The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BackAgain]

Yes, it did do as you describe after qualifying that the purpose was a well-regulated militia.

Now, if we could just figure to where the militia, and regulations, disappeared.

It didn’t say “purpose.”

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the reason for the people's right to possess and bear arms. It doesn't talk about the people's right to possess and bear arms except to say that it shall not be infringed. It clearly limits the power to infringe on a right that exists outside of the 2nd Amendment.

I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.

It doesn't matter what it says in the prefatory clause or why it says it. The operative clause is explicit: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Sorry, the prefatory clause is there for one reason, to qualify the purpose of the operative clause.

If you were to say that nothing about the 2ndA disqualifies the natural right to possess and bear arms, I'd agree. It has not been my intention to declare that the aforementioned right does not exist. Rather, I have sought to demonstrate that the 2ndA was not written for the specific purpose of reinforcing said natural right but for the purpose clearly stated in the prefatory clause: the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It didn’t say “purpose.”

No, it didn't but fact of grammar: a prefatory clause introduces a reason or purpose as if to say because.

Don't choke on it.

 

[2aguy]

I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.

Sorry, the prefatory clause is there for one reason, to qualify the purpose of the operative clause.

If you were to say that nothing about the 2ndA disqualifies the natural right to possess and bear arms, I'd agree. It has not been my intention to declare that the aforementioned right does not exist. Rather, I have sought to demonstrate that the 2ndA was not written for the specific purpose of reinforcing said natural right but for the purpose clearly stated in the prefatory clause: the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

Where the fuck did you get that quote........it is nowhere in the Heller decision...

From the actual Heller decision...

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

And....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

And....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),



From Scalia in the Friedman v Highland Park case........where he specifically names the AR-15 rifle as protected under the Right to keep and bear arms....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yep…….you are shown exactly why you are wrong and you play games to hide it…..

In post #602, I selected a part of the Heller Decision and contributed some remarks of my own.

What you did was to present a formidable piece of Heller as if to suggest that I accept the challenge of arguing with your paste. What was your contribution to the paste? Zip!

The games are all yours.

 

[2aguy]

In post #602, I selected a part of the Heller Decision and contributed some remarks of my own.

What you did was to present a formidable piece of Heller as if to suggest that I accept the challenge of arguing with your paste. What was your contribution to the paste? Zip!

The games are all yours.

You made a quote and said it came from the Heller decision....that was a lie. You named the Heller decision and then put quotes around a paragraph.....that is a lie.....

However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

 

[BackAgain]

No, it didn't but fact of grammar: a prefatory clause introduces a reason or purpose as if to say because.

Don't choke on it.

Not true. Nothing to choke on. You’re free to make empty claims. As you just did.

The reference to the militia was a preamble. What it posits is not “the” purpose, but a reason. With one sentence the Framers noted that the people have the right to keep and bear arms AND that one of the crucial reasons amounted to the proposed central Federal government being put on notice: ‘You can’t take that right away because you are one of the motivators behind it. You will never be permitted to take arms from the citizens.’

Look. I know it bothers you. Too bad. The government is bound by the Constitution regardless of your wish that the 2d Amendment didn’t exist or that it exists only if the state has a militia.

The operative phrase (not the preamble) is what ultimately controls.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What a fucking bore.

Because I call you out when you lie, and when you repeat arguments that have been demonstrated unsound?
What a fucking child.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A prefatory clause states a reason or purpose for the operative clause.

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897) , petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment ’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521–525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for your cut and paste, I'm not here for reading assignments. If there is an aspect of Scalia's Opinion on which you wish to comment, spit it out and I'll be happy to respond.

Except that you aren't.
You -ignore- what you know you cannot meaningfully address.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, it did do as you describe after qualifying that the purpose was a well-regulated militia.

And yet...
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.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

Where the fuck did you get that quote........it is nowhere in the Heller decision...

I don't believe that what you just presented was the quote. Rather, you clipped and re-arranged as seems to have pleased your purpose.

Find your way to long about pages 54-55 of the Heller Syllabus where you are welcomed to shit your pants.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Except that you aren't.
You -ignore- what you know you cannot meaningfully address.

No, I ignore the invitation to dissect an extensive paste job.

 

[2aguy]

I don't believe that what you just presented was the quote. Rather, you clipped and re-arranged as seems to have pleased your purpose.

Find your way to long about pages 54-55 of the Heller Syllabus where you are welcomed to shit your pants.

Wow......I took the exact quote that you listed as having come from Heller.....I took it from your post...#602

Now...before you can delete that post....your post, in its entirety.......#602

First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the reason for the people's right to possess and bear arms. It doesn't talk about the people's right to possess and bear arms except to say that it shall not be infringed. It clearly limits the power to infringe on a right that exists outside of the 2nd Amendment.

I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.

It doesn't matter what it says in the prefatory clause or why it says it. The operative clause is explicit: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Sorry, the prefatory clause is there for one reason, to qualify the purpose of the operative clause.

If you were to say that nothing about the 2ndA disqualifies the natural right to possess and bear arms, I'd agree. It has not been my intention to declare that the aforementioned right does not exist. Rather, I have sought to demonstrate that the 2ndA was not written for the specific purpose of reinforcing said natural right but for the purpose clearly stated in the prefatory clause: the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

Thanks

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

And yet...
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.

I'd agree with that, but said right is not unlimited.

 

[2aguy]

I don't believe that what you just presented was the quote. Rather, you clipped and re-arranged as seems to have pleased your purpose.

Find your way to long about pages 54-55 of the Heller Syllabus where you are welcomed to shit your pants.

Heller has 43 pages....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, I ignore the invitation to dissect an extensive paste job.

And thus, your admission that you -ignore- what you know you cannot meaningfully address.
Well done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'd agree with that, but said right is not unlimited.

Agree with it or not, it is fact.

 

[2aguy]

I'd agree with that, but said right is not unlimited.

I love how you guys think you are clever when you use the two words, "not unlimited." You are shown the exact things that Scalia wrote in Heller and all the other decisions...but you think "not unlimited," means you can ban every gun and piece of equipment that you want banned........

This is what Scalia actually wrote about "not unlimited," and he doesn't go into weapons or equipment....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Then he states.....very clearly....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Wow......I took the exact quote that you listed as having come from Heller.....I took it from your post...#602

Now...before you can delete that post....your post, in its entirety.......#602


I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.

Sorry, the prefatory clause is there for one reason, to qualify the purpose of the operative clause.

If you were to say that nothing about the 2ndA disqualifies the natural right to possess and bear arms, I'd agree. It has not been my intention to declare that the aforementioned right does not exist. Rather, I have sought to demonstrate that the 2ndA was not written for the specific purpose of reinforcing said natural right but for the purpose clearly stated in the prefatory clause: the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

Thanks

I stand corrected. You quoted a small piece for what I provided - not the entire quote.

My mistake.