do you people even know what the 2nd ammendment says ?

[AmericanFirst]

Obamacare is a socialist policy fool. Whatch your mouth libtard idiot.

I have a degree in politics. you dont know what socialism is.

And, you don't know the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right?

That's scary.

His degree is in restroom politics.

 

[Staidhup]

Amendment II of the Bill of Rights was ratified 12-15-1791. The establishment of the US Supreme Court, Article III of the Constitution, was approved 9-17-1787 and ratified 6-21-1788 by the states. As per Article III of the Constitution the USSC is the governing body of all law. The USSC is not authorized to write law only to interpret cases as they relate to the Constitution in the protection of the rights afforded to all American Citizens. It it an essential check in the balance of power between government and the people. Now, how one can surmise that the United State Supreme Court is not authorized to interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a stretch at best.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not true. The Constitution specifically states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on any matter between a State and the Federal Government and between an individual and the federal Government.

You idiot, Judicial Review is the issue at hand.

And the only time an issue appears about Constitutionality is when a State or States oppose what the federal Government has doe, or an individual does the same.

Remind me the last time the Supreme Court took a law passed by Congress and signed by the President and tried to determine if it was Constitutional or not with out first a State or private Individual bringing a Court case to the federal Courts?

Read slowly, the issue is Judicial Review and JR is no where mentioned in the US Constitution.

 

[tyroneweaver]

it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.

look dude you wanna see a civil war in this country just try and start taking guns away

It really is funny to hear these loud mouthed liberals talk about gun control but think nothing of sucking some baby out of a mothers womb with a suction hose

 

[Wry Catcher]

Amendment II of the Bill of Rights was ratified 12-15-1791. The establishment of the US Supreme Court, Article III of the Constitution, was approved 9-17-1787 and ratified 6-21-1788 by the states. As per Article III of the Constitution the USSC is the governing body of all law. The USSC is not authorized to write law only to interpret cases as they relate to the Constitution in the protection of the rights afforded to all American Citizens. It it an essential check in the balance of power between government and the people. Now, how one can surmise that the United State Supreme Court is not authorized to interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a stretch at best.

Really? You have no understanding of the principle established in Marbury, do you?

 

[OKTexas]

Nesta seems to have stirred the pot and disappeared, leaving y'all fighting among yourselves.

Typical troll behavior, but it worked...didn't it?

A foreign troll at that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.

No, twat waffle, it says and does nothing of the sort. And lawyers never argued any damned thing of the sort, so spare us all the products of your diseased fantasy life, all right?

While I don't consider the Supreme Court the be-all and end-all of Constitutional interpretation, I know leftist ignoramuses like you do, so here you go:

In its June 26 [2008] decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

 

[OKTexas]

Yet many on the idiot fringe where odd-dude resides argue Marbury v. Madison is flawed; no where in the Constitution is the authority/power given to the USSC to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.

How about that odd-dude? Where do you stand, with the idiot fringe or on their far edge?

You might want to read Article 3, Section 2. Ya might learn something.

Quote wherein Judicial Review is listed as a power provided to the USSC?

Read this or any article on Judicial Review:

Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Review

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"

 

[Colin]

who were allowed to bear arms in their work with the militia once it was raised, the police force is also made up of private citizens, so is the air force so should everyone be able to have a stealth bomber ?

ps - there are no socialist policies in america and even if there were a gun couldnt protect you from them you fucking clown

Obamacare is a socialist policy fool. Whatch your mouth libtard idiot.

I have a degree in politics. you dont know what socialism is.

Yeh right. I've seen some of your posts and it's pretty damned clear that your claim to academic success is nothing more than a pipe dream. Furthermore, a foreigner lecturing Americans about their own constitution is beyond laughable, particularly when you do it so badly. Now be a good lad. Go take a powder and stick to five knuckle shuffling.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I dont know who that is and dont care anyway, I speak english perfectly well, and I know militia does not mean you or me or any individual.

Leftists "know" a lot of shit that isn't true. What's amazing is that they expect the rest of us to treat their "knowledge" as though it's serious and deserving of respect.

Militia - 1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Not that it matters, because - as has been pointed out to you - the law does protect an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, and obviously always has, since individuals do, in fact, own firearms in this country, and always have.

I continue to advocate a "Dictionaries for Democrats" giveaway program, so that leftists can finally figure out the meanings of all those troublesome words, such as "freedom" and "is".

 

[Cecilie1200]

lol you need to educate yourself about socialism.


as for the supreme court they interpreted that individuals can be considered militias, so can have guns. clearly individuals are not militias, ergo the constitution says no guns for individuals.

They interpreted nothing of the fucking sort, and you should know that no one would take YOUR word for it, even if you WEREN'T a flatlined, blathering leftist twerp. Feel free to prove that the US Supreme Court has ever said anything supporting ANY of your assertions.

 

[Politico]

I dont know who that is and dont care anyway, I speak english perfectly well, and I know militia does not mean you or me or any individual.

If you don't know then you are not qualified to speak on the subject.

how the hell does anyone think a gun protects them from the us govt in 2012 jesus christ, have you seen the guns theyve got, it hasnt protected al qaeda very well has it

So you admit the guns civilians use are not the same as the true assault weapons the military has. Thanks. Keep digging that hole.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.

OK let's take a look at the second amendment it's a two part amendment

the first part is

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

Which gives the state the right to have a militia

The second part

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Gives to people the right to keep and bear arms to form that militia.
Now the supreme court has ruled that the only firearm that is protected by the second amendment are those of common use by the military.

I hope this helped.

 

[jasonnfree]

I dont (sic) know who that is and dont (sic) care anyway, I speak english (sic) perfectly well, and I know militia does not mean you or me or any individual.

Then you neither know English nor that the militia is made up of individuals.

So far, you're O-fer.

the dictionary definition of militia, youll note individuals are not included

The term militia ( /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[4] often politicized.

However, the right of the people to bear arms sounds to me like it means individual citizens. Otherwise, the authors of the amendment were trying to justify the bearing of arms only by people representing the government even if the government were tyrannical.
Bearing arms was for owning guns for livelihood (hunting game) and also to fight tyrannical government.

Banning guns won't stop gun massacres. The gun laws in Mexico are more severe than ours and look at how easily they obtain guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You idiot, Judicial Review is the issue at hand.

And the only time an issue appears about Constitutionality is when a State or States oppose what the federal Government has doe, or an individual does the same.

Remind me the last time the Supreme Court took a law passed by Congress and signed by the President and tried to determine if it was Constitutional or not with out first a State or private Individual bringing a Court case to the federal Courts?

Read slowly, the issue is Judicial Review and JR is no where mentioned in the US Constitution.

It doesn't have to be, The Constitution states that the Supreme Court rules in all matters between a State and the Federal Government. Or between a Citizen and the Federal Government. Once they rule it is the law of the land. If they rule that a law violates the Constitution that is their legal right to do as established by the Constitution. And it is binding on the Legislature and the Executive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I dont (sic) know who that is and dont (sic) care anyway, I speak english (sic) perfectly well, and I know militia does not mean you or me or any individual.

Then you neither know English nor that the militia is made up of individuals.

So far, you're O-fer.

the dictionary definition of militia, youll note individuals are not included

The term militia ( /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[4] often politicized.

Apparently, someone needs to explain to Dunce Cap here that "the population" is made up of individual people. Human beings aren't bees or ants; we don't have a "hive mind", despite the evidence that leftists are sharing only one brain amongst themselves.

 

[Shelzin]

who were allowed to bear arms in their work with the militia once it was raised, the police force is also made up of private citizens, so is the air force so should everyone be able to have a stealth bomber ?

ps - there are no socialist policies in america and even if there were a gun couldnt protect you from them you fucking clown

Obamacare is a socialist policy fool. Whatch your mouth libtard idiot.

I have a degree in politics. you dont know what socialism is.

I don't do this very often... But... I believe that's a flat out lie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the dictionary definition of militia, youll note individuals are not included

The term militia ( /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[4] often politicized.

Clearly, you have NFI, or you wouldn't have needed to copy-n-paste that dreck.

The 2nd Amendment militia comprises private citizens...Always has, always will...Period...End of sentence.

And your grasp of English still sucks.

so what, the army is composed of private citizens, so can people have a tank if they want too ? idiot

I believe you actually CAN buy a tank, if you can afford it.

 

[zeke]

Then you neither know English nor that the militia is made up of individuals.

So far, you're O-fer.

the dictionary definition of militia, youll note individuals are not included

The term militia ( /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[4] often politicized.

However, the right of the people to bear arms sounds to me like it means individual citizens. Otherwise, the authors of the amendment were trying to justify the bearing of arms only by people representing the government even if the government were tyrannical.
Bearing arms was for owning guns for livelihood (hunting game) and also to fight tyrannical government.

Banning guns won't stop gun massacres. The gun laws in Mexico are more severe than ours and look at how easily they obtain guns.

LMAO. Drug dealers using straw buyers. Buying guns in America. Yea, you are right, It is REALLY easy for Mexicans to buy guns right here in the good ole USA.

SO what is your point? Don't you remember the Mexican guvmint complaining about this situation?

 

[Cecilie1200]

lol you need to educate yourself about socialism.


as for the supreme court they interpreted that individuals can be considered militias, so can have guns. clearly individuals are not militias, ergo the constitution says no guns for individuals.

In EVERY Paragraph and sentence in the Constitution where it says "the people" it is understood to mean an individual right, promise or protection. But you dumb asses want to claim the 2nd is different.

Further the Supreme Court is the FINAL arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional. You don't like their ruling? Pass an Amendment or write a law that is Constitutional.

Look it up, provide us the quoted 2nd Amendment and then explain why it says the right of the people shall not be infringed.

it doesnt say the people with regard to bearing arms

You're going to preach to us about what the Second Amendment means, and you don't even KNOW THE WORDS?!

Lemme help you out here, twat waffle. Consider it my good deed for the month.

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.

Now let's add a little clarification, from someone who's educated in English to someone who's not. If this were written in modern-day English, it would say, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Continuing the clarification, notice that it does NOT say, "The right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms". It says "the right of the PEOPLE", and the need for a militia is merely mentioned as a reason for the people themselves to keep and bear arms.

Let's discuss what a militia is, and what it was to the people who actually wrote that Amendment, shall we?

The men who wrote, and those who ratified, the Second Amendment had not that long previously fought and won the American Revolutionary War. They did not do so using a standing army, with weapons issued to the soldiers by the US government. The US, which was still only "the American colonies" at that time, didn't HAVE a standing army, nor did it own weapons. The Continental soldiers brought their own guns from home, and/or took them off of dead soldiers as needed.

Furthermore, an extended viewing of our history shows that during that time, and even after the United States acquired a standing army, communities called upon "the militia" - by which they meant a group of able-bodied men in the community - to deal with matters of community safety and security when the local sheriff or constable was not sufficient. This is what a "posse" in the Old West was: that community's militia.

Clearly, our Founding Fathers did NOT believe "militia" and "military" were synonymous in their time. This can further be seen by the fact that when they wrote Article I of the US Constitution, back before the Second Amendment was even conceived, they spoke specifically of "Armies", so obviously, they were aware of the concept, and perfectly capable of saying it if and when THAT was what they were referring to. Equally obviously, that was NOT what they were referring to when they later wrote the Second Amendment.