When the 2nd Amendment was written....

[multivita-man]

the only nonsense is coming from the left, we have a judge that cannot even identify between a man and a woman and another that thinks her race is more important than the rule of law.

Oh here we go, from guns on to lady-boys and them blacks. That's quite the tangent there, bub.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

who said anything about blacks Sotomayer thinks being a woman and Hispanic is more important than the rule of law, can you imagine the uproar if a white male judge said being white and male was more important?

 

[multivita-man]

who said anything about blacks Sotomayer thinks being a woman and Hispanic is more important than the rule of law, can you imagine the uproar if a white male judge said being white and male was more important?

 

[westwall]

Understood, and I disagree with the Supreme Court, specifically the justices who, by a narrow 5-4 majority, took it upon themselves to rewrite the 2nd Amendment's originally intended meaning in Heller and subsequent cases. What I'm saying is, the Supreme Court has been making shit up since 2008. Moreover, I have the historical record to prove it.



Understood, but their opinions have no basis in historical fact. They are based on their own ideological leanings, which this court has had a tendency to do in a wide range of issues since they became a majority in the 2000s.

You have clearly never read a book on AMERICAN history.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

...... the guns at the time were -

Revolutionary War Guns | Facts, Information & History

These revolutionary war guns are the firearms most represented throughout the course of the revolutionary war. Find out more facts & information.

www.revolutionary-war.net

When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it referred to the most advanced firearms available. The same applies to today.

 

[2aguy]

Oh here we go, from guns on to lady-boys and them blacks. That's quite the tangent there, bub.

This....you moron...

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[westwall]

This....you moron...

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

It's clear that multi man is a troll. To the ignore pile with it.

 

[Flash]

I'm saying they shouldn't be.

Tough shit.

I didn't think the Supreme Court should have ruled like they did in Roe v Wade, Texas v Pennsylvania and Brown v Board and several others obviously wrong rulings. However, I didn't get to make those calls.

When it comes to the Bill of Rights the Court should always rule in favor of Individual Liberty and not state oppression. The Second Amendment is a very strongly worded Individual Liberty right. In fact it doesn't get any stronger than "shall not be infringed".

The Supreme Court agrees with me on this. For once they got something right.

Too bad they didn't agree with with your flawed analysis.

 

[multivita-man]

This....you moron...

Try to keep up, fuck-knuckle. I have already said I do not accept the Heller majority's opinion, which is historical fiction. The cherry picked history to form the basis of their decision, rather than actually referring to the records of the First Congress, which received and debated the amendment, beginning in August of 1789.

 

[multivita-man]

Tough shit.

I didn't think the Supreme Court should have ruled like they did in Roe v Wade, Texas v Pennsylvania and Brown v Board and several others obviously wrong rulings. However, I didn't get to make those calls.

When it comes to the Bill of Rights the Court should always rule in favor of Individual Liberty and not state oppression. The Second Amendment is a very strongly worded Individual Liberty right. In fact it doesn't get any stronger than "shall not be infringed".

The Supreme Court agrees with me on this. For once they got something right.

Too bad they didn't agree with with your flawed analysis.

At least your honest about it and not trying to post some cockamamie snippet from Cruikshank or Presser, neither of which are really 2nd Amendment cases, but since we're on a message board, I will remind you and others that it's still a bullshit opinion.

What is now the law of the land today isn't what I'm debating. I'm very well aware of the fact that the Supreme Court's conservative majority is rewriting the constitution with each passing year so that it aligns with their ideological leanings. I understand that, and I accept that as a matter of fact.

It's still bullshit, though, and you all know it. You just don't care because you all see this as a war, and for the time being, you're winning.

Am I right?

 

[Rogue AI]

So what you're saying is, originalism doesn't matter; what matters is making sure you select ideological, activist judges who rewrite the Constitution's meaning in a way that aligns with NRA propaganda. In other words, "Ha! Ha! We got the power now, so fuck you!" Got it. That's pretty much what I figured. And that's why I'm an advocate for packing the Court with leftist justices, who will right 20 years of wrongs of this disgusting, lawless, corrupt Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the Democrats today, from Senile Joe Biden to Dickless Durban, are such total mindless, dickless pussies that they don't dare to push for such 'radical' change, because they "respect institutions," never mind the fact their opposition has zero respect in return.

What I'm saying is the Constitution contains the winning arguments. There was no question as to the private ownership of firearms for over 200 years, suddenly everyone in history got it wrong when woke idiot commie liberals show up. Good luck with that.

 

[Rogue AI]

The vast majority of people didn't own guns during the late 1700s. They were expensive and had to be maintained. That was indeed one of the reasons why Congress wanted States to have militias - for the common defense in case England and France decided to take back parts of America and also to put down mobs like those responsible for the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays Rebellion. You all have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

The Whiskey and Shays Rebellions were carried out by citizens with privately owned firearms. Nobody was charged with owning firearms. Stop lying. Stop pretending you understand the Constitution better than the people who wrote it. That just makes you look like an arrogant and ignorant twat.

 

[multivita-man]

What I'm saying is the Constitution contains the winning arguments.

The Constitution isn't making the arguments; it's the people interpreting the Constitution who are making the arguments.

There was no question as to the private ownership of firearms for over 200 years,

Please cite where I denied private ownership of firearms for the last 200 years. Hell, I'll raise you one: private ownership of firearms has existed since we were a colony. But since we were a colony, and after we left, we have also had laws that regulate private ownership of guns. And the 2nd Amendment in no way prohibits those laws, some of which have been pretty strict.

It's a group of radical Federalist Society judges who, over the last 20 years, have decided to take it upon themselves to rewrite history and use their pseudo-history as a basis for a legal opinion that is unmoored from the historical fact.

 

[multivita-man]

The Whiskey and Shays Rebellions were carried out by citizens with privately owned firearms. Nobody was charged with owning firearms.

I never said they were.

Stop lying.

What am I lying about? lol

Stop pretending you understand the Constitution better than the people who wrote it.

I'm not saying I understand the Constitution better than the people who wrote it. In fact, I'm arguing just the opposite: the people who wrote it understand the Constitution better than Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney-Barrett. That's what I'm saying, so keep up - dipshit.

 

[surada]

It proves the intent was 2-fold a state right to have a militia and personal right for individuals to own possess and have firearms.

Everyone already had guns... Useful in every day life.

 

[surada]

who said anything about blacks Sotomayer thinks being a woman and Hispanic is more important than the rule of law, can you imagine the uproar if a white male judge said being white and male was more important?

You brought racism and sexism into the discussion. You don't know what Sotomayor thinks. You're an idiot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You brought racism and sexism into the discussion. You don't know what Sotomayor thinks. You're an idiot.

you dont like facts and resort to lying I get that, being a closet Islamist it goes with the territory.

 

[westwall]

The Whiskey and Shays Rebellions were carried out by citizens with privately owned firearms. Nobody was charged with owning firearms. Stop lying. Stop pretending you understand the Constitution better than the people who wrote it. That just makes you look like an arrogant and ignorant twat.

The dipshit is a lying troll. Just ignore it and it will die

 

[2aguy]

Try to keep up, fuck-knuckle. I have already said I do not accept the Heller majority's opinion, which is historical fiction. The cherry picked history to form the basis of their decision, rather than actually referring to the records of the First Congress, which received and debated the amendment, beginning in August of 1789.

Yes...you have stated you are an idiot....and we understand that.....but the U.S. Supreme Court went through every law, every scholarly writing on the topic and came up with their decision.....you don't like guns so you want what you want when you want it...

 

[multivita-man]

but the U.S. Supreme Court went through every law, every scholarly writing on the topic and came up with their decision.....

They did not, lol.

you don't like guns so you want what you want when you want it...

I don't have a problem guns, but they should be well-regulated.