2nd Amendment Discussion

[Porter Rockwell]

The Progressive really need to get control of ALL firearms and not because of the Nut Jobs running around on the street. They fear that Normal Citizens will start to defend their "Rights" and the Progressive can not stand for that to happen. they want a unarmed Citizen who can only riot and break stuff in a Rage. Look at Hong Cong that is all they can do is throw stuff at the Police. This is what they want. When the Police and Army and Criminals are the only ones with firearms you are the victims. This is just wrong and not what the Constitution is all about. We are going to have to get the Menially ill off the streets, and the borders under control. As for me I will die, and the younger folk will have to pick up and defend this Nation it is ashamed that we have such people who want control and to bring us down to nothing but slaves, they are working at it every time a Street Nut does a killing run at the people. You want to loose your right just give up the Keys to your life. Be like China....

Here is the legal concept under discussion:

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

YAWN

 

[danielpalos]

It is due to our federal form of Government. The several States of our Union are sovereign within their jurisdiction, with the general Government handling inter-State and inter-national stuff.

The individual Right to keep and bear Arms and the militia are two separate and distinct issues.

Thank you for finally recognizing that legal fact.

There is no provision for natural rights and individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are expressly collective and plural.

The first clause must command the second clause.

Now, you're back to talking nonsense.

There are two parts to the Second Amendment, the NEED to insure the security of a free state AND an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the government to guarantee a preexisting Right.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

i am not the one appealing to ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

The Progressive really need to get control of ALL firearms and not because of the Nut Jobs running around on the street. They fear that Normal Citizens will start to defend their "Rights" and the Progressive can not stand for that to happen. they want a unarmed Citizen who can only riot and break stuff in a Rage. Look at Hong Cong that is all they can do is throw stuff at the Police. This is what they want. When the Police and Army and Criminals are the only ones with firearms you are the victims. This is just wrong and not what the Constitution is all about. We are going to have to get the Menially ill off the streets, and the borders under control. As for me I will die, and the younger folk will have to pick up and defend this Nation it is ashamed that we have such people who want control and to bring us down to nothing but slaves, they are working at it every time a Street Nut does a killing run at the people. You want to loose your right just give up the Keys to your life. Be like China....

Here is the legal concept under discussion:

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

YAWN

Thanks for ceding the point and the argument, like usual.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

a simple error. we have our Ninth Amendment.

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

The dumb ass courts can make any opinion they want. I think I will keep what guns I have left and just had them down telling the kids I have the reason to never let them go. They are the thin Steel line to defend this Nation from Progressives who want to enslave this Nation and this is the biggest road block they have. I looked at China and the China Millionaires are not backing the protesters and I feel that those in America are not different. So Millionaires like Buffett, Kock, Soros, Stryre , Trump, are not our friends. When the Hammers falls and it will, we will know who the real Americans are.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.

And, you cannot discount the traditional police power of a State and its Unitary not federal form of Government.

Do you know the difference between power and authority?

The way the court system works in this country is that a case starts at the trial court level. Depending on where it starts, it can be appealed several times until it reaches the United States Supreme Court. Then the high Court decides whether or not they want to hear it.

The Constitution of the United States allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. That's it. They have NO further authority. In practice, however, the United States Supreme Court reviews their own court decisions and over-rules themselves!!! WTF? We call it legislating from the bench, but nobody officially challenges it.

Between Donald Trump ruling by Executive fiat and the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench, the House and Senate serve NO purpose in this country.

The de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal law in this country is wherein the first time an issue landed on the desk of the United States Supreme Court and they granted cert (that is they agreed to hear the case) then that statute has been through the system and it is what it is. If the United States Supreme Court, the President, or Jesus himself has a problem with it, the ONLY constitutional way to change the law is to have the House and Senate write a NEW law and let the President sign it. George Washington predicted the way we're running the country and he warned:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The government we have today is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional / unconscionable government that does not respect the law. Ex post facto laws are enacted in violation of the Constitution; the law is being perverted and even your nonsensical posts that lack meaning might make you a criminal tomorrow the way the ship is being run. NOBODY is safe from that kind of tyranny.

I'm telling you what the law is. In reality, NONE of you out there are safe. In reality, the various branches of the government have shit-canned the Constitution. George Bush declared that the Constitution was "just a god-damned piece of paper" while the United States Supreme Court destroyed over 130 tears of standing legal precedents with the Heller decision. So, my decision is simply to tell the government they did not have the authority to change the Constitution. That is done via Amendments. THAT sir is the very reason we have a Second Amendment. The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. So, the people have the authority to reject the unconstitutional acts whereby the United States Supreme Court has claimed that they grant you your Rights. If the government does not understand that... read the Declaration of Independence. It will give you the answer.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.

The Second Amendment does exactly what it says it does. It guarantees the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms as a measure to insure the security of a free state. It does not authorize nor create nor even secure ANYTHING. You have been provided with enough legal precedent to verify that.

Furthermore, the individual states ruled that the Second Amendment is absolute and is above the law making power.

Regardless of what it originally meant, that is all irrelevant. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on and there are no militias that enforce the Constitution or repel a dictator because most people live in total darkness of what their Rights and RESPONSIBILITIES are..

Where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I get my "propaganda" by fighting court cases and reading the legal opinions of judges as they explain their rulings in the case.

In legal parlance, their bullshit is called ratio decidendi which means reason of the decision and obiter dicta that means something said by the judge, by the way, having no binding authority.

Once you understand their rationale, you can predict how they will rule in future cases. Maybe if you took a basic course in legal research, you could learn facts you won't read from social commentators. Here is a link to a layman's kind of book on legal research. It would benefit you immensely:

Legal Research

Without actually attending law school, that is the best book you can get in order to learn how to find and understand the laws.

Courts, a bunch of White boys sitting around give a opinion.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..

If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.

And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?

I don't like the M14 but the round it really safe. .223 is a varmint round used for small game. If it hits anything it just blows up. I fired on once and hit a ammo can it made a hole but just tore it self up inside. The used the round in battle so the little guys could carry more ammo. Now day the guy are in better shape and could carry heavy her round like the .308. Every notice the big guys carry the M 60s.

 

[danielpalos]

What is the ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia? Metadata for the general welfare and common defense not the general warfare and common offense!

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..

If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.

And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?

No it's not.

The best weapon for self defense is the one you have

or if you have more than one

The best weapon for self defense is the one you are most comfortable shooting.

I guess.
Some folks rely on pit bulls. Some on AK15s. Some with just Matilda and Bessie (my 357 and my 38). I don't think I would be comfy with an AK15. But...that's me.

I really like the Marlin 1898 44 mag, you can reload the 44 with a ice pick and and primer setter. No need to resize the casing if you use them in the same Rifle.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

where do you get your propaganda from?

the simple legal error was in the composition of the militia. the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only militia service, well regulated.

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Framers understood this, which is why they codified the doctrine of judicial review in Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

And those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment likewise did not presume to have a comprehensive understanding as to the meaning of the rights enshrined in the Amendment, of what weapons were subject to government regulation and what weapons were not, and what is the scope of lawful self-defense – matters that later generations would determine through the political process and eventually in the courts.

Was that a warning when you began that post? I agree it was NONSENSE. You strung some words together and they didn't make a damn bit of sense.

Here's some plain old common horse sense for those of you with an IQ above your shoe size:

If everybody who owns a firearm today knew that the United States Supreme Court could tomorrow unilaterally decide your weapon was illegal because it didn't fit some category they came up with AND that they could jail you (though ex post facto laws are illegal) what would you do?

Become a Outlaw.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Just watch China they are going to lose freedom.

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be pJrepared for such a contingency.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

Bullshit. There was a 20 round capacity rifle being imported into the United States in the late 1780s. The founders and framers were well aware of technology.

Name the firearm dreamer.

 

[Hossfly]

You are repeating the same post verbatim. You need some new material. Of course the unorganized militia is complaining. It is their Liberties and gun Rights the politicians are after.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

States have a right to their own security.

There is a long line of state court authority recognizing a right to self-defense — and a right to defend property — under state constitutions. Twenty-one state constitutions expressly secure such rights, often using language such as this:

"All men … have certain unalienable Rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, [and] acquiring, possessing and protecting property."

Government only recognizes Individual rights and Individual liberty. Government in the US delegates to Counties.

Counties have power to "commandeer the People" to help ensure County security.

What has Posse Comitatus to do with an individual's Right to keep and bear Arms?

There is no such Thing as a well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic under our federal doctrine.

National Guard and Reserves are a militia. Well regulated too.

 

[danielpalos]

States have a right to their own security.

There is a long line of state court authority recognizing a right to self-defense — and a right to defend property — under state constitutions. Twenty-one state constitutions expressly secure such rights, often using language such as this:

"All men … have certain unalienable Rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, [and] acquiring, possessing and protecting property."

Government only recognizes Individual rights and Individual liberty. Government in the US delegates to Counties.

Counties have power to "commandeer the People" to help ensure County security.

What has Posse Comitatus to do with an individual's Right to keep and bear Arms?

There is no such Thing as a well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic under our federal doctrine.

National Guard and Reserves are a militia. Well regulated too.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

Why don't you sit down and write me a letter using parchment and quill send it by a man riding a horse because the founders never envisioned you would have the first amendment right using the internet.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

Bullshit. There was a 20 round capacity rifle being imported into the United States in the late 1780s. The founders and framers were well aware of technology.

Name the firearm dreamer.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

States have a right to their own security.

There is a long line of state court authority recognizing a right to self-defense — and a right to defend property — under state constitutions. Twenty-one state constitutions expressly secure such rights, often using language such as this:

"All men … have certain unalienable Rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, [and] acquiring, possessing and protecting property."

Government only recognizes Individual rights and Individual liberty. Government in the US delegates to Counties.

Counties have power to "commandeer the People" to help ensure County security.

What has Posse Comitatus to do with an individual's Right to keep and bear Arms?

There is no such Thing as a well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic under our federal doctrine.

National Guard and Reserves are a militia. Well regulated too.

But the National Guard and Reserves are counted in the organized militia.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

Bullshit. There was a 20 round capacity rifle being imported into the United States in the late 1780s. The founders and framers were well aware of technology.

Name the firearm dreamer.

I don't understand what you are wanting me to post.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Progressive really need to get control of ALL firearms and not because of the Nut Jobs running around on the street. They fear that Normal Citizens will start to defend their "Rights" and the Progressive can not stand for that to happen. they want a unarmed Citizen who can only riot and break stuff in a Rage. Look at Hong Cong that is all they can do is throw stuff at the Police. This is what they want. When the Police and Army and Criminals are the only ones with firearms you are the victims. This is just wrong and not what the Constitution is all about. We are going to have to get the Menially ill off the streets, and the borders under control. As for me I will die, and the younger folk will have to pick up and defend this Nation it is ashamed that we have such people who want control and to bring us down to nothing but slaves, they are working at it every time a Street Nut does a killing run at the people. You want to loose your right just give up the Keys to your life. Be like China....

Here is the legal concept under discussion:

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

YAWN

Thanks for ceding the point and the argument, like usual.

Seeing your drivel does not mean I agree to it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The individual Right to keep and bear Arms and the militia are two separate and distinct issues.

Thank you for finally recognizing that legal fact.

There is no provision for natural rights and individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are expressly collective and plural.

The first clause must command the second clause.

Now, you're back to talking nonsense.

There are two parts to the Second Amendment, the NEED to insure the security of a free state AND an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the government to guarantee a preexisting Right.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

i am not the one appealing to ignorance.

No sh!+ Sherlock. You've been accusing me of appealing to YOUR ignorance. Don't you understand your own posts. A man cannot appeal to himself - unless he has dual personalities.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing doesn't understand the socialism that is Government via the Power of the County.