Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NO, you dumbass of course it was.You are too stupid to understand that word usage in the 18th century was different than it is today.
It doesn't mean what it used to mean in the early 21st century.I suppose you think in the 18th century the word gay was used to mean homosexuals just like it is today right?
he brings up some very good points as to what is a militia and how it effects the everyday person,,
The issue has been settled in a dozen Supreme Court decisions that upheld the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment. Let it go lefties.
Ups... hit the nerves of a gun Drumpfter - booh..hooh....Maaaama dey wana dake ma gun away.Do you really think any gun rights supporter takes their positions from Trump?
That says more about your TDS than any statement you intended to make, disparaging the positions of gun rights supporters.
It does NOT.
What dictionary are you getting THAT from?
Regulate Definition & Meaning
View attachment 789764
Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › regul...
May 19, 2023 — 1 · to bring under the control of authority. regulate prices ; 2 · to bring order or method to. regulate one's habits ; 3 · to fix or adjust the time ...
WTF?
Quite, the word salad you have going on there
In other words..................BULLSHIT.
NO, you dumbass of course it was.
So like I stated, WHERE does it state in ANY 18th century dictionary that well regulated means "good working order"?
Teabaggers just make shit up.
It doesn't mean what it used to mean in the early 21st century.
NO, you dumbass of course it was.
So like I stated, WHERE does it state in ANY 18th century dictionary that well regulated means "good working order"?
Teabaggers just make shit up.
It doesn't mean what it used to mean in the early 21st century.
Nah, the issue isn't settled because the Supreme Court is blatantly corrupt and doing paid work for highly partisan special interest groups. And the reasoning behind some of their recent decisions strains credulity, to put it mildly. There is no reason the American public should have faith in their recent 5-4 or conservative-majority rulings because their decisions are rendered strictly along ideological lines.
I think court packing is totally in play if the Dems ever get the power again, though if they do, I'd rather they use it to hammer out bi-partisan agreement for massive judicial reform, to include re-examination of some of those dubious decisions they've made since, oh, 2005 or so. Reject it? Then it's court packing time.
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty
The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent on the 2ndA /RKBA for going on 150 years.
The dissents in Heller admit this, that the individual right interpretation has always been what is represented in the Court's precedents and that the entire Court that day, in three opinions, subscribe to that interpretation.
youre so cute and stupid all at ponce,,Every state has laws forbidding citizens to engage in paramilitary activity / organize as militia, outside of any laws authorizing that action or being officially called to aid the civil government (e.g., posse comitatus)
There is no right for citizens to claim, that allows them to organize as militia.
Again, see Presser v Illinois (1886) and DC v Heller, (2008), confirming Presser. These principles and laws and judicial determinations sustaining those laws are not new, there is really no excuse for you not knowing them except purposeful ignorance.
And yet that was how it was before 1903 and the Dick Act, overriding the 1792 Militia Act, federalizing the state militias and extinguishing civilian militia service obligation. The final nail in the coffin was the National Defense Act of 1916 which completely extinguished any vestige of the clause 15 & 16 (drawn from the citizenry) militia and absorbed all militia operations into the clause 12 national armed forces, becoming the National Guard.
This is the current situation, now in force for over 100 years, which is why I said correctly, there is no entity, federal, state or citizen, authorized to call-up, organize, train or deploy the general citizenry as militia.
There's a reason why the citizens not enrolled in any militia have always been described as "unorganized" (even before 10 U.S.C. Ch. 13, §311) . . . Any chance you can figure out why they are described as "unorganized"?
.
Sorry Moon Bat but Scalia and the majority on the Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right in the Heller judgement, not a damn collective right. It was later reaffirmed in McDonald and driven home big time in the Bruen case.This is categorically wrong. It's more gun lobby propaganda that is nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit.
John Paul Stevens was pretty clear in rejecting the idea of individual gun rights; he argued that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right in the context of the militia. He argued further - and correctly - that the Court had been consistent in treating the right to keep and bear arms in that context - as a collective right, not an individual right.
As with so many of their decisions since becoming an ideologically-driven majority, the right wing justices basically rewrote Court doctrine to be consistent with their ideology. Their decisions are largely divorced from history, valid legal rationale, or judicial precedent. And Heller was mild compared to some of the crap they've been shitting out lately.
Ups... hit the nerves of a gun Drumpfter - booh..hooh....Maaaama dey wana dake ma gun away.
This thread isn't about gun rights - but about Drumpfter inspired gun wackos that want to play Militia - since according to them, the Police, National-Guard and the US army can't protect the country or a state sufficiently.
Now, shoo, shoo and exercise your 2nd amendment "individual" rights.
This is categorically wrong. It's more gun lobby propaganda that is nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit.
John Paul Stevens was pretty clear in rejecting . . .
he argued that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right in the context of the militia. He argued further - and correctly - that the Court had been consistent in treating the right to keep and bear arms in that context - as a collective right, not an individual right.
As with so many of their decisions since becoming an ideologically-driven majority, the right wing justices basically rewrote Court doctrine to be consistent with their ideology. Their decisions are largely divorced from history, valid legal rationale, or judicial precedent. And Heller was mild compared to some of the crap they've been shitting out lately.
But that's what the dissents actually say . . .
. . . in the very opening of his dissent, that there is any question remaining whether the 2ndA protects a "collective" or "individual" right; he states the 2ndA protects a right possessed and enforceable by individuals.
The Breyer dissent (which Stevens signed on), is even more emphatic and completely destroys your argument. Maybe next post we can delve into that . . .
- "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. . . . "
In reality, the original "collective right" theory, hatched in the LOWER federal courts in 1942, has been abandoned by everyone but ignorant loudmouths on internet message boards.
Stevens in his Heller dissent argues a watered down, stripped down, mere shell of the original "collective right" theories advanced in Cases v US (1st Circuit) and US v Tot (3rd Circuit). Stevens argues a new theory is now guiding 2ndA interpretation, a theory that was hatched in the 1990's by Saul Cornell who called it the, "militia conditioned individual right".
That of course is still garbage because it still depends on the destroyed by precedent theory that the right is conditioned by the words of the 2ndA; that position demands one believes the RKBA is granted / given / created by the 2ndA, and that theory violates foundational rights doctrine and clear, SCOTUS precedent that has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court multiple times, for going on 150 years.
How such a "militia conditioned individual right" interpretation forces the Court to sustain the DC laws, (which were not predicated on, or enacted under any -regulate the militia- statue) was not established by Stevens.
Copying and pasting from Salon or the Washington Post is not effective argumentation.
youre so cute and stupid all at ponce,,
of course the people that the 2nd A is meant to protect us against are going to try and make a law that forbids us from anything that threatens their power,,,
you still havent proven he was wrong about anything,,
just that youre one of those people the founders warned us about,,
And yet you cannot quote or cite any legal support to prove me wrong.
And yet SCOTUS way back in1886 held that a state law that, "forbid(s) bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law" does not violate any right retained by the citizen:
The Court revisited those principles in DC v Heller in 2008:
- "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms without and independent of an act of Congress or law of the state authorizing the same is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system, they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
- "Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups."
Well, except goofballs like the idiot in your video and I guess you . . .
But I know what the Court has said and I had hoped that you would have some intellectual curiosity and go looking on your own. I cited the cases, you could have learned where you were wrong on your own, but you are apparently one of those guys who are a stubborn puppy and needs your nose rubbed in your mess.
That's funny, I'm the one here solidly standing on the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions enforcing the Constitution. You have been reduced to arguing Oath Keeper conspiracy theories.
.
I've read Heller. I know what was expressed in the dissent. Your splicing it doesn't change fiction to fact.
