Why we have gun crime...7 time felon with 4th gun case freed on ankle monitor tries to shoot and kill his girlfriend. Thanks democrats.

[Blues Man]

{{meta.fullTitle}}

One particular gun not ALL guns and nothing that states a person must be in a the militia to own guns.

and of course then there is this

The Heller Decision and Individual Right to Firearms

www.law.cornell.edu

concluded that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes.7

 

[JoeB131]

You’re having a difficult time

No, I'm not, Chatbot... you just didn't understand it because it doesn't fit in the parameters of your program.

 

[Hollie]

No, I'm not, Chatbot... you just didn't understand it because it doesn't fit in the parameters of your program.

Odd you would claim you’re not having a difficult time when you utterly failed to understand the Heller decision.

Instead of of mindlessly cutting and pasting what you read in the supermarket tabloids, take some time to learn the facts.

There’s a good fellow.

 

[JoeB131]

Odd you would claim you’re not having a difficult time when you utterly failed to understand the Heller decision.

I understood it perfectly well... Corrupt justices ignored 200 years of precedents

 

[Hollie]

I understood it perfectly well... Corrupt justices ignored 200 years of precedents

You don't understand it at all. Ypu're simply reduced to your usual, silly conspiracy theories.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/#:~:text=Amdt2.-,4%20Heller%20and%20Individual%20Right%20to%20Firearms,Arms%2C%20shall%20not%20be%20infringed.

The majority analyzed the Second Amendment’s two clauses and concluded that the prefatory clause announces the Amendment’s purpose.10 Furthermore, although there must be some link between the stated purpose in the prefatory clause and the command in the operative clause, the Court concluded that the prefatory clause does not limit . . . the scope of the operative clause.11 Accordingly, the Court assessed the meaning of the Second Amendment’s two clauses.

Beginning with the operative clause, the Supreme Court first concluded that the phrase the right of the people, as used in the Bill of Rights, universally communicates an individual right, and thus the Second Amendment protects a right that is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.12 Next, the Court turned to the meaning of to keep and bear arms.13 Arms, the Court asserted, has the same meaning now as it did during the eighteenth century: any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or use in wrath to cast at or strike another, including weapons not specifically designed for military use.14 The Court then turned to the full phrase keep and bear arms. To keep arms, as understood during the founding period, the Court maintained, was a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.15 The Court further explained that bearing arms, during the founding period as well as currently, means to carry weapons for the purpose of confrontation; but even so, the Court added, the phrase does not connote[] participation in a structured military organization.16 Taken together, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.17 The Court added that its textual analysis was supported by the Amendment’s historical background, which was relevant to its analysis because, the Court reasoned, the Second Amendment was widely understood to have codified a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms.18

 

[AZrailwhale]

And "The people" is clearly not an individual right.

Sorry, you can't separate the coffee from the cream.

I don’t know how you can be so obtuse. People is plural for person. That means it is an individual right. People is used in many of the articles of the Bill of Rights. Aren’t individuals protected against unreasonable searches and seizures? Are individuals protected against having troops quartered in their homes? How about freedom of religion, that clearly an individual right? Why do you pick out one of the articles and ignore all the others?

 

[martybegan]

By guesswork, you mean reviewing historical records, um, yeah.

Shays's Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fries's Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not that they happened, your interpretation of them vis a vis this discussion.

 

[LibertyKid]

That's not true at all. In fact, the early government put down a number of armed rebellions because they really didn' t like armed mobs (i.e. Shays Rebellion, the Whisky Rebellion.)

You obviously didn't read anything I added that supported my statement.

You use "rebellions" as a way to prove a point, that I'm not sure you fully understand. Those rebellions happened because the people didn't like what the gov't was doing, right or wrong. They never once led to a disarming of the people, which would be against what the founding fathers intended. Keep trying to make stuff up to prove a point.

 

[LibertyKid]

You don't understand it at all. Ypu're simply reduced to your usual, silly conspiracy theories.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/#:~:text=Amdt2.-,4%20Heller%20and%20Individual%20Right%20to%20Firearms,Arms%2C%20shall%20not%20be%20infringed.

The majority analyzed the Second Amendment’s two clauses and concluded that the prefatory clause announces the Amendment’s purpose.10 Furthermore, although there must be some link between the stated purpose in the prefatory clause and the command in the operative clause, the Court concluded that the prefatory clause does not limit . . . the scope of the operative clause.11 Accordingly, the Court assessed the meaning of the Second Amendment’s two clauses.

Beginning with the operative clause, the Supreme Court first concluded that the phrase the right of the people, as used in the Bill of Rights, universally communicates an individual right, and thus the Second Amendment protects a right that is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.12 Next, the Court turned to the meaning of to keep and bear arms.13 Arms, the Court asserted, has the same meaning now as it did during the eighteenth century: any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or use in wrath to cast at or strike another, including weapons not specifically designed for military use.14 The Court then turned to the full phrase keep and bear arms. To keep arms, as understood during the founding period, the Court maintained, was a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.15 The Court further explained that bearing arms, during the founding period as well as currently, means to carry weapons for the purpose of confrontation; but even so, the Court added, the phrase does not connote[] participation in a structured military organization.16 Taken together, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.17 The Court added that its textual analysis was supported by the Amendment’s historical background, which was relevant to its analysis because, the Court reasoned, the Second Amendment was widely understood to have codified a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms.18

And there is historical context that led to the adding the 2A to the constitution. The founding fathers fought a war that stopped the british from disarming the people. The british knew if they disarmed the citizens, they could stop a revolution and make the people adhere to their demands.

The founding fathers fully understood, that a gov't serves the will of the people, and at a time if the gov't, state or federal, became tyrannical, stopped serving the will of the people, the people could rise up against that tyranny. The only way to secure our freedoms and liberties from such a tyrannical gov't is the use of arms.

The idea of eliminating arms that the people can use to defend against tyranny is in direct violation of what our founding fathers protected. If you support such limitations and changes to the 2A that supports OUR right as a people to protect our freedoms, you have become a subject to the gov't. You have become, at best, a simp and co-dependent to the gov't. You are brainwashed that ANY gov't has our best interest at heart at all times.

 

[Dadoalex]

One particular gun not ALL guns and nothing that states a person must be in a the militia to own guns.

and of course then there is this

The Heller Decision and Individual Right to Firearms

www.law.cornell.edu

concluded that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes.7

Imaginary right.

Nothinbg actually in the constitution speaks to an "individual" right
otherwise
the 2nd would say "the right of a person" not the "right of the people.

But given the obvious corruption shown by Roberts and Thomas it's not surprising they were bought by the NRA.

BUT...

TICK-TOCK overturn coming.

 

[Dadoalex]

I don’t know how you can be so obtuse. People is plural for person. That means it is an individual right. People is used in many of the articles of the Bill of Rights. Aren’t individuals protected against unreasonable searches and seizures? Are individuals protected against having troops quartered in their homes? How about freedom of religion, that clearly an individual right? Why do you pick out one of the articles and ignore all the others?

When the Constitution speaks to an individual right it uses the word PERSON
When it speaks to a collective right it uses people.

Is English really this hard or do you just ignore the inconvenient words?

 

[Moonglow]

The US has always had gun crime no matter what they do to the perps.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't understand it at all.

Sure I do. It's just not the answer you want to hear.
If gun ownership was an absolute, it shouldn't have taken two centuries to figure that out.

And there is historical context that led to the adding the 2A to the constitution. The founding fathers fought a war that stopped the british from disarming the people. The british knew if they disarmed the citizens, they could stop a revolution and make the people adhere to their demands.

Except they did nothing of the sort. When the British marched on Lexington, it was to seize a local armory for the militia, it was not to go to each and every house and take guns most people didn't have.

Their understanding of "Keep and bear arms" meant well regulated militias.

 

[Hollie]

Sure I do. It's just not the answer you want to hear.
If gun ownership was an absolute, it shouldn't have taken two centuries to figure that out.



Except they did nothing of the sort. When the British marched on Lexington, it was to seize a local armory for the militia, it was not to go to each and every house and take guns most people didn't have.

Their understanding of "Keep and bear arms" meant well regulated militias.

Im sure we’re all glad to know of your reputation as a legal scholar. You would be the right choice as a Biden judiciary nominee because you know nothing of the law.

It’s just a demonstrable fact that the Heller decision confirmed the right to bear arms as an individual right.

It’s just something of a running joke that you can’t understand those simple, basic facts.

From my earlier link: “The Court added that its textual analysis was supported by the Amendment’s historical background, which was relevant to its analysis because, the Court reasoned, the Second Amendment was widely understood to have codified a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms.18”

 

[Blues Man]

Imaginary right.

Nothinbg actually in the constitution speaks to an "individual" right
otherwise
the 2nd would say "the right of a person" not the "right of the people.

But given the obvious corruption shown by Roberts and Thomas it's not surprising they were bought by the NRA.

BUT...

TICK-TOCK overturn coming.

You obviously don't realize how hard it is to amend the Constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

Im sure we’re all glad to know of your reputation

Yes, you should be humbled, Chat-Bot.

You obviously don't realize how hard it is to amend the Constitution.

You don't need to.

Two SCOTUS replacements... and the Second Amendment is about Militias again. And Americans will be happier for it because we've had 225 mass shootings so far this year, I think we are all getting a little tired of it.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes, you should be humbled, Chat-Bot.



You don't need to.

Two SCOTUS replacements... and the Second Amendment is about Militias again. And Americans will be happier for it because we've had 225 mass shootings so far this year, I think we are all getting a little tired of it.

And banning a particular rifle won't stop any shootings.

Anyone with half a brain knows this.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, you should be humbled, Chat-Bot.



You don't need to.

Two SCOTUS replacements... and the Second Amendment is about Militias again. And Americans will be happier for it because we've had 225 mass shootings so far this year, I think we are all getting a little tired of it.

Well, it’s just pretty typical that you ignore facts that conflict with your stunted view of reality.

Your embarrassment at being continually corrected is of your own failure.

It’s funny that you’re so flustered, you’re reduced to name-calling.

 

[JoeB131]

And banning a particular rifle won't stop any shootings.

Anyone with half a brain knows this.

No, but it will make them less deadly...

You have to do a whole lot of things to get gun violence under control.

Other countries have done them, which is why they don't have a mass shooting every day like we do.

 

[Hollie]

No, but it will make them less deadly...

You have to do a whole lot of things to get gun violence under control.

Other countries have done them, which is why they don't have a mass shooting every day like we do.

We have mass shootings everyday? I didn't read about yesterday's mass shooting. Where did it take place?