REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

[M14 Shooter]

I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.

Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.

The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.

Except, of course, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is spcefically mentioned in and protected by the constitution, whereas the right to an abortion, and its constitutional protection, had to be manufactured.
Other than that, sure, they're the same.

Good to see you agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

The right of the people in the 2nd amendment is a reference to the right of the people of the states to have a militia.

Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

A ban on personal ownership of machine guns, or semi-automatic assault weapons, does not violate the 2nd amendment because it does not prevent the states from arming their militias with such weapons,

Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

nor does it does not violate the de facto right of the people to own weapons for hunting, sport, or self defense,

Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

because viable alternatives to the banned weapons are permitted.

By the same argument, banning Islam does not violate the 1st amendment because you can still be a Jew.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.

Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.

The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.

total fucking bull shit.

It's already been established that the government can strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on)

Please cite the ruling from the SCotUS that says this.
Please be sure to cite the text to that effect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

total fucking bull shit.

It's already been established that the government can strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on)

Please cite the ruling from the SCotUS that says this.
Please be sure to cite the text to that effect.

It’s in Heller, referencing Miller:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Heller Court therefore extrapolates from Miller the parameters determining what is and is not subject to Second Amendment protection, to wit: weapons in common use at the time verses those dangerous and unusual, e.g., machineguns/fully automatic rifles, as regulated by the NFA.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's already been established that the government can strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on)

Please cite the ruling from the SCotUS that says this.
Please be sure to cite the text to that effect.

It’s in Heller, referencing Miller:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Heller Court therefore extrapolates from Miller the parameters determining what is and is not subject to Second Amendment protection, to wit: weapons in common use at the time verses those dangerous and unusual, e.g., machineguns/fully automatic rifles, as regulated by the NFA.

Ah.... but none of this was part of the rulling - the holding of the case. This is dicta, part of the opinion.

There -is- no ruling that upholds the power of the government to strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on).

 

[NYcarbineer]

total fucking bull shit.

It's already been established that the government can strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on)

Please cite the ruling from the SCotUS that says this.
Please be sure to cite the text to that effect.

Why do I need a SCOTUS ruling? The 1986 ban hasn't been challenged, has it? The 94 assault weapons ban stood unchallenged until it expired, didn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except, of course, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is spcefically mentioned in and protected by the constitution, whereas the right to an abortion, and its constitutional protection, had to be manufactured.
Other than that, sure, they're the same.

Good to see you agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

The right of the people in the 2nd amendment is a reference to the right of the people of the states to have a militia.

Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

nor does it does not violate the de facto right of the people to own weapons for hunting, sport, or self defense,

Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

because viable alternatives to the banned weapons are permitted.

By the same argument, banning Islam does not violate the 1st amendment because you can still be a Jew.

I said before, you can't seem to read, the individual right is protected with or without the 2nd amendment.

You're arguing for the right of individuals to own machine guns in a manner no different than they would own a shotgun. That is not a protected right under the 2nd amendment. The states have the right to arm their militias with machine guns, that is protected in the 2nd amendment.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent Oppression at the hands of a Tyrannical Gov't, just as the Founding Fathers suffered under the hand of the British.

Sure, the 'oppressed' founding fathers were more worried about the common man being oppressed than having their 'perfect union' go down in history as a failure.

Put yourself in their shoes. Governments are getting overthrown all over the place. You are a rich landowner who just created a new government which might not be overwhelmingly popular with the masses. I know! Let's give them all guns.

Some of them might have thought so but the clause 'a well regulated militia' got thrown in there as a safety mechanism. Sorry but that is just the way it went down.

Key word. "A Rich Land Owner". Just so happens that the Federal government is the largest land owner in the U.S. and Oblamer is attempting to create a new government that involves the oppression and enslavement of future generations of Americans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The talk about tyranny so far amounts to typical radio talk show hyperbole. No one here is living under tyranny. That's not to say tyranny cannot exist here as it has. But the Civil rights movement proved that tyranny can be repressed by means other than armed insurrection. That's not to say armed insurrection hasn't happened here. But killing 168 innocents at a federal building certainly wasn't on the minds of the founding fathers as they compromised and drafted the Bill of Rights.

If any of you wannabe Rambos wants to tell us all about the tyranny you suffer with, we're glad to help. But a squabble about the top marginal tax rate or health care or any other issue you have with the current President of the United States pales before lynching and segregated lunch counters and repressed voting rights, doesn't it?

The mere act of Congress passing laws the Right doesn't like is now under the category of 'tyranny' according to the rightwing propaganda machine.

The far right, the far left, and the libertarians all resent electoral, constitutional process

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's already been established that the government can strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on)

Please cite the ruling from the SCotUS that says this.
Please be sure to cite the text to that effect.

Why do I need a SCOTUS ruling?

Because without such a thing, it is impossible to soundly argue that "it has been established".

I shall take youe refusal to post such a citation as a concession of the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right of the people in the 2nd amendment is a reference to the right of the people of the states to have a militia.

Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


Your statement is a lie.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

because viable alternatives to the banned weapons are permitted.

By the same argument, banning Islam does not violate the 1st amendment because you can still be a Jew.

I said before, you can't seem to read, the individual right is protected with or without the 2nd amendment.

No, you said:

The right of the people in the 2nd amendment is a reference to the right of the people of the states to have a militia

This is a lie.

You're arguing for the right of individuals to own machine guns in a manner no different than they would own a shotgun.

Gven that machineguns fall under "arms", you are correct - the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear both.

That is not a protected right under the 2nd amendment.

US v Miller, which dictates the determination of what weapons ar eptrotected by the 2nd, says otherwise.

The states have the right to arm their militias with machine guns, that is protected in the 2nd amendment.

This is also a lie; the 2nd does not protect the righ of the states to do anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 Shooter's argument fails.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's already been established that the government can strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on)

Please cite the ruling from the SCotUS that says this.
Please be sure to cite the text to that effect.

Why do I need a SCOTUS ruling? The 1986 ban hasn't been challenged, has it? The 94 assault weapons ban stood unchallenged until it expired, didn't it?

If this ban is passed and signed it will be challenged.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

M14 Shooter's argument fails.

Jakes just a failure

 

[AmericanFirst]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Are you a libtard that doesn't understand what this country is about? Tehn you need to move to socialist europe where you might be happy.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Remember when the Right used to bristle and howl in protest whenever someone pointed out how they were obsessed with Gays, Guns, and God?

Who was right or wrong about that???

The right. The left is wrong on all three of those issues. I follow God, I own guns, and I read my Bible. I am a conservative, not a libtard commie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Remember when the Right used to bristle and howl in protest whenever someone pointed out how they were obsessed with Gays, Guns, and God?

Who was right or wrong about that???

The right. The left is wrong on all three of those issues. I follow God, I own guns, and I read my Bible. I am a conservative, not a libtard commie.

You are an ultra right freak, AmericanFirst, not a conservative.

You hate electoral, constitutional process.

 

[regent]

It seems the Supreme Court has danced all over the second amendment with Court cases meaning one thing and then another. The Court should get up the courage to make a firm decision about the original intent of the amendment.
Was the purpose of the second amendment to give all citizens the right to bear arms or only those that might be called to the militia? The Militia was changed to the National Guard in 1933 and did that change the scope of the amendment. Time for the Court to do its homework and stop this nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It seems the Supreme Court has danced all over the second amendment with Court cases meaning one thing and then another. The Court should get up the courage to make a firm decision about the original intent of the amendment.

A little behind on this, aren't you?

DC v Heller, 2008

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[JakeStarkey]

It seems the Supreme Court has danced all over the second amendment with Court cases meaning one thing and then another. The Court should get up the courage to make a firm decision about the original intent of the amendment.

A little behind on this, aren't you?

DC v Heller, 2008

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You should conclude that Heller 1(F) clearly states that in no way does the ruling limit SCOTUS taking further action as it sees fit.

It will.

 

[emptystep]

"Militia" is mentioned four times in the body of the original Constitution. Might be worth a look.