CDZ The 2nd Amendment

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

When I went to law enforcement school I had to take Constitutional law.

I actually read our Constitution.

I never said you didn't read it. I said you didn't comprehend it.

You are the one appealing to ignorance, not me.

My apologies it's not my fault you failed to comprehend what you read from the constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

When I went to law enforcement school I had to take Constitutional law.

I actually read our Constitution.

I never said you didn't read it. I said you didn't comprehend it.

You are the one appealing to ignorance, not me.

My apologies it's not my fault you failed to comprehend what you read from the constitution.

I have a good argument; not the fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.

You seem stumped about that well regulated thing read 2aguys post.

Is is our supreme law of the land.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

Your quote doesn't touch on the Heller Point...this is the quote that deals with the "well-regulate" adjective....

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

 

[danielpalos]

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.

You seem stumped about that well regulated thing read 2aguys post.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

Your quote doesn't touch on the Heller Point...this is the quote that deals with the "well-regulate" adjective....

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

You merely appeal to ignorance of our own Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.

You seem stumped about that well regulated thing read 2aguys post.

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

Your quote doesn't touch on the Heller Point...this is the quote that deals with the "well-regulate" adjective....

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

You merely appeal to ignorance of our own Constitution.

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

 

[danielpalos]

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.

You seem stumped about that well regulated thing read 2aguys post.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

Your quote doesn't touch on the Heller Point...this is the quote that deals with the "well-regulate" adjective....

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

You merely appeal to ignorance of our own Constitution.

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Judicial activism? Our federal Constitution is more supreme.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.

You seem stumped about that well regulated thing read 2aguys post.

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

Your quote doesn't touch on the Heller Point...this is the quote that deals with the "well-regulate" adjective....

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

You merely appeal to ignorance of our own Constitution.

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Judicial activism? Our federal Constitution is more supreme.

So you don't like it, therefore, it's judicial activism? lol
It was a ruling made with strict constitutional understanding.
Judical activism happens when a judge goes outside the bounds of the constitution

 

[danielpalos]

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.

You seem stumped about that well regulated thing read 2aguys post.

Your quote doesn't touch on the Heller Point...this is the quote that deals with the "well-regulate" adjective....

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

You merely appeal to ignorance of our own Constitution.

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Judicial activism? Our federal Constitution is more supreme.

So you don't like it, therefore, it's judicial activism? lol
It was a ruling made with strict constitutional understanding.
Judical activism happens when a judge goes outside the bounds of the constitution

Our Constitution is not silent about such a salient topic regarding the defense of our Republic. It would have to be silent, for Any implication to have Any standing. Our federal Constitution is Express and supreme.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You seem stumped about that well regulated thing read 2aguys post.

You merely appeal to ignorance of our own Constitution.

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Judicial activism? Our federal Constitution is more supreme.

So you don't like it, therefore, it's judicial activism? lol
It was a ruling made with strict constitutional understanding.
Judical activism happens when a judge goes outside the bounds of the constitution

Our Constitution is not silent about such a salient topic regarding the defense of our Republic. It would have to be silent, for Any implication to have Any standing. Our federal Constitution is Express and supreme.

WOW WHAT GIBBERISH WAS THAT?

 

[Flash]

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.

It has been explained to you many times that Justice Scalia put that puppy to bed.

 

[danielpalos]

You merely appeal to ignorance of our own Constitution.

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Judicial activism? Our federal Constitution is more supreme.

So you don't like it, therefore, it's judicial activism? lol
It was a ruling made with strict constitutional understanding.
Judical activism happens when a judge goes outside the bounds of the constitution

Our Constitution is not silent about such a salient topic regarding the defense of our Republic. It would have to be silent, for Any implication to have Any standing. Our federal Constitution is Express and supreme.

WOW WHAT GIBBERISH WAS THAT?

Your lack of reading comprehension. That is Why, I don't take You seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.

It has been explained to you many times that Justice Scalia put that puppy to bed.

Our Constitution, explains it better.

 

[oldsoul]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

Ok... Explain to me, where is the right to self-defense protected?

 

[oldsoul]

I believe I made it.

Ah, my favorite word: believe.

Believe means you think something you just made up that doesn't have that much basis in reality.

In this case, it seems to have no basis in reality.

OK...I MADE it.

Fine, and I'm telling you I didn't get it.

So, two choices. Be proud and pretend you made it and everyone can get it, or explain it again so people can get it.

Leo's point is actually quite obvious, if one can put aside bias, and see through the poor choice of wording....

No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense.

Really? I've claimed it.

The Supreme Court's claimed it.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, drilling or parading with arms, would be carrying arms. If carrying arms were protected by the 2A, then drilling and carrying arms would also be protected. They're not.

The NRA also says the this is not the case.

If there's a protection for carrying arms, then there's no need for carry and conceal laws, as it would already be protected.

The NRA’s dream bill could soon become law after quietly moving through Congress

"
NRA bill requiring all states to recognise conceal carry permits set to pass through Congress"

So, why would the NRA support such a thing if there is already a right to carry arms around as one wishes?

First of all, you are barking up the wrong tree. It was not MY point, I was merely attempting to clarify LEO's point, sinse you missed it.

Second, the SCOTUS case you cited, does it actually use the phrase "self-defense"? I do not know, as I am unfamiliar with it. You seem to be, so maybe you can save me the time of reading the entire ruling.

Third, concealed carry is viewed by most (correctly IMHO) to be quite different from "open carry". Concealing (or hiding) a weapon is a tactic that can (and often times is) used by those who wish to do harm but don't want to be "seen" as such until they are ready. Therefore, there needs to be higher standards for those who wish to engage in such things. It is no different for knives, or anything else that could reasonably be construed as a lethal weapon. That said, I do understand that virtually anything can be used as a lethal weapon, but I doubt many people would see a spoon in my pocket as a potential problem.

 

[oldsoul]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Conservatives have contrived this ridiculous myth that armed private citizens act as a ‘safeguard’ against ‘tyranny’ – the quote in the OP is an example of how conservatives attempt to propagate this myth by taking primary source materials out of context, exhibiting their ignorance of that material.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes a minority of citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully and Constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and ‘overthrow’ that lawful government in a complete disregard for the will of the American people.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The Second Amendment does not take from the people their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process; and government cannot be ‘overthrown’ or violently replaced absent the consent of the majority of the people.

Indeed, it is the First Amendment that safeguards the people from tyranny, not the Second; it is the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press that keeps government excess and overreach in check, preventing the manifestation of tyranny – not private citizens with guns.

The Second Amendment ensures the people have ample means to defend themselves from violent crime, prohibiting government from denying the people access to handguns as a means to self-defense, and recognizes the right of the people to carry concealed firearms for the purpose of lawful self-defense:

“[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.” Heller, ibid

Clearly the original intent and understanding of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the people their right to personal self-defense, not to defend against ‘government tyranny.’

You are quite correct, however, I wish to clarify one point you made. That is that, yes, the 1st is our "first line of defense" against tyranny, however, the 2nd, guarantees us the means to be able to protect that right, as well as the various other ones. That is why the Nazi's, Stalinists, and Maoists, among others, first disarmed those they wished to be tyrants over.

 

[Picaro]

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

We got one anyway, because it became immediately obvious we had to have one, and they didn't hesitate to create one and didn't spend years of 'debate' over whether it was 'Constitutional' or not, they just did it, and din't see the Constitution as any kind of hindrance to respond to existential realities that arose, either. Most seem to miss the irony of Jefferson being the first President to engage us in 'overseas entanglements', and also the first to use Federal troops against American citizens, in enforcing the embargoes.

So much for how some 'Founders' viewed certain clauses. Obviously their 'original intent' doesn't much resemble what many people today think it is.

 

[Picaro]

Ah, my favorite word: believe.

Believe means you think something you just made up that doesn't have that much basis in reality.

In this case, it seems to have no basis in reality.

OK...I MADE it.

Fine, and I'm telling you I didn't get it.

So, two choices. Be proud and pretend you made it and everyone can get it, or explain it again so people can get it.

Leo's point is actually quite obvious, if one can put aside bias, and see through the poor choice of wording....

No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense.

Really? I've claimed it.

The Supreme Court's claimed it.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, drilling or parading with arms, would be carrying arms. If carrying arms were protected by the 2A, then drilling and carrying arms would also be protected. They're not.

The NRA also says the this is not the case.

If there's a protection for carrying arms, then there's no need for carry and conceal laws, as it would already be protected.

The NRA’s dream bill could soon become law after quietly moving through Congress

"
NRA bill requiring all states to recognise conceal carry permits set to pass through Congress"

So, why would the NRA support such a thing if there is already a right to carry arms around as one wishes?

First of all, you are barking up the wrong tree. It was not MY point, I was merely attempting to clarify LEO's point, sinse you missed it.

Second, the SCOTUS case you cited, does it actually use the phrase "self-defense"? I do not know, as I am unfamiliar with it. You seem to be, so maybe you can save me the time of reading the entire ruling.

Third, concealed carry is viewed by most (correctly IMHO) to be quite different from "open carry". Concealing (or hiding) a weapon is a tactic that can (and often times is) used by those who wish to do harm but don't want to be "seen" as such until they are ready. Therefore, there needs to be higher standards for those who wish to engage in such things. It is no different for knives, or anything else that could reasonably be construed as a lethal weapon. That said, I do understand that virtually anything can be used as a lethal weapon, but I doubt many people would see a spoon in my pocket as a potential problem.

Off topic, but I think concealed carry is a far better idea than open carry; open carry just gives loons and criminals have the option to get hold of more weapons. Concealed carry means they have to worry a lot more, and probably just go with crimes in 'gun free zones'.

 

[danielpalos]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

Ok... Explain to me, where is the right to self-defense protected?

Natural rights are recognized and guaranteed in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment. Only the right wing indulges the moral turpitude of being frivolous with our supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

We got one anyway, because it became immediately obvious we had to have one, and they didn't hesitate to create one and didn't spend years of 'debate' over whether it was 'Constitutional' or not, they just did it, and din't see the Constitution as any kind of hindrance to respond to existential realities that arose, either. Most seem to miss the irony of Jefferson being the first President to engage us in 'overseas entanglements', and also the first to use Federal troops against American citizens, in enforcing the embargoes.

So much for how some 'Founders' viewed certain clauses. Obviously their 'original intent' doesn't much resemble what many people today think it is.

It is the federal doctrine; always has been, always will be. The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

As the Heller Court explained, ‘the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. 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.’ ibid

Because the Second Amendment right is an individual right that belongs to all Americans – separate and apart from militia service – the notion that an armed population serving in a militia would act as a ‘deterrent’ to ‘tyranny’ is clearly false; it is an individual, not collective, right, intended to facilitate lawful self-defense against the tyranny of crime, not the perceived tyranny of government.

1. 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. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Pompous Politics Hides Selfish Motives

The prefatory clause is a selling point directed at the plutocracy, which didn't want to pay for a standing army or its weapons. They also didn't want their sons to have to serve, which would have been necessary to keep the plebeian standing-army troops in line.