CDZ Does the gun control side have any argument that supports banning guns?

[Pop23]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Sophistry alert: Gun control is not synonymous with banning guns.

Strawman.

Your argument is the strawman argument. Congress has NO constitutional authority to "control" guns. They are limited to helping regulate a militia. And how was this regulation to be achieved? Ask a founder:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

You clearly don't know what a strawman argument is.

If you are refuting an argument no one has made, you're making a straw man argument. Almost no one, and no one at all in the political mainstream is suggesting a blanket ban on guns, or even handguns for that matter.

And that's all before you get to the point that SCOTUS has decided on this, and Congress DOES have the authority to regulate guns, but not to ban them.

So not only are you making a red herring argument, you're also doing it based on provably false claims.

Read the second amendment. The right granted is to “the people” not the militia.

 

[2aguy]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Sophistry alert: Gun control is not synonymous with banning guns.

Strawman.

Your argument is the strawman argument. Congress has NO constitutional authority to "control" guns. They are limited to helping regulate a militia. And how was this regulation to be achieved? Ask a founder:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

You clearly don't know what a strawman argument is.

If you are refuting an argument no one has made, you're making a straw man argument. Almost no one, and no one at all in the political mainstream is suggesting a blanket ban on guns, or even handguns for that matter.

And that's all before you get to the point that SCOTUS has decided on this, and Congress DOES have the authority to regulate guns, but not to ban them.

So not only are you making a red herring argument, you're also doing it based on provably false claims.

No...you are wrong..... Democrats at all levels of the party have called for gun bans and confiscation...most recently at the D.C. Rally and the CNN Townhall....

You don't get to ban every single gun, leaving law abiding citizens with antique muzzle loaders and then claim you haven't banned guns....

They screamed at the CNN Townhall they want to ban all semi automatic weapons.....

The Supreme Court has decided this...and the left wing judges on the lower courts are ignoring them.....

D.C. v Heller declares that all bearable arms are protected.... Scalia went back in Friedman v Highland Park and defined that even more, and Alito explained to the numb nuts on the 4th Circuit that "Dangerous and Unusual" does not include guns that are in common use for lawful purposes.....like the AR-15 rifle.......

 

[2aguy]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

It's because a "Militia" is not possible without weapons and well regulated meant, in those times, weapons that were well maintained and could be easily called upon. I find it funny though that "Militia" is often thought of as somehow just required to stage a Revolution against an oppressive government, which it could be. But it is also intended to be a supplement to a standing Army, or a last defense if that army became depleted.

if you go back to miller

the question that was asked

was miller's shotgun useful to the "military" not the militia

the question has yet to be answered

if the question is ever answered honestly

that will pretty much sink the 1934 firearms control act

and everything that has followed

Scalia mentioned that point in Heller.....

 

[Pop23]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

The second amendment, if written the way YOU THINK would have stated, after the comma, “the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

It does not.

I am continually embarrassed that I have to keep pointing this out.

 

[2aguy]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

The second amendment, if written the way YOU THINK would have stated, after the comma, “the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

It does not.

I am continually embarrassed that I have to keep pointing this out.

They know what it says...... they pretend to not be able to read it as Trolls, and also to hide the truth from uninformed Americans who will only hear "but it only protects a militia so give us the power to ban guns...."

 

[Flash]

I was going to put this in a separate thread but it is appropriate for this discussion.

There has been a recent Federal Court decisions that greatly affirms the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution that the government can't infringe upon.

Hatfield v US

Hatfield was convicted of a "felony" by virtue of lying on a railroad retirement board application decades ago. He wrongfully received 1600 dollars in compensation. And was then convicted of that crime and sentenced to probation.

He would like to own a gun now. But the Federal process for restoration of gun rights has languished without funding or support in congress. On a Federal level the Second Amendment doesn't apply to felons because of a 1949 law.

This court disagrees and is basically saying the Federal government has no compelling interest that would separate non-violent felons from Second Amendment protections.

The court decision basically reaffirms everything in the Heller and McDonald cases that the government seems to ignore.

In fact the Judges tell the stupid government to stop ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The best part of the ruling:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

 

[PredFan]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Gun-grabbers do not need arguments or facts on their side, all they need is lies supplied through a complicit media fed to a properly dumbed-down and conditioned public.

The left never has facts on their side. They have feels. It’s all about feelings with them.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I was going to put this in a separate thread but it is appropriate for this discussion.

There has been a recent Federal Court decisions that greatly affirms the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution that the government can't infringe upon.

Hatfield v US

Hatfield was convicted of a "felony" by virtue of lying on a railroad retirement board application decades ago. He wrongfully received 1600 dollars in compensation. And was then convicted of that crime and sentenced to probation.

He would like to own a gun now. But the Federal process for restoration of gun rights has languished without funding or support in congress. On a Federal level the Second Amendment doesn't apply to felons because of a 1949 law.

This court disagrees and is basically saying the Federal government has no compelling interest that would separate non-violent felons from Second Amendment protections.

The court decision basically reaffirms everything in the Heller and McDonald cases that the government seems to ignore.

In fact the Judges tell the stupid government to stop ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The best part of the ruling:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

The Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.

The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.

Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

 

[jon_berzerk]

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

It's because a "Militia" is not possible without weapons and well regulated meant, in those times, weapons that were well maintained and could be easily called upon. I find it funny though that "Militia" is often thought of as somehow just required to stage a Revolution against an oppressive government, which it could be. But it is also intended to be a supplement to a standing Army, or a last defense if that army became depleted.

if you go back to miller

the question that was asked

was miller's shotgun useful to the "military" not the militia

the question has yet to be answered

if the question is ever answered honestly

that will pretty much sink the 1934 firearms control act

and everything that has followed

Scalia mentioned that point in Heller.....

you are right indeed he did

and the leftards mostly confuse what he said

 

[Flash]

I was going to put this in a separate thread but it is appropriate for this discussion.

There has been a recent Federal Court decisions that greatly affirms the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution that the government can't infringe upon.

Hatfield v US

Hatfield was convicted of a "felony" by virtue of lying on a railroad retirement board application decades ago. He wrongfully received 1600 dollars in compensation. And was then convicted of that crime and sentenced to probation.

He would like to own a gun now. But the Federal process for restoration of gun rights has languished without funding or support in congress. On a Federal level the Second Amendment doesn't apply to felons because of a 1949 law.

This court disagrees and is basically saying the Federal government has no compelling interest that would separate non-violent felons from Second Amendment protections.

The court decision basically reaffirms everything in the Heller and McDonald cases that the government seems to ignore.

In fact the Judges tell the stupid government to stop ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The best part of the ruling:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

The Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.

The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.

Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

This case had to do with Federal law, not state law.

 

[Pop23]

If the left was right about the Second amendment it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

There would be no need for the rest

Or it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

but it doesn’t read either way. It 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.

Nuff said

 

[Flash]

If the left was right about the Second amendment it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

There would be no need for the rest

Or it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

but it doesn’t read either way. It 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.

Nuff said

...and this is basically what Scalia said in the Heller case.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I was going to put this in a separate thread but it is appropriate for this discussion.

There has been a recent Federal Court decisions that greatly affirms the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution that the government can't infringe upon.

Hatfield v US

Hatfield was convicted of a "felony" by virtue of lying on a railroad retirement board application decades ago. He wrongfully received 1600 dollars in compensation. And was then convicted of that crime and sentenced to probation.

He would like to own a gun now. But the Federal process for restoration of gun rights has languished without funding or support in congress. On a Federal level the Second Amendment doesn't apply to felons because of a 1949 law.

This court disagrees and is basically saying the Federal government has no compelling interest that would separate non-violent felons from Second Amendment protections.

The court decision basically reaffirms everything in the Heller and McDonald cases that the government seems to ignore.

In fact the Judges tell the stupid government to stop ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The best part of the ruling:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

The Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.

The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.

Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

This case had to do with Federal law, not state law.

Some felons can get there 2A rights back when they are taken. SHRUG

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the left was right about the Second amendment it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

There would be no need for the rest

Or it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

but it doesn’t read either way. It 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.

Nuff said

...and this is basically what Scalia said in the Heller case.

that certainly is

 

[Flash]

I was going to put this in a separate thread but it is appropriate for this discussion.

There has been a recent Federal Court decisions that greatly affirms the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution that the government can't infringe upon.

Hatfield v US

Hatfield was convicted of a "felony" by virtue of lying on a railroad retirement board application decades ago. He wrongfully received 1600 dollars in compensation. And was then convicted of that crime and sentenced to probation.

He would like to own a gun now. But the Federal process for restoration of gun rights has languished without funding or support in congress. On a Federal level the Second Amendment doesn't apply to felons because of a 1949 law.

This court disagrees and is basically saying the Federal government has no compelling interest that would separate non-violent felons from Second Amendment protections.

The court decision basically reaffirms everything in the Heller and McDonald cases that the government seems to ignore.

In fact the Judges tell the stupid government to stop ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The best part of the ruling:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

The Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.

The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.

Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

This case had to do with Federal law, not state law.

Some felons can get there 2A rights back when they are taken. SHRUG

In some states that is true but that did not happen on the Federal level when convicted of a Federal crime, which is why the judge ruled as he did.

The beauty of the case is not a judge telling the Feds they need to do what most states do but the fact that he said very specifically that the government needs to start treating the right to keep and bears like the individual right that it is.

 

[Pop23]

If the left was right about the Second amendment it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

There would be no need for the rest

Or it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

but it doesn’t read either way. It 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.

Nuff said

...and this is basically what Scalia said in the Heller case.

Yep, it’s embarrassing having to point this shit out over and over and over.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I was going to put this in a separate thread but it is appropriate for this discussion.

There has been a recent Federal Court decisions that greatly affirms the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution that the government can't infringe upon.

Hatfield v US

Hatfield was convicted of a "felony" by virtue of lying on a railroad retirement board application decades ago. He wrongfully received 1600 dollars in compensation. And was then convicted of that crime and sentenced to probation.

He would like to own a gun now. But the Federal process for restoration of gun rights has languished without funding or support in congress. On a Federal level the Second Amendment doesn't apply to felons because of a 1949 law.

This court disagrees and is basically saying the Federal government has no compelling interest that would separate non-violent felons from Second Amendment protections.

The court decision basically reaffirms everything in the Heller and McDonald cases that the government seems to ignore.

In fact the Judges tell the stupid government to stop ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The best part of the ruling:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

The Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.

The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.

Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

This case had to do with Federal law, not state law.

Some felons can get there 2A rights back when they are taken. SHRUG

In some states that is true but that did not happen on the Federal level when convicted of a Federal crime, which is why the judge ruled as he did.

The beauty of the case is not a judge telling the Feds they need to do what most states do but the fact that he said very specifically that the government needs to start treating the right to keep and bears like the individual right that it is.

What the judge is saying, in this particular case, is that the feds should act as the states do, the felony was not a violent felony, therefor he should have his 2A right reinstated.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I was going to put this in a separate thread but it is appropriate for this discussion.

There has been a recent Federal Court decisions that greatly affirms the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution that the government can't infringe upon.

Hatfield v US

Hatfield was convicted of a "felony" by virtue of lying on a railroad retirement board application decades ago. He wrongfully received 1600 dollars in compensation. And was then convicted of that crime and sentenced to probation.

He would like to own a gun now. But the Federal process for restoration of gun rights has languished without funding or support in congress. On a Federal level the Second Amendment doesn't apply to felons because of a 1949 law.

This court disagrees and is basically saying the Federal government has no compelling interest that would separate non-violent felons from Second Amendment protections.

The court decision basically reaffirms everything in the Heller and McDonald cases that the government seems to ignore.

In fact the Judges tell the stupid government to stop ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The best part of the ruling:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

The Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.

The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.

Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

This case had to do with Federal law, not state law.

Some felons can get there 2A rights back when they are taken. SHRUG

In some states that is true but that did not happen on the Federal level when convicted of a Federal crime, which is why the judge ruled as he did.

The beauty of the case is not a judge telling the Feds they need to do what most states do but the fact that he said very specifically that the government needs to start treating the right to keep and bears like the individual right that it is.

The judges ruling doesn't force the feds to give him his right to own a firearm back, the judge is merely saying the feds should do as the sates are doing, granting the right to own/posses firearms back to non-violent felons. Doesn't matter what the judge specifically opined regarding what the govt needs to start doing (federal judges get overturned more often then not), the 2A merely recognizes the existing right to own "weapons as allowed by law" from the 1689 EBoR for the owning and possessing of arms, it doesn't grant a right to own firearms or anything else. A felon being denied the ability to own a firearm doesn't effect his right to self-protection nor his ability to own/posses arms, nor is his 2A right infringed.

 

[Flash]

If the left was right about the Second amendment it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

There would be no need for the rest

Or it would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

but it doesn’t read either way. It 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.

Nuff said

...and this is basically what Scalia said in the Heller case.

Yep, it’s embarrassing having to point this shit out over and over and over.

That is because these Liberals don't want to hear it. It is like they put peanut butter in their ears or something.

 

[Flash]

I was going to put this in a separate thread but it is appropriate for this discussion.

There has been a recent Federal Court decisions that greatly affirms the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution that the government can't infringe upon.

Hatfield v US

Hatfield was convicted of a "felony" by virtue of lying on a railroad retirement board application decades ago. He wrongfully received 1600 dollars in compensation. And was then convicted of that crime and sentenced to probation.

He would like to own a gun now. But the Federal process for restoration of gun rights has languished without funding or support in congress. On a Federal level the Second Amendment doesn't apply to felons because of a 1949 law.

This court disagrees and is basically saying the Federal government has no compelling interest that would separate non-violent felons from Second Amendment protections.

The court decision basically reaffirms everything in the Heller and McDonald cases that the government seems to ignore.

In fact the Judges tell the stupid government to stop ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The best part of the ruling:

This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

The Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.

The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.

Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

This case had to do with Federal law, not state law.

Some felons can get there 2A rights back when they are taken. SHRUG

In some states that is true but that did not happen on the Federal level when convicted of a Federal crime, which is why the judge ruled as he did.

The beauty of the case is not a judge telling the Feds they need to do what most states do but the fact that he said very specifically that the government needs to start treating the right to keep and bears like the individual right that it is.

The judges ruling doesn't force the feds to give him his right to own a firearm back, the judge is merely saying the feds should do as the sates are doing, granting the right to own/posses firearms back to non-violent felons. Doesn't matter what the judge specifically opined regarding what the govt needs to start doing (federal judges get overturned more often then not), the 2A merely recognizes the existing right to own "weapons as allowed by law" from the 1689 EBoR for the owning and possessing of arms, it doesn't grant a right to own firearms or anything else. A felon being denied the ability to own a firearm doesn't effect his right to self-protection nor his ability to own/posses arms, nor is his 2A right infringed.

The judge also said:


This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.

That is admonishment to the filthy Federal government to stop stepping on our Constitutional rights. The best part of the ruling. I bet the filthy ass Feds won't appeal the case because they don't want the Supremes to rule on it.

As far as your point about "arms" not being modern firearms then that is a position that is simply too silly and too convoluted for me to waste my time responding to.

The point of modern firearms being protected under the Second Amendment was also address under the Heller case so that argument is not only silly but moot.