The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[peach174]

How about reading the history books on America (not the revisionist versions of libs) and the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution is the law of the land.

 

[peach174]

You over look the part that says the right of the people to bear Arms.
The Amendments are for the rights of the people of the United States, not the Government.
The National Guard is the Government.
The reason for this is to have an armed populace to over throw a tyrannical, or dictatorial government.

We were all taught this in the schools before libs took over teaching in the 60's and 70's, and now look at what a bunch of know nothings we have about our history.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neither of you guys are experts on the Constitution, that's for sure.

Now offer some law and rulings for your OP, bigreb. Don't look to Peach, who has no clue at all.

You have only given other peoples' opinions, now give the law.

Jake all you have to do is chck the source I used.

Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001


UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, Oct. 16, 2001

SUMMARY OF 5th CIRCUIT's DECISION

The court stated:

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not
they are a member of a select militia or performing active military
service or training."

The court examined United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816
(1939). It held:

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated
collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We
hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in
active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their
own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as
personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type
excluded by Miller."
The Military does not have any right's that need protecting the second amendment right is not needed in the military
The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."
Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It, bigreb, is simply an appeals court ruling on the viability of 2nd Amendment rights for citizens to bear arms. Your own cite, once again (just like the evidence in your Hitler thread) pulls the rug out from under you.

reb, you really need to read what you are posting. Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot,

Oh, tell Peach, that no one here thinks of his opinions on the 2nd Amendment mean anything.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It, bigreb, is simply an appeals court ruling on the viability of 2nd Amendment rights for citizens to bear arms. Your own cite, once again (just like the evidence in your Hitler thread) pulls the rug out from under you.

reb, you really need to read what you are posting. Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot,

Oh, tell Peach, that no one here thinks of his opinions on the 2nd Amendment mean anything.

All you offer is your opinion you lost move along junior.

Notice the last part of my post
The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."

Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.

 

[idb]

You over look the part that says the right of the people to bear Arms.
The Amendments are for the rights of the people of the United States, not the Government.
The National Guard is the Government.
The reason for this is to have an armed populace to over throw a tyrannical, or dictatorial government.

Sure, but in bringing this thread back to the document cited in the OP, the opinion there was that the historical use of the term 'bear arms' referred to keeping them for call-up into a militia, not for personal use.
I'm not saying I agree, I'm going back to the original premise of this thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You over look the part that says the right of the people to bear Arms.
The Amendments are for the rights of the people of the United States, not the Government.
The National Guard is the Government.
The reason for this is to have an armed populace to over throw a tyrannical, or dictatorial government.

Sure, but in bringing this thread back to the document cited in the OP, the opinion there was that the historical use of the term 'bear arms' referred to keeping them for call-up into a militia, not for personal use.
I'm not saying I agree, I'm going back to the original premise of this thread.

They were privately owned by the carrier of the weapon, the government did not have any say as to what they were to do with them.

 

[idb]

You over look the part that says the right of the people to bear Arms.
The Amendments are for the rights of the people of the United States, not the Government.
The National Guard is the Government.
The reason for this is to have an armed populace to over throw a tyrannical, or dictatorial government.

Sure, but in bringing this thread back to the document cited in the OP, the opinion there was that the historical use of the term 'bear arms' referred to keeping them for call-up into a militia, not for personal use.
I'm not saying I agree, I'm going back to the original premise of this thread.

They were privately owned by the carrier of the weapon, the government did not have any say as to what they were to do with them.

Remembering that your cited document was an opinion, not having been tested in any court...on that basis I think that you are right, but, if the opinion in the document was held to be true then the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess firearms for private use.
It doesn't put controls on them, as you say, but neither does it grant any rights.

Again, I'm just referring to your document, not passing a personal opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since we are giving personal opinions, bigrebnc does not understand the 2nd Amendment at all, and Peach is in the same corner. We all have personal opinions, and so what? SCOTUS decisions count. Find something, bigreb, to hang your argument on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, but in bringing this thread back to the document cited in the OP, the opinion there was that the historical use of the term 'bear arms' referred to keeping them for call-up into a militia, not for personal use.
I'm not saying I agree, I'm going back to the original premise of this thread.

They were privately owned by the carrier of the weapon, the government did not have any say as to what they were to do with them.

Remembering that your cited document was an opinion, not having been tested in any court...on that basis I think that you are right, but, if the opinion in the document was held to be true then the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess firearms for private use.
It doesn't put controls on them, as you say, but neither does it grant any rights.

Again, I'm just referring to your document, not passing a personal opinion.

I suggest you go back to the OP
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001


UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since we are giving personal opinions, bigrebnc does not understand the 2nd Amendment at all, and Peach is in the same corner. We all have personal opinions, and so what? SCOTUS decisions count. Find something, bigreb, to hang your argument on.

Alkl you do is give an opinion I think the judical system has more say than your opinion.
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001


UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit

 

[JakeStarkey]

They were privately owned by the carrier of the weapon, the government did not have any say as to what they were to do with them.

Remembering that your cited document was an opinion, not having been tested in any court...on that basis I think that you are right, but, if the opinion in the document was held to be true then the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess firearms for private use.
It doesn't put controls on them, as you say, but neither does it grant any rights.

Again, I'm just referring to your document, not passing a personal opinion.

I suggest you go back to the OP
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001 UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit

Read it, bigreb. It controverts your point. Are you always going to post evidence that undermines your OPs. You make this too easy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. bigreb, the fact that you are posting opinions that controvert your position is pathetically amusing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sigh. bigreb, the fact that you are posting opinions that controvert your position is pathetically amusing.

Opinions oif he judical system? Don't make me laugh boy, I have yet to see you produce one sherred of evidence to prove me wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Remembering that your cited document was an opinion, not having been tested in any court...on that basis I think that you are right, but, if the opinion in the document was held to be true then the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess firearms for private use.
It doesn't put controls on them, as you say, but neither does it grant any rights.

Again, I'm just referring to your document, not passing a personal opinion.

I suggest you go back to the OP
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001 UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit

Read it, bigreb. It controverts your point. Are you always going to post evidence that undermines your OPs. You make this too easy.

I guess you did not read my read my reply with the courts summary, pitty how stupid you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have done it every time since last year, bigreb, when you started posting. You can't argue intelligently. You never have, you never will. Remember your "hitler is a socialist" fiasco that had most posters laughing at you? Don't ever stop posting. As long as you do that, sensible Americans will realize the nonsensical evil that lurks beyond the far right horizon and never permit your kind to ever have power. The Tea Party is finally rejecting your kind now that it has some political punch.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have done it every time since last year, bigreb, when you started posting. You can't argue intelligently. You never have, you never will. Remember your "hitler is a socialist" fiasco that had most posters laughing at you? Don't ever stop posting. As long as you do that, sensible Americans will realize the nonsensical evil that lurks beyond the far right horizon and never permit your kind to ever have power. The Tea Party is finally rejecting your kind now that it has some political punch.

Where is your evidence? If you have anything show it or you lost.

 

[peach174]

Since we are giving personal opinions, bigrebnc does not understand the 2nd Amendment at all, and Peach is in the same corner. We all have personal opinions, and so what? SCOTUS decisions count. Find something, bigreb, to hang your argument on.

What about the Supreme Court Decision recently that ruled DC residents have the right to carry pistols?
And it's not my opinion. It was taught in our schools for 194 years as American history, until libs started having real problems with the right to carry guns. You unarm your citizens, government has a better change at controlling the populace.
You don't have a problem with the Supreme Courts ruling do you?
I think you have a problem with our history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is personal right to own personal weapons. No one disagrees with you on that. You are acting like Saul Alinsky, implying I said something I did not. What I said is that the 2nd Amendment does not give citizens the right to own military style heavy weapons.

Stay on track, little Saul of the Right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That is personal right to own personal weapons. No one disagrees with you on that. You are acting like Saul Alinsky, implying I said something I did not. What I said is that the 2nd Amendment does not give citizens the right to own military style heavy weapons.

Stay on track, little Saul of the Right.

What I said is that the 2nd Amendment does not give citizens the right to own military style heavy weapons.

Really? can you quote the part in the second Amendment that says that? By the way you are the only one that is arguing about Heavy weapons