The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Daryl Hunt]

They already do. But your bunch spends millions on each corrupt politico to buy them off to prevent allowing the People to be represented.

Bwahahahahaha! There is no crying in politics, Duh-ryl. Your side spends billions to corrupt politicians and we are still winning.

You can’t get the votes you need to amend the U.S. Constitution so you want to violate it. Like a typical fascist, you can’t accept the fact that We the People have spoken.

Now...run along and play with your toys. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.

You certainly enjoy hearing yourself talk loudly. Most of the states have common sense gun regulation laws in place and there are more on the way. You can cling to the 2nd amendment for dear life all you wish but it's the States that make the laws in this case, not the Feds. If the State Congress Critters don't, they find themselves out of a job fast these days. It's called "Common Sense". Even Florida has joined that role. You said that there were 38 states that agreed with you but the count is where only 15 do and that number is falling fast. As long as the Supreme Court agrees with the States then the 2nd Amendment (the 2nd half of it) isn't worth the paper it's printed on and needs to be amended to keep up. Much like the other 9 amendments have also had done to them. before you start going off, from the 1tth amendment on, those are modifications or amendments to the first 10. The Constitution was written this way. As for the first half of the 2nd amendment, it became irrelevent in 1917 when the National Guard was formed.

It appears that it's YOU that needs to get the Constitution amended to suit your own needs. And the State Constitutions as well. And you need to completely replace the Supreme Court with those that think like you do as well. Just how much do you thing that will happen? Fire up the shotguns, you going flying Pig Hunting.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on these so called new laws...all of them are unConstitutional.....

D.C v Heller
Miller v United States
the dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Caetano v Massachusetts
McDonald v The City of Chicago
Murdock v Pennsylvania

You don't know what you are talking about...

In 2014, the NRA went after the new Colorado Laws. The Supreme Court ruled 100% in favor of the state laws. There was a long list of things that you claim are unconstitutional on that list.

D.C v Heller was about hand guns. The Court ruled that the District did not have the right to limit the use of handguns in the Homes. But the District was well within it's rights to barr them from being carried outside of the home. This was a Win/'Loss category

the dissent in Friedman v Highland Park. The ruling was for the banning of the AR type weapons. It did open the door to allowing more traditional civilian guns into the Homes like handguns and hunting rifles. But it sided with Highland Park about the AR style rifle.

Miller v United States. Overturned. The Court ruled that a person does not have the right to transport a saw off shotgun over state lines for any reason. It was also against the NFA law of 1934 to even possess one in the first place.

Caetano v Massachusetts. The original ruling was that a Stun Gun was not protected by the 2nd amendment. Caetano was found guilty. But after a lengthy court battle all the way to the supreme court, that was overturned and a Mass Judge overturned her conviction due to what would have been a ruling in Caetoano's favor by the Supreme Court had it come to that. That Judges ruling has been used by Mass as the basis for other cases.

McDonald v The City of Chicago. They tried to use the 2nd Amendment ruling for the District of Columbia which has NO 14th Amendment protecting it as precedence in State Rulings. The District of Columbia has no choice to use the 2nd Amendment as it is written. But a State, under the 14th Amendment can amend it with their state constitutions within the law within reason. Chicago had the right as does Illinois.

Murdock v Pennsylvania. This is about Jehovah Witnesses selling Religious Information. Simple as that. It was about, Can we Tax the sale of Religious Text even when it's being openly sold to defray costs? No we cannot. This has nothing to do with firearms. It's just a strawman.

You want to follow the Constution but you want to only follow that part that agrees with you. You want to leave out the parts that disagree with you. Try reading the whole thing like the Supreme Court is duty bound to do.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You can cling to the 2nd amendment for dear life all you wish but it's the States that make the laws in this case, not the Feds.

The Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. It trumps all state and local laws. Sorry snowflake.

Only when it's real specific. When it's not then the States have the right and the duty to make it more specific. Remember, the first half of the 2nd amendment became irrelevent in 1917. With the rulings in 2016 and 17, much of the 2017 was shown to be too vague and opened it up for states to make it more specific. Blanket Statements will always be clarified by the states.

And I know you are Sorry, Cupcake.

You don't know what you are talking about.....to have some idea that your post is stupid, please read the ruling in D.C v Heller where your stupid point is dismissed for being stupid...

The District of Columbia is not protected by the 14th Amendment since it's not a State. The Courts have already ruled on that when dealing with the States. Sorry, but that argument has already been tried and discounted a few times.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not for Criminals that really don't bother us.

The mindset of the left-wing lunatic. If criminals aren’t “bothering” you - it’s because you are one of the criminals. Law abiding citizens are very much bothered by theft, rape, assault, etc.

Where is the "hue and cry: there is Chaos in the streets, (wellness of) Regulators, assemble!"?

Or is it that I don't live in an area that would put up with the Criminal Element for very long. And neither would our police forces. If you are living in a criminally infested community, I suggest you haul your ass out of it fast. When all the good people leave, there isn't anything left for the Criminal to prey on anymore and they end up just killing each other. Simple solution.

 

[Pop23]

Not for Criminals that really don't bother us.

The mindset of the left-wing lunatic. If criminals aren’t “bothering” you - it’s because you are one of the criminals. Law abiding citizens are very much bothered by theft, rape, assault, etc.

Where is the "hue and cry: there is Chaos in the streets, (wellness of) Regulators, assemble!"?

Or is it that I don't live in an area that would put up with the Criminal Element for very long. And neither would our police forces. If you are living in a criminally infested community, I suggest you haul your ass out of it fast. When all the good people leave, there isn't anything left for the Criminal to prey on anymore and they end up just killing each other. Simple solution.

Ummmmm, in those areas most of the killings are one gang killing another. And the problem grows.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not for Criminals that really don't bother us.

The mindset of the left-wing lunatic. If criminals aren’t “bothering” you - it’s because you are one of the criminals. Law abiding citizens are very much bothered by theft, rape, assault, etc.

Where is the "hue and cry: there is Chaos in the streets, (wellness of) Regulators, assemble!"?

Or is it that I don't live in an area that would put up with the Criminal Element for very long. And neither would our police forces. If you are living in a criminally infested community, I suggest you haul your ass out of it fast. When all the good people leave, there isn't anything left for the Criminal to prey on anymore and they end up just killing each other. Simple solution.

Ummmmm, in those areas most of the killings are one gang killing another. And the problem grows.

Then let them kill each other. I don't have a problem with that if all the good people just pull up stakes and leave. Hell, build that Trump style fence around them and let them just keep killing themselves. Escape from NY just might be a good idea for real life.

 

[P@triot]

When all the good people leave, there isn't anything left for the Criminal to prey on anymore and they end up just killing each other. Simple solution.

Yeah...because everybody knows that all criminals are paralyzed from the neck down and thus are incapable of killing anyone outside of a 12x12 area.

You have the maturity and common sense of a toddler.

 

[P@triot]

Escape from NY just might be a good idea for real life.

You know what’s an even better idea for “real life”? The U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When all the good people leave, there isn't anything left for the Criminal to prey on anymore and they end up just killing each other. Simple solution.

Yeah...because everybody knows that all criminals are paralyzed from the neck down and thus are incapable of killing anyone outside of a 12x12 area.

You have the maturity and common sense of a toddler.

AS always, you completely missed the joke. Instead of building the trump wall in the south, pick a city that is eat up with crime and build it around that. Escape from NY just might be an alternative.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Escape from NY just might be a good idea for real life.

You know what’s an even better idea for “real life”? The U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment.

Now about the 14th Amendment or does that float yer boat. You want to quote one without the other. Doesn't work that way. Both are part of the Constitution. The first half of the 2nd amendment was pretty well watered down by the 1917 National Guard Act and the 14th amendment changed the 2nd amendment when dealing with the States. And please don't go off on how stupid that is. We have already covered the Supreme Court rulings on the 14th amendment.

Real life is when we can find real concrete solutions to the problems and actually do something about it instead of calling each other petty names.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not for Criminals that really don't bother us.

The mindset of the left-wing lunatic. If criminals aren’t “bothering” you - it’s because you are one of the criminals. Law abiding citizens are very much bothered by theft, rape, assault, etc.

It's almost like that's WHY those things are crimes, or something.

 

[danielpalos]

Not for Criminals that really don't bother us.

The mindset of the left-wing lunatic. If criminals aren’t “bothering” you - it’s because you are one of the criminals. Law abiding citizens are very much bothered by theft, rape, assault, etc.

Where is the "hue and cry: there is Chaos in the streets, (wellness of) Regulators, assemble!"?

Or is it that I don't live in an area that would put up with the Criminal Element for very long. And neither would our police forces. If you are living in a criminally infested community, I suggest you haul your ass out of it fast. When all the good people leave, there isn't anything left for the Criminal to prey on anymore and they end up just killing each other. Simple solution.

Why is there no posse registry or militia registry? Posse comitatus is the common law, and we have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[P@triot]

Real life is when we can find real concrete solutions to the problems and actually do something about it instead of calling each other petty names.

The problem is, progressives believe that their idea of “concrete solutions” supersede the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. It doesn’t work that way.

Hell, half of the time you people are trying to propose “concrete solutions” to problems that don’t even exist! Like guns. Schools shootings are way down. Violent crimes are way down. And here you people sit with a “solution” looking for a problem.

 

[P@triot]

 

[danielpalos]

Real life is when we can find real concrete solutions to the problems and actually do something about it instead of calling each other petty names.

The problem is, progressives believe that their idea of “concrete solutions” supersede the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. It doesn’t work that way.

Hell, half of the time you people are trying to propose “concrete solutions” to problems that don’t even exist! Like guns. Schools shootings are way down. Violent crimes are way down. And here you people sit with a “solution” looking for a problem.

lol. we have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until crime goes down!

 

[P@triot]

muster the militia until crime goes down!

Muster some education until your ignorance goes down!

(Psst...law enforcement isn’t the responsibility of the “militia”)

 

[danielpalos]

muster the militia until crime goes down!

Muster some education until your ignorance goes down!

(Psst...law enforcement isn’t the responsibility of the “militia”)

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise. Appeals to ignorance, is all they seem to know.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You can cling to the 2nd amendment for dear life all you wish but it's the States that make the laws in this case, not the Feds.

The Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. It trumps all state and local laws. Sorry snowflake.

Only when it's real specific. When it's not then the States have the right and the duty to make it more specific. Remember, the first half of the 2nd amendment became irrelevent in 1917. With the rulings in 2016 and 17, much of the 2017 was shown to be too vague and opened it up for states to make it more specific. Blanket Statements will always be clarified by the states.

And I know you are Sorry, Cupcake.

You don't know what you are talking about.....to have some idea that your post is stupid, please read the ruling in D.C v Heller where your stupid point is dismissed for being stupid...

It only applies to DC which is NOT a state therefore the 14th amendment does not apply to. There have been numerous rulings that have gone the other way for various states using the 14th amendment as the basis for the 2nd amendment which also tried to use the DC V Heller as a precedence. It didn't work for them. The Supreme Court sided with the States, Counties and Cities.

 

[2aguy]

You can cling to the 2nd amendment for dear life all you wish but it's the States that make the laws in this case, not the Feds.

The Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. It trumps all state and local laws. Sorry snowflake.

Only when it's real specific. When it's not then the States have the right and the duty to make it more specific. Remember, the first half of the 2nd amendment became irrelevent in 1917. With the rulings in 2016 and 17, much of the 2017 was shown to be too vague and opened it up for states to make it more specific. Blanket Statements will always be clarified by the states.

And I know you are Sorry, Cupcake.

You don't know what you are talking about.....to have some idea that your post is stupid, please read the ruling in D.C v Heller where your stupid point is dismissed for being stupid...

It only applies to DC which is NOT a state therefore the 14th amendment does not apply to. There have been numerous rulings that have gone the other way for various states using the 14th amendment as the basis for the 2nd amendment which also tried to use the DC V Heller as a precedence. It didn't work for them. The Supreme Court sided with the States, Counties and Cities.

Yes....the 14th Applies to D.C...... No...the Supreme Court hasn't heard the cases, that is not the same thing...... neither side of the gun argument....the left wing morons who wear robes and the Constitutional Justices, have 5 votes....each side has enough to hear the case, they don't have enough to rule against the constitution, the left wingers, or for the Constitution, the Constitutional judges....

You do not know what you are talking about....

From the Dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park when the Court didn't hear the case.....what Scalia actually said which clarifies his stance on AR-15 rifles....

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[danielpalos]

Muster the federal militia until crime goes down!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You can cling to the 2nd amendment for dear life all you wish but it's the States that make the laws in this case, not the Feds.

The Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. It trumps all state and local laws. Sorry snowflake.

Only when it's real specific. When it's not then the States have the right and the duty to make it more specific. Remember, the first half of the 2nd amendment became irrelevent in 1917. With the rulings in 2016 and 17, much of the 2017 was shown to be too vague and opened it up for states to make it more specific. Blanket Statements will always be clarified by the states.

And I know you are Sorry, Cupcake.

You don't know what you are talking about.....to have some idea that your post is stupid, please read the ruling in D.C v Heller where your stupid point is dismissed for being stupid...

It only applies to DC which is NOT a state therefore the 14th amendment does not apply to. There have been numerous rulings that have gone the other way for various states using the 14th amendment as the basis for the 2nd amendment which also tried to use the DC V Heller as a precedence. It didn't work for them. The Supreme Court sided with the States, Counties and Cities.

Yes....the 14th Applies to D.C...... No...the Supreme Court hasn't heard the cases, that is not the same thing...... neither side of the gun argument....the left wing morons who wear robes and the Constitutional Justices, have 5 votes....each side has enough to hear the case, they don't have enough to rule against the constitution, the left wingers, or for the Constitution, the Constitutional judges....

You do not know what you are talking about....

From the Dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park when the Court didn't hear the case.....what Scalia actually said which clarifies his stance on AR-15 rifles....

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

The 14th amendment only applies to states and DC is a District not a state. This is why it can't be heard. There is no basis for it to be heard from. One Justice doesn't make the supreme court no matter how out spoken he is.