factory, and I have an employee picnic.
Employee #4671 has a wife and 2 daughters, one of them is 16 years old, AND SHE IS A HOTTIE, I then ask employee #4671 if I could spend some time alone with her.
They way things are now with this silly gun ownership & voting, I would most likely get shot in dick immediately.
I provided that man with an opportunity to raise his daughters, I should have the right to dabble in that young, untouched, hotness a little bit.
If we can all work together and get rid of gun ownership & voting, we could then abolish all lawyers & judges and put an end to shittalking once and for all.
Utopia.........

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

Wow.

You'll tell any lie to support your failed aganda, won't you?

The DOI is the first law ever passed in the United States of America.

It remains as valid today as any law that has been passed since.

The Declaration of Independence was a document of treason (in the eyes of the British Empire), to declare the colonies intent to break away from the rule of a tyrant and establish a new set of "ideas" of beliefs behind a new FORM of government. The Constitution took the "idea" of government ruled by the people and established it into a legal structure for the "people's" government to follow. It is very important to note the legal document of the United States Constitution begins with "WE THE PEOPLE" establishing FIRST with utmost importance where the true authority power "allowed" to Government will always reside in, according to our Founders, never to be a government that rules OVER the people.



INTERPRETING THE SECOND AMENDMENT FROM THE FOUNDER'S INTENT

[1]With respect to the Right to Bear Arms, the Founders concerns of seeing the birth of their newly formed government ever falling under the rule of yet another tyrant (like the one they had lived under England) was SO strong, that they established the SECOND Amendment - which makes it very significant and very important to the view of our Founding Fathers. This was the true purpose of having such an Amendment in our Constitution, after all this is to be a Republic where the people rule over the government and their leaders serve and submit to the will of the people.... not the other way around.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned [heavy burden of excessive taxes]. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

[2]The 2nd Amendment was also written to utilize a concept that had been established in England under the Bill of Rights of 1689. This law, passed by the English Parliament on December 16, reestablished for the Protestants the freedom to have [bear] arms for their own defense under the rule of law. At the same time the law was called to condemn James II of England for causing several good subjects of Protestants to be disarmed, while allowing the employment of papists to become armed contrary to the rule of law. This would limit rights of the sovereign, and set new rights to the Parliament to include the Freedom of Speech, of holding regular elections in Parliament, as well as petitioning the Monarch without any fear of retribution. This Bill of Rights of 1689 would become one of the key factors for the later succession from the authority of the thrown, and a new form of independent elected government.

[https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Bill_of_Rights_1689.html]

This view and establishment of arms, as it relates to James II and the Protestants during his rule, is reflected through the voice of our Founders with their own dissent to be subjugated under the rule of England through the decree and use of arms.

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."

George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as THE PEOPLE perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

As a result of the colonists living in oppression from a government under the control of a tyrant or king, the Founders followed the example set under the Bill of Rights in 1689 to establish a Second Amendment where the people would stand free from the threat of another tyrant under their newly formed government.

The initial proposal by James Madison:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The Second Amendment ratified by three fourths of the state:
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.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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."

How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state? Is there something wrong with rifles that use revolving actions that makes them especially dangerous to free states? Is it remotely possible you don't know what you are talking about?

Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state?

by preventing the use of firearms as a threat to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". - against excessive force displayed by Firearms, when passed by the US Congress the restrictions are Constitutionally protected as "being necessary to the security of a free State,".

Edit - QW: How do lever or bolt action rifles ... - not "rifles": "All Firearms" - as bolt or lever action per round with non detachable magazines.

Your argument is fully absent of logic, reason and consideration of history and jurisprudence. There is no reason to consider it at all.

 

[PredFan]

Poor little liberal gun grabbers, bitch-slapped by the NRA again.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Those govt lawyers took advantage of the incredible windfall, and read a number of flat lies into the record. Including such fibs as "The 2nd amendment only protects military-style weapons", and "Miller's shotgun is nothing like the weapons used in the military", and "You have to be in a military organization to be protected by the 2nd amendment".

The justices rubber-stamped those lies into an Opinion of the Court, since nobody came forward to refute them, and it stands to this day. And the Govt has been VERY careful to never, ever revisit that case.

But if you can show that a given weapon is NOT of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, the 2nd amendment would protect that one too, anyway. Miller disagrees with this fact... which is why the Supremes got Miller wrong.

The 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for weapons not useable in a militia, or weapons not in "common usage", or weapons that are painted pink. The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention such circumstances. It sinple says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it gives a reason... but the reason is unnecessary.

The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or useage of weapons. Period.

If I may add to your discussion with regard to the 2nd Amendment, you have to be careful when using the term "militia". That term often gets confused, and it was never intended to be interpreted in the form of how we view it today as "military". When you look at how the word was used in the context of the language during that period of time, you begin to uncover an entirely different interpretation.


mi•li•tia (mɪˈlɪʃ &#601

n.

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males eligible by law for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
[1580–90; < Latin m&#299;litia soldiery =m&#299;lit-, s. of m&#299;les soldier + -ia -ia]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.


I hope this helps in adding some clarity to your discussion with regard to firearms, military usage, and civilian militia.

 

[Nemo]

The Constitution did not incorporate Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence; to the contrary, it was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government providing for division of powers between three coequal branches subject to checks and balances. The framers of the Constitution created the United States as a nation of laws and not men. The overarching principle of the Constitution is the primacy of the rule of law. No person can be above the law. Under the Constitution, our rights are provided and protected by law, not by force of arms; and government authority is exercised through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution did not incorporate Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence; to the contrary, it was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government providing for division of powers between three coequal branches subject to checks and balances. The framers of the Constitution created the United States as a nation of laws and not men. The overarching principle of the Constitution is the primacy of the rule of law. No person can be above the law. Under the Constitution, our rights are provided and protected by law, not by force of arms; and government authority is exercised through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.

Still waiting for you to cite where our rghts are granted to us by the government.
Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.

Under the Constitution, our rights are provided and protected by law, not by force of arms;

How does the government protect our rights?
Force, or the credible threat thereof.