Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[Ringel05]

Thanks for pointing out again your view that "militia" referred to those who knew how to handle weapons. That helps show why it wasn't a blanket "right" given to just anyone.

Please, stop contorting yourself into a pretzel in a pathetic attempt to drive that square militia peg through the round hole of the people. It is excruciatingly painful to watch.

Do I need to post the Founders and authors of the Constitutions own words again?

You are fighting a battle that was lost more than 220 years ago...a lose that was reaffirmed with Heller.

Pay attention or don't comment. I was pointing out how CS tried to explain that "well regulated militia" was referring to people who knew how to use guns. That would mean the 2nd didn't give a blanket right for everyone to own guns. We also know it was illegal for certain people to own guns at that time so that is further proof the 2nd does not say what some are claiming. By all means, post the words of the founders that you think presents the strongest evidence your interpretation is correct.

Also, do people know what militias were in the 18th century?

Nice try at verbal gymnastics, keep it up, you might actually convince someone with an IQ of 65 or lower that you are right.
And yes I know, militias in America during that time period consisted of all able bodied men in the location where they were called up, providing for the common defense using their own weapons.

 

[CurveLight]

Please, stop contorting yourself into a pretzel in a pathetic attempt to drive that square militia peg through the round hole of the people. It is excruciatingly painful to watch.

Do I need to post the Founders and authors of the Constitutions own words again?

You are fighting a battle that was lost more than 220 years ago...a lose that was reaffirmed with Heller.

Pay attention or don't comment. I was pointing out how CS tried to explain that "well regulated militia" was referring to people who knew how to use guns. That would mean the 2nd didn't give a blanket right for everyone to own guns. We also know it was illegal for certain people to own guns at that time so that is further proof the 2nd does not say what some are claiming. By all means, post the words of the founders that you think presents the strongest evidence your interpretation is correct.

Also, do people know what militias were in the 18th century?

Nice try at verbal gymnastics, keep it up, you might actually convince someone with an IQ of 65 or lower that you are right.
And yes I know, militias in America during that time period consisted of all able bodied men in the location where they were called up, providing for the common defense using their own weapons.

Thank for affirming the 2nd is for the "common defense." That shows it was not about individuals.

 

[Chris]

This is actually quite relevant to the "militia" issue. The people shown generally had no clue about the recoil of the guns they were attempting to handle. Getting a feel for the kick when you fire takes practice, so an attempt to levy a militia now would work best when the people had experience handling firearms.

Thanks for pointing out again your view that "militia" referred to those who knew how to handle weapons. That helps show why it wasn't a blanket "right" given to just anyone.

Please, stop contorting yourself into a pretzel in a pathetic attempt to drive that square militia peg through the round hole of the people. It is excruciatingly painful to watch.

Do I need to post the Founders and authors of the Constitutions own words again?

You are fighting a battle that was lost more than 220 years ago...a lose that was reaffirmed with Heller.

You mean the part where the constitution says that black people count as "three fifths of a person?"

 

[CurveLight]

Here's good breakdown of the 2nd that is consistent. Some key points:

The subject of the sentence is "well regulated militia." That means we find the focus there and not on individuals.

When the phrase "the people" was used it referred specifically to the State and not individuals. This can be verified in contrast to the 5th where it says "No person...." That is an example of individuals being the focus.

The term "arms" was not endemic to guns. It was a term specifically referring to military weapons which would include cannons and naval ships.

The one sentence 2nd Amendment was revised several times with each phrase or word carrying an immutable meaning. This is why SCOTUS stayed away from it for so long.
Associated Content Mobile


It also explains why Heller is over celebrated regarding the 2nd. For those who don't know....DC is not a State.

 

[uscitizen]

Bearing open arms can cause you to get sunburned arms.

That liberal santa is gonna steal em all this christmas anyway.

 

[Contumacious]

You mean the part where the constitution says that black people count as "three fifths of a person?"

The Federal Constitution did , does, not limit the rights of Negroes.

That proviso applies only to the apportioning of representatives
The second section establishes rules for the apportioning of representatives in U.S. Congress to states, essentially making the proportion of that state's representation equal to that state's proportion of the nation's population excluding males under the age of 21, the disenfranchised, and Indians who do not pay taxes. This overrode the provisions of the Constitution that counted slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of allotting seats in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College

.

 

[JD_2B]

Pay attention or don't comment. I was pointing out how CS tried to explain that "well regulated militia" was referring to people who knew how to use guns. That would mean the 2nd didn't give a blanket right for everyone to own guns. We also know it was illegal for certain people to own guns at that time so that is further proof the 2nd does not say what some are claiming. By all means, post the words of the founders that you think presents the strongest evidence your interpretation is correct.

Also, do people know what militias were in the 18th century?

Nice try at verbal gymnastics, keep it up, you might actually convince someone with an IQ of 65 or lower that you are right.
And yes I know, militias in America during that time period consisted of all able bodied men in the location where they were called up, providing for the common defense using their own weapons.

Thank for affirming the 2nd is for the "common defense." That shows it was not about individuals.

Well, common really meant for the common good.. by the commonwealth..

And I think that what Ringel meant about the militia is the same as what is considered a militia today. Not a military, but like the NRA being a militia in it's own right. A group of armed citizens willing to stand up much like they did during the inception of the formation of this great nation, and fight against tyranny and oppression.

Petitions only precede the use of force, now. It is not the government's place to regulate our possession and use of arms, but our group leaders who regulate us, to ensure that the government is kept in its place.

The mere threat of having a great deal of civilians marching on the state capital, is so damned scary to our current oppressive government, that guns have been disallowed from courthouses, federal buildings, and our own nation's capital. Doesn't that bother you, even slightly?

 

[immto]

Nice try at verbal gymnastics, keep it up, you might actually convince someone with an IQ of 65 or lower that you are right.
And yes I know, militias in America during that time period consisted of all able bodied men in the location where they were called up, providing for the common defense using their own weapons.

Thank for affirming the 2nd is for the "common defense." That shows it was not about individuals.

Well, common really meant for the common good.. by the commonwealth..

And I think that what Ringel meant about the militia is the same as what is considered a militia today. Not a military, but like the NRA being a militia in it's own right. A group of armed citizens willing to stand up much like they did during the inception of the formation of this great nation, and fight against tyranny and oppression.

Petitions only precede the use of force, now. It is not the government's place to regulate our possession and use of arms, but our group leaders who regulate us, to ensure that the government is kept in its place.

The mere threat of having a great deal of civilians marching on the state capital, is so damned scary to our current oppressive government, that guns have been disallowed from courthouses, federal buildings, and our own nation's capital. Doesn't that bother you, even slightly?

It bothers me. It seems like every time I turn on the T.V. or listen to the radio I hear more anti-gun retoric. That Major Hassen guy who shot and killed 14 at Ft. Hood was the "armed GUNMEN" not a radical terrorist of a fanactically psyco, no, a gunmen. ABC radio still does not use his title when addressing him of mention he is even a soldier. If you don't follow news you might actually be led to believe he was just some scumbag who got a gun. Then, because of how evil guns are he could'nt help himself and he had to shoot all those poeple. Soldiers, men and women who should have and did feel as safe as humanly possiable, were shot dead by one of their own on thier own base by an officer. Then ABC still reports that his motives are still uncleer.

In more simple terms a militia could be my neighbor and I whether or not we are part of the NRA, (I am a Life Member but that's beside the point) as long as we are armed, ready and willing to fight in group for our nation.

 

[Ryan]

That case being found for McDonald would be AWESOME because it could overturn the slaughterhouse ruling of 1873 that made the 14th amendment apply the bill of rights to the respective states. =)
Let's hope this one is a landmark..

Heller already decided that the 2nd AM is an individual right to bear arms, but since the question presented only concerned DC's gun ban, it did NOT incorporate it to the states.


Slaughterhouse concerned citizenship, state v. federal. The question was not of in toto incorporation of the Bill of Rights, that process "started" in the early 1920's.


McDonald WILL incorporate the 2nd's individual right to the states, as to have it apply to DC and not the whole country is not Constitutionally sound, period.

I am of the understanding that Slaughterhouse was the first in a series that included the bill of rights to the 14th amendment's notion that states can regulate..

PS I know wiki is a shitty source, but Im feeling lazy today, lol

Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My understanding is McDonald v Chicago will address the 2nd A. applied either to the "due process" clause or the "privilege and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, focusing largely on the legality of restrictive gun laws at the state and local levels. The Mayor of Chicago has sought this legal fight as the city pluges deeper into the red with all the evidence to the contrary that over 25 years of an almost complete gun ban has paid any dividends.

 

[Ryan]

I don't understand being against backround checks, is my only thing. I want everyone to be able to carry, except Violent Criminals and crazies, of course. I don't see the good in allowing them Guns. If someone can help me with that, perhaps I'll see it differently. But I'm all for guns to everyone who isn't a convicted violent offender or a psychologically-fucked person.

My only concern with background checks is that the government should have zero information on whether or not I'm interested in buying a gun. It's none of their business.

Should violent criminals be prevented from buying them? Yes, they should. But should the government be notified when I'm buying or shopping? No, they should not.

By law NICS must destroy the records within 72 hours. I know for certain that TBI, which does our background checks, does so.
I also know for certain that ATF keeps a database of multiple sales reports.

By what law? In Illinois when a background check is performed, the Il. State Police maintain a database record of any transaction involving a FF dealer. Illinois SP had been maintaining this database for sometime and I believe the Il. State Rifle Association challenged the legality of this database. At the time John Ashcroft was the US Attorney General. Ashcroft order the database be eliminated until the (former) Governor Blagovich claimed that this record system was necessary for the war on terrorism. I doubt the disgraced Balgo offered anything then his word for this claim. Either way Ashcroft handed the issue to the DoJ which to no ones surprise gave the ok to continue the database. At least the ISP only hands the info to the local authorities based on specific criteria, otherwise Mayor Richie Daley's C.A.G.E. teams would bring back memories of his daddy's "red squad."

The FF 4473 used to warn that the purchase of 2 or more handguns within a month could result in a BATFE investgation, the reason this is no longer on the forms is left up to your own conclusion. Just remember that the BATFE is still watching the same handgun purchases within a month.

 

[Ringel05]

Pay attention or don't comment. I was pointing out how CS tried to explain that "well regulated militia" was referring to people who knew how to use guns. That would mean the 2nd didn't give a blanket right for everyone to own guns. We also know it was illegal for certain people to own guns at that time so that is further proof the 2nd does not say what some are claiming. By all means, post the words of the founders that you think presents the strongest evidence your interpretation is correct.

Also, do people know what militias were in the 18th century?

Nice try at verbal gymnastics, keep it up, you might actually convince someone with an IQ of 65 or lower that you are right.
And yes I know, militias in America during that time period consisted of all able bodied men in the location where they were called up, providing for the common defense using their own weapons.

Thank for affirming the 2nd is for the "common defense." That shows it was not about individuals.

Conveniently missed the part about using their own weapons, which they used for hunting and personal defense of hearth and home. Decisively proves you read only what you want to read, hence anything you post concerning this issue has been taken completely out of context for you to simply present a lie as fact. Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

 

[Contumacious]

The subject of the sentence is "well regulated militia." That means we find the focus there and not on individuals..

Now I understand why Founding Father Alexander Hamilton opposed the BOR. He predicted that scumbags such as yourself would INTENTIONALLY misread the amendments:


"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."


Alexander Hamilton

.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Thanks for pointing out again your view that "militia" referred to those who knew how to handle weapons. That helps show why it wasn't a blanket "right" given to just anyone.

Please, stop contorting yourself into a pretzel in a pathetic attempt to drive that square militia peg through the round hole of the people. It is excruciatingly painful to watch.

Do I need to post the Founders and authors of the Constitutions own words again?

You are fighting a battle that was lost more than 220 years ago...a lose that was reaffirmed with Heller.

You mean the part where the constitution says that black people count as "three fifths of a person?"

Troll

 

[JD_2B]

In more simple terms a militia could be my neighbor and I whether or not we are part of the NRA, (I am a Life Member but that's beside the point) as long as we are armed, ready and willing to fight in group for our nation.

Immto- I agree.. Who knows if this shrink had transferrance issues or something, caused by doing his job, treating people with PTSD and other combat related afflictions. He was getting ready to be sent over to the country of his roots, to kill people who shared his own faith. I figure, if you put it all together, it kinda just adds up to one suicidal dude, who decided to take out some of his military comrades while he was at it, out of (who knows) anger and resentment, or having flashbacks from the transferrance issues?? That is SO commonplace, it seems. Like, every shrink who ever lived has all these damned issues based on the sheer amount of psychological crap they have had to deal with. You have to also assume that all shrinks have some strange Florence Nightingale like disorder to begin with, anyways.

I agree.. My neighbors and I are all armed too, and we are all combat ready, to handle attacks from anyone- We all got each other's backs. In Florida, there is this stand your ground rule that says you can use force without retreating, and even use deadly force to save another person, if you feel that there is an imminent threat to the other person's life. I love Florida!! =)

 

[Tech_Esq]

In more simple terms a militia could be my neighbor and I whether or not we are part of the NRA, (I am a Life Member but that's beside the point) as long as we are armed, ready and willing to fight in group for our nation.

Immto- I agree.. Who knows if this shrink had transferrance issues or something, caused by doing his job, treating people with PTSD and other combat related afflictions. He was getting ready to be sent over to the country of his roots, to kill people who shared his own faith. I figure, if you put it all together, it kinda just adds up to one suicidal dude, who decided to take out some of his military comrades while he was at it, out of (who knows) anger and resentment, or having flashbacks from the transferrance issues?? That is SO commonplace, it seems. Like, every shrink who ever lived has all these damned issues based on the sheer amount of psychological crap they have had to deal with. You have to also assume that all shrinks have some strange Florence Nightingale like disorder to begin with, anyways.

I agree.. My neighbors and I are all armed too, and we are all combat ready, to handle attacks from anyone- We all got each other's backs. In Florida, there is this stand your ground rule that says you can use force without retreating, and even use deadly force to save another person, if you feel that there is an imminent threat to the other person's life. I love Florida!! =)

I agree with your second amendment analysis. I would only mention that the Army does not send psychologists overseas to kill anyone. They simply do their jobs closer to the front with acute cases rather than the ones they might see stateside. So, other than being the victim of some kind of random bombing or rocket attack, he wouldn't have been in much different circumstances than he was here. In any case, there is no excuse for his actions. He committed a treasonous act. That is taking up arms against his country, and therefore, should be tried for treason among his other crimes.

Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy

-- Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

 

[sealybobo]

How come no one carries openly? We were talking about this at deer camp this weekend. If its legal, I dare you to start wearing your side arm out in public. Let us know how that works out for you.

As soon as I'm sure it is legal, I will be wearing my side arm openly. But I won't be the first. Will you?

 

[Tech_Esq]

How come no one carries openly? We were talking about this at deer camp this weekend. If its legal, I dare you to start wearing your side arm out in public. Let us know how that works out for you.

As soon as I'm sure it is legal, I will be wearing my side arm openly. But I won't be the first. Will you?

As a practical matter, it wouldn't work very well for me. I have a sports car and wearing my Browning Hi-Power on my hip wouldn't be good for me or my car seat. That's leaving aside that I have to go into Washington, DC most days and go through a metal detector. So, I have cross-jurisdictional issues, government building issues, police issues....lol, car issues etc.

If I were just out in public and didn't have those issues would I open carry?

I think that I would worry that I would want to go someplace (like a bar) where you can't have a firearm. Then, what would I do with it? So, it seems inconvenient. I'm all about convenience too. I used to use a money clip, but I had a project in the US Supreme Court and I got tired of having to unclip the cash to get through the metal detector so I stopped using a money clip....lol. A pistol is a lot bigger headache than a money clip.

I've only rarely wished I had a pistol and on half of those occasions, it's probably a good thing I didn't. It only would have made a bad problem worse.

 

[The Rabbi]

How come no one carries openly? We were talking about this at deer camp this weekend. If its legal, I dare you to start wearing your side arm out in public. Let us know how that works out for you.

As soon as I'm sure it is legal, I will be wearing my side arm openly. But I won't be the first. Will you?

I've done it when the weather is hot. But overall people don't do it because it's stupid.

 

[SFC Ollie]

How come no one carries openly? We were talking about this at deer camp this weekend. If its legal, I dare you to start wearing your side arm out in public. Let us know how that works out for you.

As soon as I'm sure it is legal, I will be wearing my side arm openly. But I won't be the first. Will you?

I've done it when the weather is hot. But overall people don't do it because it's stupid.

I do when I'm out for a walk, normally down along the river. Not when we are going to a store or any thing of course.

Almost have the local police chief convinced to let me fire a few rounds from one of their M16's up at the local Rod and Gun some day.

That should bring back some memories.

 

[JD_2B]

I agree with your second amendment analysis. I would only mention that the Army does not send psychologists overseas to kill anyone. They simply do their jobs closer to the front with acute cases rather than the ones they might see stateside. So, other than being the victim of some kind of random bombing or rocket attack, he wouldn't have been in much different circumstances than he was here. In any case, there is no excuse for his actions. He committed a treasonous act. That is taking up arms against his country, and therefore, should be tried for treason among his other crimes.

Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy

-- Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

I agree that he should be tried for the multiple murders.. I just doubt that his mental state will not be seriously considered, if this case is tried fairly.

Also, it should be mentioned and noted that even though he would mostly be offering solace to the wounded, either physically or spiritually, he would also be doing such as a means to treat men to go back out to battle against people who are, fundamentally, his kindred spirits, possibly family/ cousins, etc.

And, he did not commit treason. That is absolutely ridiculous. He did not incite war, or encourage it. He went on a killing spree, YES.. but that is a far cry from aiding enemy troops or levying war.
Certainly he posed himself as a domestic threat and enemy himself, but his service record was otherwise clean.

I would venture to say that many people would not have this exact attitude against a white man. It is what it is.. and what it is is already awful. No need to turn it into something that is not real, clear, and necessary, as far as an indictment is concerned.

How come no one carries openly? We were talking about this at deer camp this weekend. If its legal, I dare you to start wearing your side arm out in public. Let us know how that works out for you.

As soon as I'm sure it is legal, I will be wearing my side arm openly. But I won't be the first. Will you?

Nobody carries openly anymore because the states have twisted the 2nd into something revoltingly different than what it originally stood to mean.

Even a hundred years ago, people carried openly. Some states still allow open carry, like having your hunting rifle on a rack, on the back window of your truck. Only handguns are not allowed to be in plain sight, and you are allowed to carry even those TO your car or home, in Texas.

PENAL CODE   CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
Sec. 46.02