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

[toobfreak]

The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.

Commas mean things.

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Sorry Princess, you are consistently UNINFORMED. The ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is a document limiting the power of government. Don't take my word: it begins: WE, THE PEOPLE. I mean, what did they base the founding of the USA on? Breaking away from an unjust, overbearing and tyrannical Empire (the British). And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again. But we got fat, dumb and lazy (like you): it was Benjamin Franklin who said: We have given you a REPUBLIC--- --- --- if you can keep it.

 

[jillian]

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?

You really need to read the whole opinion...not just what the most recent anti gunner spewed about it...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-----

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.
---

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

The point of thread went over your head.

Limits, regs, all constitutional.

We don't need the NRA to protect GUN rights. We have a perfectly good court system.

everything goes over his head unless the NRA tells him to say it.

 

[jillian]

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Sorry Princess, you are consistently UNINFORMED. The ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is a document limiting the power of government. Don't take my word: it begins: WE, THE PEOPLE. I mean, what did they base the founding of the USA on? Breaking away from an unjust, overbearing and tyrannical Empire (the British). And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again. But we got fat, dumb and lazy (like you): it was Benjamin Franklin who said: We have given you a REPUBLIC--- --- --- if you can keep it.

dude... ignorant trumptards really shouldn't talk about anyone else being uninformed formed.

I know how to read a damn court case.... unlike you.

if you were half right, treason wouldn't be in the constitution. hacks like you don't decide what is "overbearing". the COURTS do.

trumpnutters... *Shakes head*

 

[toobfreak]

Do you know what infringe means? Evidently not.

Right wingers' interpretation of the the 2nd amendment should then INCLUDE the right to walk around with bazookas.

YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT! All it will cost you is $200 and a federal background check (plus the cost of the bazooka of your choice):

No liberals were allowed at the following video. Can't trust them with a gun:

(be sure to maximize image to full screen)

 

[Valerie]

Do you know what infringe means? Evidently not.

Infringe basically means "to set LIMITS"..........Right wingers' interpretation of the the 2nd amendment should then INCLUDE the right to walk around with bazookas.

The NRA has convinced morons that ANY sanity is an"infringement" on their imbecility........

is it the NRA or really the KGB troll farm openly waging war on Americans..?

The Trump-Russia-NRA Connection: Here’s What You Need to Know

 

[toobfreak]

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Sorry Princess, you are consistently UNINFORMED. The ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is a document limiting the power of government. Don't take my word: it begins: WE, THE PEOPLE. I mean, what did they base the founding of the USA on? Breaking away from an unjust, overbearing and tyrannical Empire (the British). And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again. But we got fat, dumb and lazy (like you): it was Benjamin Franklin who said: We have given you a REPUBLIC--- --- --- if you can keep it.

dude... ignorant trumptards really shouldn't talk about anyone else being uninformed formed.

I know how to read a damn court case.... unlike you.

if you were half right, treason wouldn't be in the constitution. hacks like you don't decide what is "overbearing". the COURTS do.

trumpnutters... *Shakes head*

You're always a total waste of time to try to tell anything.

 

[nat4900]

And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again

Sure, moron.....the government is your worst "enemy".......and that is why right wing neo-fascists fight so damn hard to control their majority in that government?

 

[toobfreak]

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Yes....he stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....those were the people that were regulated.......try to actually read Heller...

Jillian doesn't read. She is like a record with one side only, and every other word she knows is just to cast insults and labels on anyone she disagrees with!

 

[2aguy]

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Yes....he stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....those were the people that were regulated.......try to actually read Heller...

I did read Helle. you are clearly reading the NRA abridged version.

or perhaps you don't understand what you're reading given you get your con law lessons from the internet.

he made no such specific ruling. he couldn't have. it wasn't before him and the Supreme Court does not deal in hypotheticals.

all he said was a total ban is not permissible. and it isn't....

even though his "interpretation" (and let's face it, that's all it is) of the 2nd goes against more than 200 years of judicial thinking.

you think it's ok for domestic abusers to have guns? people who commit assault?

Since he cited 200 years of various rulings and the laws on the books From England and the colonies...you don't know what you are talking about....

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I have the right to protect myself. You have the right to be a victim if you so choose.

Do you think a criminal gives a shit about the law?

So we should repeal laws against murder?

Come on! You had an excellent OP and made a very valid point concerning a regulated militia. Why do you follow it with a childish post about legalizing murder?

 

[2aguy]

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?

You really need to read the whole opinion...not just what the most recent anti gunner spewed about it...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-----

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.
---

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

The point of thread went over your head.

Limits, regs, all constitutional.

We don't need the NRA to protect GUN rights. We have a perfectly good court system.

Yeah......tell us about the 9th and 4th circuits and the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges....

 

[jillian]

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Yes....he stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....those were the people that were regulated.......try to actually read Heller...

I did read Helle. you are clearly reading the NRA abridged version.

or perhaps you don't understand what you're reading given you get your con law lessons from the internet.

he made no such specific ruling. he couldn't have. it wasn't before him and the Supreme Court does not deal in hypotheticals.

all he said was a total ban is not permissible. and it isn't....

even though his "interpretation" (and let's face it, that's all it is) of the 2nd goes against more than 200 years of judicial thinking.

you think it's ok for domestic abusers to have guns? people who commit assault?

Since he cited 200 years of various rulings and the laws on the books From England and the colonies...you don't know what you are talking about....

dude, I don't need an NRA hack to tell me what he is pretending the caselaw is. I know what the (very limited) body of caselaw is on the subject. I also know that judges laughed their butts off at the idea of a private right of gun ownership. it was only ever supposed to be as part of a well-regulated militia.

until Scalia wrote his wacko decision. and even that did NOT say that guns couldn't be regulated.

you people are such liars. it's pathetic.

 

[toobfreak]

And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again

Sure, moron.....the government is your worst "enemy".......and that is why right wing neo-fascists fight so damn hard to control their majority in that government?

Look who is calling anyone here a Moron.

A few stats on your "friend" the government:


Feudal Russia (possibly 1,066,000 murdered)


Mexico, 1900 – 1920 (possibly 1,417,000 murdered)


North Korea, creation to present day (possibly 1,663,000 murdered)


Yugoslavia, 1944 – 1987 (1,072,000 murdered)


Pakistan, 1969 – 1971 (1,503,000 murdered)


Poland, 1945 – 1950 (1,585,000 murdered)


Vietnam, 1945 – 1987 (1,670,000 murdered)


Turkey, 1900 – 1923 (1,883,000 murdered)


Cambodia, 1970 – 1980 (2,035,000 murdered)


Japan, 1937 – 1945 (5,964,000 murdered)


Chinese nationalists, 1927 – 1949 (10,214,000 murdered)


German national socialists, 1939 – 1945 (20,946,000 murdered)


Chinese communists, 1949 – 1987 (35,236,000 murdered)


Russian communists, 1917 – 1987 (61,911,000 murdered)

So far, our Constitution has kept our own government more or less in check.

 

[jillian]

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?

You really need to read the whole opinion...not just what the most recent anti gunner spewed about it...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-----

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.
---

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

The point of thread went over your head.

Limits, regs, all constitutional.

We don't need the NRA to protect GUN rights. We have a perfectly good court system.

Yeah......tell us about the 9th and 4th circuits and the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges....

what is wrong with the rulings on the 4th? on the 9th?

come on pretend constitutionalist.... let's hear it.

 

[jillian]

And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again

Sure, moron.....the government is your worst "enemy".......and that is why right wing neo-fascists fight so damn hard to control their majority in that government?

Look who is calling anyone here a Moron.

A few stats on your "friend" the government:


Feudal Russia (possibly 1,066,000 murdered)


Mexico, 1900 – 1920 (possibly 1,417,000 murdered)


North Korea, creation to present day (possibly 1,663,000 murdered)


Yugoslavia, 1944 – 1987 (1,072,000 murdered)


Pakistan, 1969 – 1971 (1,503,000 murdered)


Poland, 1945 – 1950 (1,585,000 murdered)


Vietnam, 1945 – 1987 (1,670,000 murdered)


Turkey, 1900 – 1923 (1,883,000 murdered)


Cambodia, 1970 – 1980 (2,035,000 murdered)


Japan, 1937 – 1945 (5,964,000 murdered)


Chinese nationalists, 1927 – 1949 (10,214,000 murdered)


German national socialists, 1939 – 1945 (20,946,000 murdered)


Chinese communists, 1949 – 1987 (35,236,000 murdered)


Russian communists, 1917 – 1987 (61,911,000 murdered)

So far, our Constitution has kept our own government more or less in check.

and that had and has zero to do with your 2nd amendment.... which was never intended to be used AGAINST the gubmint.

nutters. this is why putin is able to play you dupes like violins.

 

[toobfreak]

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?

You really need to read the whole opinion...not just what the most recent anti gunner spewed about it...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-----

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.
---

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

The point of thread went over your head.

Limits, regs, all constitutional.

We don't need the NRA to protect GUN rights. We have a perfectly good court system.

You're funny. For something to be literally Constitutional, it must be IN THE CONSTITUTION. Another brainwashed idiot. Most laws enacted today walk right over the Constitution. Show me where the limits and regulations are detailed in the Constitution?

 

[Coyote]

a well-regulated militia, dum dum

The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.

Commas mean things.

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

 

[jillian]

The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.

Commas mean things.

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

yeah, but the 2nd is the one that makes little nothing people feel powerful.

 

[toobfreak]

The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.

Commas mean things.

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

No. It isn’t. No one right is the cornerstone for any other.

Better check again. Talk to or listen to a real constitutional scholar. Without the 2nd Amendment, what power or leverage do you have to defend or enforce any of the others if so ultimately breached? I can't tell you how many times I've heard the experts state that they should have placed the 2nd Amendment first.

 

[Dale Smith]

and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.

What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Sorry Princess, you are consistently UNINFORMED. The ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is a document limiting the power of government. Don't take my word: it begins: WE, THE PEOPLE. I mean, what did they base the founding of the USA on? Breaking away from an unjust, overbearing and tyrannical Empire (the British). And the entire point to America was to see that government never got that much power again. But we got fat, dumb and lazy (like you): it was Benjamin Franklin who said: We have given you a REPUBLIC--- --- --- if you can keep it.

Yep, we got apathetic and became waaaay too trusting. We stopped reading books and let TV raise our kids and we believed everything that was broadcasted on it. TV is the greatest propaganda tool ever created which is why I haven't owned on in six years.