The 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit regulation...

[Rigby5]

The phrase is "well-regulated militia", not "militia with well-regulated weapons".

All of the words matter, not just the ones you like.

This isn't a debate scooter. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller, that the states do have the absolute power to regulate guns.

You lost this debate a long time ago.

The NRA in there arrogance thought they could spend millions to challenge the law, which the court promptly turned them down, and all of those regulations stand in place.

Now you have a new generation with the voting numbers to make those regulations even stiffer, and if they vote in the people they want, and the people who are currently refusing to do so out, they are going to get that done, and there isn't thing one you can do about it but whine like a little bitch on usmb.

See you down the road at the voting polls scooter.

This absolutely IS fucking a debate, "Scooter", because the Supreme Court has said a lot of things in its history that were wrong. AND because you leftist tyrants never consider ANYTHING to be the last word on a subject when it's not the word you want, so why should we? AND because we know you aren't going to drop YOUR side of the fight until all guns are outlawed. AND because this is America, and the First Amendment guarantees all of us the right to have opinions and disagree with any branch of the fucking government we want to, up to and including the "sainted" Supreme Court.

So if you can't handle the questions, admit it. But don't try to tell me I don't have the right to ask them.

The Heller decision gave the individual the right to keep a gun in the home for defense. It also gave the states the right to restrict certain types of firearms, or how they may or may not be carried.

I'll tell you what scooter. Take that alligator mouth of yours, and take a gun you are not supposed to have, some place you are not supposed to have it, and let us all know how that works out for you.

You be sure to tell the judge the supreme court is wrong, and that you can carry your gun where ever you want to. I'm sure the judge will come to his senses and let you go.

The Plessy v. Ferguson decision said that public facilities can be segregated. Should the American people have accepted that as an appropriate interpretation of the law and dropped the subject of civil rights, simply because the Supreme Court said so?

Citizens United said that corporations, labor unions, and other associations have a First Amendment right to spend money on political ads. You leftists haven't dropped THAT subject just because the Supreme Court said so.

Where did I lose you on the whole "First Amendment right to express opinions and disagree with the government"? Too many syllables?

Oh, btw, the Supreme Court does not "give" rights. No government entity does. All they can do is acknowledge them.

Heller is the law of the land whether you like it or not.

The challenge to it by the NRA which just currently happened was declined by the court.

You have no recourse.

Don't get caught with the wrong gun in the wrong place.

End of fucking discussion.

Heller does not restrict gun rights but ruled against DC's gun restrictions.

{... the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. ...}

So sure there can be restrictions, such as when you want to enter a place owed by someone else who does not want guns being brought into their private property. Rights have to be balanced between different individuals. And of course states can help do that with appropriate legislation.

 

[Rigby5]

In fact it mandates it

The 2A does not mandare anything. It prohibits something.

As the caselaw clearly indicates, the 2A limits the power of the fed gov. So, a state may limit certain guns or accessories, but "shall not be infringed" means no laws or rules restricting.

Furthermore, the word "regulate" as used in the 2A refers to the militia, not the arms.

All federal gun laws infringe, and should be repealed, with the states having exclusive authority.

No major disagreement, but a few points.
While the 2nd amendment only restricts any federal restrictions, it does not actually prevent any state restrictions.
One has to go to the 4th and 5th amendments to prevent excessive state infringement.

The words "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment actually mean "well practiced" or "well functioning". The point was to ensure citizen soldiers were well armed and proficient with their firearms before any need would arise, because then it is too late to train.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In fact it mandates it

The 2A does not mandare anything. It prohibits something.

As the caselaw clearly indicates, the 2A limits the power of the fed gov. So, a state may limit certain guns or accessories, but "shall not be infringed" means no laws or rules restricting.

Furthermore, the word "regulate" as used in the 2A refers to the militia, not the arms.

All federal gun laws infringe, and should be repealed, with the states having exclusive authority.

No major disagreement, but a few points.
While the 2nd amendment only restricts any federal restrictions, it does not actually prevent any state restrictions.
One has to go to the 4th and 5th amendments to prevent excessive state infringement.

The words "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment actually mean "well practiced" or "well functioning". The point was to ensure citizen soldiers were well armed and proficient with their firearms before any need would arise, because then it is too late to train.

Another point in the leftists' "Gotcha!" argument about "well-regulated militia": Congress regulates the militia – Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia….” And Congress has decided what “well regulated” means. It means the current level of regulation, since that is what Congress has imposed. It could enact further regulation, if it wished. If the Congress feels like decreeing that every member of the militia (which Congress can expand as it wishes to better reflect society) must be armed with an AR15, it can. (Thanks to Kurt Schlichter)

 

[Astrostar]

Shall not be infringed.....

well regulated

 

[Cecilie1200]

Shall not be infringed.....

well regulated

See my last post. Or any of my posts, really.

 

[Rigby5]

Shall not be infringed.....

well regulated

When the federal government is authorizes to "regulate interstate commerce", does that mean to "restrict"? No, it means to protect, facilitate, keep well functioning. A regulator clock is one with a pendulum that keeps it well functioning. Besides, the 2nd amendment does not say it is the federal jurisdiction to regulate the militia. Clearly the responsibility of the militia falls on the states.

If the point of regulating interstate commerce was to restrict, then there would be no reason for the federal government to be involved, because the states can easily restrict imports from other states. Clearly the point of giving the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce was to prevent restrictions by the states.

 

[Rigby5]

The constitution authorizes the federal government to be able to call up the state militias, but they are to be owned and organized by the states, not the federal government. Authorizing the federal government to be able to finance the Militia once it has been called up from the states, is a national emergency situation only. It is not supposed to be considered normal.
Since each state defines all able bodied males as part of the militia, that would be implying that everyone was a member of the US military, and clearly that is not the case. There has to be a national emergency first.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It is my understanding that the term "well regulated" was not in reference to government rules and restrictions, rather, the wording at that point in time, "well regulated" meant well trained or well disciplined. In other words, "proficient" .

All able bodied adults at that time were required to have at the ready, certain provisions, like a nap sack, rations, and a firearm, in the event that they were needed to be called into service. From what I gather, they wanted people to own weapons, and know how to use them.

Again, this is what I gather from what reading I've done.

 

[Rigby5]

It is my understanding that the term "well regulated" was not in reference to government rules and restrictions, rather, the wording at that point in time, "well regulated" meant well trained or well disciplined. In other words, "proficient" .

All able bodied adults at that time were required to have at the ready, certain provisions, like a nap sack, rations, and a firearm, in the event that they were needed to be called into service. From what I gather, they wanted people to own weapons, and know how to use them.

Again, this is what I gather from what reading I've done.

Agreed.
Having seen mercenaries being used against them, the founders did not at all trust a standing military that worked for pay.
They clearly wanted and trusted only the citizen soldier who would have been reluctant to fight for any but a noble cause.
So while they never made it absolutely mandatory, the founders greatly encouraged universal armed and training.

Having seen what our corrupt government and military has done in Vietnam, Iraq, Guantanamo, incarcerating half a million pot smokers, etc., I see no reason to believe the founders were at all wrong in their assessment of all individuals needing to be armed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yep. I'm not sure the entire premise of the 2A was formed on foreign threat, but rather domestic threat, i.e. our own government.

I feel, however, that a lot of people think that our own government would never do anything to harm it's own citizens. I'm afraid they are badly mistaken. Government's are tyrannical at times, and, really, if you look at how our system of government and finance are set up...tge big picture, most people would see that our government is, and has been, conducting harmful things towards it citizens for many years.

But, most would say that borders on conspiracy and doesn't belong in this forum.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Wonder if the Democratic Party's Criminals and Terrorist will obey any new gun laws?

...guess it makes the dumb liberals feel comfortable

 

[there4eyeM]

Are taxes on firearms 'infringement'? Are age limits 'infringement'? Would ammunition controls be infringement?
Firearms fanatics are bringing the issue to the point where people may exert their inalienable right to decide what and how society will control.

 

[Rigby5]

Are taxes on firearms 'infringement'? Are age limits 'infringement'? Would ammunition controls be infringement?
Firearms fanatics are bringing the issue to the point where people may exert their inalienable right to decide what and how society will control.

Yes, taxes on firearms would be a huge infringement.
That would be like taxing food, and anyone trying to do that should be shot.

Yes, age limits are an infringement. The tradition was to put the shotgun over the mantle so that anyone in the family could easily and quickly get to it in an emergency. As far as purchasing, who cares? As long as the kids have parents to buy firearms for them.

And definitely ammunition controls would be an infringement.

You do not have any inalienable right to infringe on the rights of others.
If you think firearms are infringing on the rights of others and need to be curtailed, then prove it.
These school shootings show we need MORE armed protection, not less.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. I'm not sure the entire premise of the 2A was formed on foreign threat, but rather domestic threat, i.e. our own government.

I feel, however, that a lot of people think that our own government would never do anything to harm it's own citizens. I'm afraid they are badly mistaken. Government's are tyrannical at times, and, really, if you look at how our system of government and finance are set up...tge big picture, most people would see that our government is, and has been, conducting harmful things towards it citizens for many years.

But, most would say that borders on conspiracy and doesn't belong in this forum.

The fact government can never be trusted should be obvious.
The government murdered over a million innocent Vietnamese, murdered over half a million innocent Iraqis, put half a million US citizens in prison over pot, committed war crimes in Guantanamo, etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The constitution authorizes the federal government to be able to call up the state militias, but they are to be owned and organized by the states, not the federal government. Authorizing the federal government to be able to finance the Militia once it has been called up from the states, is a national emergency situation only. It is not supposed to be considered normal.
Since each state defines all able bodied males as part of the militia, that would be implying that everyone was a member of the US military, and clearly that is not the case. There has to be a national emergency first.

I believe you're confusing "militia" with the National Guard.

 

[Rigby5]

The constitution authorizes the federal government to be able to call up the state militias, but they are to be owned and organized by the states, not the federal government. Authorizing the federal government to be able to finance the Militia once it has been called up from the states, is a national emergency situation only. It is not supposed to be considered normal.
Since each state defines all able bodied males as part of the militia, that would be implying that everyone was a member of the US military, and clearly that is not the case. There has to be a national emergency first.

I believe you're confusing "militia" with the National Guard.

What I believe is states need and created their own militias was back to 1607. Lower case "militia".
{... Militia companies were formed with the first English settlement at Jamestown in 1607. The first militia regiments were organized by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, and from the Pequot War in 1637 until the present day, the Army National Guard has participated in every war or conflict the US has fought. ...}
Army National Guard History

However, when the state militias are called up by the federal government in an emergency, they were originally called simply the "Militia", which was capitalized.
Only later in 1903 was it codified by an act of Congress, and officially called the "National Guard".

{... The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act,[1] was legislation enacted by the United States Congress which codified the circumstances under which the National Guard could be federalized. It also provided federal funds to the National Guard to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer encampments. In return, the National Guard began to organize its units along the same lines as the regular Army, and took steps to meet the same training, education and readiness requirements as active duty units.[2] ...}
Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Militia" has nothing to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms. Militia means armed group of civilians. As the Supreme Court noted there is no requirement to be in a militia (well regulated or otherwise) to have the individual right to keep and bear arms. It simply noted that all regulations do not constitute "infringement" and may therefore be allowed.

 

[9thIDdoc]

In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.

The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia

Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.

Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Are taxes on firearms 'infringement'? Are age limits 'infringement'? Would ammunition controls be infringement?
Firearms fanatics are bringing the issue to the point where people may exert their inalienable right to decide what and how society will control.

That's what the Constitution is for.

 

[Rigby5]

"Militia" has nothing to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms. Militia means armed group of civilians. As the Supreme Court noted there is no requirement to be in a militia (well regulated or otherwise) to have the individual right to keep and bear arms. It simply noted that all regulations do not constitute "infringement" and may therefore be allowed.

Well there is an individual right to bear arms for defense as implied by the 4th and 5th amendments.
The 2nd amendment does not actually say it is an individual right, just that the feds should have absolutely no jurisdiction at all over weapons.
The only reason to bring up the state militias is that some people try to claim the 2nd amendment only refers to militias, and it would not matter because all states include the general population automatically as being part of the militia anyway.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Militia" has nothing to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms. Militia means armed group of civilians. As the Supreme Court noted there is no requirement to be in a militia (well regulated or otherwise) to have the individual right to keep and bear arms. It simply noted that all regulations do not constitute "infringement" and may therefore be allowed.

Well there is an individual right to bear arms for defense as implied by the 4th and 5th amendments.
The 2nd amendment does not actually say it is an individual right, just that the feds should have absolutely no jurisdiction at all over weapons.
The only reason to bring up the state militias is that some people try to claim the 2nd amendment only refers to militias, and it would not matter because all states include the general population automatically as being part of the militia anyway.

The Supreme Court did in fact rule that it is an individual right. From the OP:

"...is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms."

Actually that is the most important part of the Heller decision. Also State Constitutions may confer an individual right.