2nd Amendment Discussion

[Porter Rockwell]

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

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?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

That my friend would activate the most heavily armed army in the world.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

That my friend would activate the most heavily armed army in the world.

One would hope so. But we have these people on Internet discussion boards that never litigated a case in their life, pretending to be legal scholars while selling you this bullshit that the United States Supreme Court is within their rights to over-turn their own decisions and to grant powers to other branches of the government.

Again, it's plain common horse sense: If the United States Supreme Court rules on a law, they should NOT be able to come back and reverse their own decision. Because they can do that, you don't know what the law is and you couldn't abide by the law, given those parameters. Under our de jure Constitution, the legislature serves a purpose.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All these deaths and not a gun in sight
HEALTH
8,007,862Communicable disease deaths this year
4,688,763Deaths of children under 5 this year
26,179,879Abortions this year
190,663Deaths of mothers during birth this year
41,096,601HIV/AIDS infected people
1,036,975Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
5,066,198Deaths caused by cancer this year
605,064Deaths caused by malaria this year
3,083,728Deaths caused by smoking this year
1,542,837Deaths caused by alcohol this year
832,700Road traffic accident fatalities this year
Worldometers - real time world statistics

 

[strollingbones]

so your logic there is people die of disease so why worry about gun deaths....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Correct better use of money

 

[strollingbones]

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...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yawn disagree all you want money can be wisely spent elsewhere and have better results.
And the founding fathers wanted every citizen to defend this country against tyranny

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so your logic there is people die of disease so why worry about gun deaths....

LOL so few people die from illegal firearm use as to be statistical unimportant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it's time to ban doctors
A recent Johns Hopkins study claims more than 250,000 people in the U.S. die every year from medical errors. Other reports claim the numbers to be as high as 440,000.
The third-leading cause of death in US most doctors don't want you to know about

 

[strollingbones]

so one really thinks they can stand against the armed forces of the government?

 

[Crixus]

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?

I'm thinking they knew exactly what they were doing.


Pontiac's Rebellion School Massacre | Pontiac Rebellion School Massacre


The Enoch Brown school massacre was "one of the most notorious incidents" of Pontiac's War.

On July 26, 1764, four Delaware (Lenape) American Indian warriors entered a settlers' log schoolhouse in the Province of Pennsylvania in what is now Franklin County, near present Greencastle. Inside were the schoolmaster, Enoch Brown, and a number of young students. Brown pleaded with the warriors to spare the children before being shot and scalped. The warriors then tomahawked and scalped the children. Brown and nine children were killed. Two scalped children survived their wounds. Four children were taken as prisoners

 

[Blues Man]

so your logic there is people die of disease so why worry about gun deaths....

Gun deaths include things like suicide and police killing criminals.

Suicide is not a crime as every person has the absolute right to decide whether they live or die and I don't get too upset when the cops kill a criminal.

 

[Blues Man]

so one really thinks they can stand against the armed forces of the government?

Not just one but how about 100 million?

That was the intent of the second amendment after all

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so one really thinks they can stand against the armed forces of the government?

Why do you want to bow to a tyrant like Trump?

 

[danielpalos]

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

So you can not link to a State Constitution that says what you claim BUT we are to believe your delusional rantings anyway?

I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

That my friend would activate the most heavily armed army in the world.

One would hope so. But we have these people on Internet discussion boards that never litigated a case in their life, pretending to be legal scholars while selling you this bullshit that the United States Supreme Court is within their rights to over-turn their own decisions and to grant powers to other branches of the government.

Again, it's plain common horse sense: If the United States Supreme Court rules on a law, they should NOT be able to come back and reverse their own decision. Because they can do that, you don't know what the law is and you couldn't abide by the law, given those parameters. Under our de jure Constitution, the legislature serves a purpose.

We have our Ninth and Tenth amendments.

 

[danielpalos]

All these deaths and not a gun in sight
HEALTH
8,007,862Communicable disease deaths this year
4,688,763Deaths of children under 5 this year
26,179,879Abortions this year
190,663Deaths of mothers during birth this year
41,096,601HIV/AIDS infected people
1,036,975Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
5,066,198Deaths caused by cancer this year
605,064Deaths caused by malaria this year
3,083,728Deaths caused by smoking this year
1,542,837Deaths caused by alcohol this year
832,700Road traffic accident fatalities this year
Worldometers - real time world statistics

We lose around a corps of unorganized militia every year due to gun violence.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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 prepared for such a contingency.