Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I was speaking only to the theory that the 2nd is limited to weapons that could be handled by individuals.
It is. That is why it is limited to arms the individual can bear. All the other extreme examples you use are prohibited by law, the Constitutionality of which is not at issue.
and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.
Not according to SCOTUS.
well thank your for admitting that I was correct when I said that the 2nd did not mention individual weapon platforms, that is only how the court has interpreted it.
The fact is the 2nd was poorly written and needs a reboot.
Of course no one should have the ability to acquire a nuclear warhead, but under the current 2nd it is unconstitutional to say they can't.
We need a new amendment to protect gun owners as much as to keep weapons out of the hands of people who ought not have weapons.
Not according to SCOTUS.
well thank your for admitting that I was correct when I said that the 2nd did not mention individual weapon platforms, that is only how the court has interpreted it.
The fact is the 2nd was poorly written and needs a reboot.
Of course no one should have the ability to acquire a nuclear warhead, but under the current 2nd it is unconstitutional to say they can't.
We need a new amendment to protect gun owners as much as to keep weapons out of the hands of people who ought not have weapons.
Or it was brilliantly composed with the likely intent to allow for persons in every generation [to] invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom, as Justice Kennedy noted in Lawrence.
The Constitution endures and is immutable, as are its principles, thus those principles may be used by later generations to realize greater liberty, and shed laws that serve only to oppress.
As with the Framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments, had the Framers of the Second Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight.
well thank your for admitting that I was correct when I said that the 2nd did not mention individual weapon platforms, that is only how the court has interpreted it.
The fact is the 2nd was poorly written and needs a reboot.
Of course no one should have the ability to acquire a nuclear warhead, but under the current 2nd it is unconstitutional to say they can't.
We need a new amendment to protect gun owners as much as to keep weapons out of the hands of people who ought not have weapons.
Or it was brilliantly composed with the likely intent to allow for persons in every generation [to] invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom, as Justice Kennedy noted in Lawrence.
The Constitution endures and is immutable, as are its principles, thus those principles may be used by later generations to realize greater liberty, and shed laws that serve only to oppress.
As with the Framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments, had the Framers of the Second Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight.
I've said much the same. People who pretend like the founders had all the answers are wrong. The founders themselves knew they didn't have all the answers, which is precisely why they did the most brilliant thing of all and made the constitution amendable.
Or it was brilliantly composed with the likely intent to allow for persons in every generation [to] invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom, as Justice Kennedy noted in Lawrence.
The Constitution endures and is immutable, as are its principles, thus those principles may be used by later generations to realize greater liberty, and shed laws that serve only to oppress.
As with the Framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments, had the Framers of the Second Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight.
I've said much the same. People who pretend like the founders had all the answers are wrong. The founders themselves knew they didn't have all the answers, which is precisely why they did the most brilliant thing of all and made the constitution amendable.
They also understood that the Constitution would be subject to interpretation by the courts, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
They understood that the judicial process would be the means by which the people would realize greater liberty.
Amending the Constitution should be exceedingly rare.
For me, having the Supreme Court use the Constitution as the basis for their decisions is not only extremely important, but necessary. Just what was the court suppose to do with the matters brought to it? In fact, they don't even accpet all cases.
I was speaking only to the theory that the 2nd is limited to weapons that could be handled by individuals.
It is. That is why it is limited to arms the individual can bear. All the other extreme examples you use are prohibited by law, the Constitutionality of which is not at issue.
and again, those words are not found in the 2nd. Some judges have simply decided they were implied and ruled it that way, and THAT is why so many people are arguing about what the founding fathers really mean.
Much better to actually spell it out with a new amendment.
I've said much the same. People who pretend like the founders had all the answers are wrong. The founders themselves knew they didn't have all the answers, which is precisely why they did the most brilliant thing of all and made the constitution amendable.
They also understood that the Constitution would be subject to interpretation by the courts, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
They understood that the judicial process would be the means by which the people would realize greater liberty.
Amending the Constitution should be exceedingly rare.
You do realize that SCOTUS in fact took the power of judicial review and in fact no such power is actually delegated within the COTUS right?
It simply is not there.
Now some could and would argue that it's a good thing that we have the SCOTUS to do judicial review, and maybe it is, but it is NOT in the constitution.
For me, having the Supreme Court use the Constitution as the basis for their decisions is not only extremely important, but necessary. Just what was the court suppose to do with the matters brought to it? In fact, they don't even accpet all cases.
I agree, they should use the COTUS as the basis for their decisions. But they are not supposed to be making decisions about whether laws are constitutional or not. That is not a power delegated to them by the COTUS.
It is. That is why it is limited to arms the individual can bear. All the other extreme examples you use are prohibited by law, the Constitutionality of which is not at issue.
and again, those words are not found in the 2nd. Some judges have simply decided they were implied and ruled it that way, and THAT is why so many people are arguing about what the founding fathers really mean.
Much better to actually spell it out with a new amendment.
The Constitution denies to the States any Armed naval vessels. As in the only strategic arm that existed at that time. It clearly means strategic weapons are not allowed by States or Individuals. There go most of your arguments right there. As to crew served weapons they are already highly controlled and have passed their own Supreme Court tests. That leaves arms in the 2nd to mean personal individual Arms. And THAT is what the Courts have ruled repeatedly. The second is clear as a bell.
You don't like it? make a new amendment, get it through Congress and approved by 37 States. That is your only Constitutional option.
I was speaking only to the theory that the 2nd is limited to weapons that could be handled by individuals.
It is. That is why it is limited to arms the individual can bear. All the other extreme examples you use are prohibited by law, the Constitutionality of which is not at issue.
and again, those words are not found in the 2nd. Some judges have simply decided they were implied and ruled it that way, and THAT is why so many people are arguing about what the founding fathers really mean.
Much better to actually spell it out with a new amendment.
well, i did say "arguably", and did so with the knowledge that someone would bring up nukes.
nukes, and any weapon of mass destruction, are offensive weapons and not designed to protect the individual's rights. they are also indiscriminate as to their target. and this is not to mention many are governed by international law or treaty.
Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity. However, it does permit a loose idea of "regulation." That was the genius of the 2nd Amendment. The speed or degree at which arms technology develops is whatever it is. A reasonable expectation of who is capable and responsible enough to have possession of certain types of arms exists, within the context of a "well-regulated militia."
The 39 ruling of the Supreme Court is clear. In order to be protected by the 2nd a weapon must be in use, of use or common to the military. As for nukes they are not arms, they are strategic assets and the Constitution is clear that Strategic assets are forbidden to the States much less the people. Perhaps you should read the Constitution.
Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity. However, it does permit a loose idea of "regulation." That was the genius of the 2nd Amendment. The speed or degree at which arms technology develops is whatever it is. A reasonable expectation of who is capable and responsible enough to have possession of certain types of arms exists, within the context of a "well-regulated militia."
The 39 ruling of the Supreme Court is clear. In order to be protected by the 2nd a weapon must be in use, of use or common to the military. As for nukes they are not arms, they are strategic assets and the Constitution is clear that Strategic assets are forbidden to the States much less the people. Perhaps you should read the Constitution.
Not quite, in common use at the time with regard to what civilians own, the weapons you currently own now, unconnected with militia (military) service, used in a lawful manner.
There can be some overlap, of course, such a the M9/Beretta 92 FS.
Private ownership of nuclear weapons is lawfully prohibited because they are deemed dangerous and unusual, owning such weapons is not Constitutionally protected accordingly.
JR was not written into the Constitution and did not exist until the court gave itself the power to do so in 1803.They also understood that the Constitution would be subject to interpretation by the courts, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.Or it was brilliantly composed with the likely intent to allow for persons in every generation [to] invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom, as Justice Kennedy noted in Lawrence.
The Constitution endures and is immutable, as are its principles, thus those principles may be used by later generations to realize greater liberty, and shed laws that serve only to oppress.
As with the Framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments, had the Framers of the Second Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight.
I've said much the same. People who pretend like the founders had all the answers are wrong. The founders themselves knew they didn't have all the answers, which is precisely why they did the most brilliant thing of all and made the constitution amendable.
That is very much NOT the sense of the wording from Miller.Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity. However, it does permit a loose idea of "regulation." That was the genius of the 2nd Amendment. The speed or degree at which arms technology develops is whatever it is. A reasonable expectation of who is capable and responsible enough to have possession of certain types of arms exists, within the context of a "well-regulated militia."
The 39 ruling of the Supreme Court is clear. In order to be protected by the 2nd a weapon must be in use, of use or common to the military. As for nukes they are not arms, they are strategic assets and the Constitution is clear that Strategic assets are forbidden to the States much less the people. Perhaps you should read the Constitution.
Not quite, ‘in common use at the time’ with regard to what civilians own, the weapons you currently own now, unconnected with militia (military) service, used in a lawful manner.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
?You can't amend the Bill of Rights
