How do you view our gun policy and second amendment?

[FA_Q2]

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, that is specifically cited in the opinion of the court as being invalid.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

That is how asinine that particular statement is - the court blankly states it is bordering on frivolous.

.

to all instruments that constitute bearable arms

restricting firearms to a period is not the same as: that constitute firearms - the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


as defined as: bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine - for Firearms. just as any other Arm may be defined.

.

What are you getting at?


The SCOTUS directly stated it was not constitutional to apply the second only to weapons of any specific period and that the right clearly applied to modern forms of arms.


If your claim is that it would be constitutional to control weapons based on a period of time then you would be blatantly violating that ruling.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

Keep proving just how ignorant you are, it is entertaining.

Ignorant about what? I know all I need to do is find a First Sergeant to have you change your opinion.

You claim a case that clearly states that the 2nd Amendment is a personal individual right unconnected with Militia service is not actually that. You have been asked to explain why the Case in Heller failed if a person MUST belong to a militia as you claim. You keep claim a paragraph that simply states that no right is absolute is actually proof it is not a right. Like I said IGNORANT as hell.

My point is simple; no case law can override our supreme code law of the land. It is either in our supreme law of the land or it doesn't exist if we have to quibble this point before the Judicature. I already know the Right has no Thing but fallacy to work with.

You claim the right has nothing but fallacy to work with than reject the MOUNTAINS of evidence that constitute case lay, the common usage of the wording at the time and the actual meaning of those terms used in the second amendment not to mention blatantly misreading the amendment itself as it directly refers to the right of the people.


You are the one that has nothing but fallacy. You have yet to point to a single logical point and continually demand others are using fallacy. That is awfully blatant even for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

restricting firearms to a period is not the same as: that constitute firearms - the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
as defined as: bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine - for Firearms. just as any other Arm may be defined.

The 2nd protects any firearm that is commonly used for any of the traditionally purposes someone might have for a firearm.
Your arbitrary limitation is therefore unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

Keep proving just how ignorant you are, it is entertaining.

Ignorant about what? I know all I need to do is find a First Sergeant to have you change your opinion.

You claim a case that clearly states that the 2nd Amendment is a personal individual right unconnected with Militia service is not actually that. You have been asked to explain why the Case in Heller failed if a person MUST belong to a militia as you claim. You keep claim a paragraph that simply states that no right is absolute is actually proof it is not a right. Like I said IGNORANT as hell.

My point is simple; no case law can override our supreme code law of the land. It is either in our supreme law of the land or it doesn't exist if we have to quibble this point before the Judicature. I already know the Right has no Thing but fallacy to work with.

You claim the right has nothing but fallacy to work with than reject the MOUNTAINS of evidence that constitute case lay, the common usage of the wording at the time and the actual meaning of those terms used in the second amendment not to mention blatantly misreading the amendment itself as it directly refers to the right of the people.
You are the one that has nothing but fallacy. You have yet to point to a single logical point and continually demand others are using fallacy. That is awfully blatant even for you.

He's lying to you.