The NRA.

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

Are you a member of Gun owners of America or the 2nd Amedment Foundation....? How about local gun rights groups? I belong to as many as I can, they all play their part.

Between the 100 Club the NRA,and Wounded Warriors i'm about at my limit.

 

[whitehall]

Most of the anti-gun sissies in the MSM don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons and they don't care. The Clinton feds incinerated about 80 men women and children at Waco Texas because they either didn't understand the freaking law or they were looking for a cheap score around budget time.. The ATF warrant alleged that certain Branch Dividian members were converting junk rusty old WW2 crap into functional automatic weapons and it wasn't true. The NRA experts offered to analyze recovered junk to determine if the ATF allegations were true and the Clinton feds turned on the NRA as if they were involved in the conspiracy that didn't freaking exist. That's how propaganda works when the media becomes the political arm of the administration.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, let's slow it down for you a little. Answer yes or not.

Does the NRA support carry and conceal permits? Yes or no?

Can the US govt or state governments have permits on rights? Yes or no?

Is a person considered crazy for posting facts? Yes or no?

1) I don't know or care.

2) No, they can't have permits on Rights, see Murdock v Pennsylvania about taxing a Right, which a permit is.

3) People are not crazy for posting facts...but when you mix your meds with your booze you are engaging in dangerous behavior, and effecting your posts....

You don't know if the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?

You're a lifelong member of the NRA and you don't know? Oh, and I even posted a link to where they support carry and conceal permits.

Can you be so ignorant? No, you're a fucking liar.

Ah, so no permits on rights. Which means if the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, then they KNOW THERE IS NOT RIGHT TO CARRY ARMS.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

So, I post facts, and then you try and insult me for doing so. Why is that?

Oh, wait, it's because your arguments are weaker than water passing as tea and you need something else. Am I right?

You are, indeed, an idiot. I don't follow NRA policy. I know what the Constitution states and that is what I go with. Permits are a violation of the Bill of Rights..... just like Poll Taxes and Literacy tests were a violation when the democrats used them to prevent Blacks from voting. As Murdock v Pennsylvania stated, a Supreme Court ruling, you cannot tax the exercise of a Right. The NRA is not the final say on the Constitution you moron...again, the drinking and mixing it with your meds has made your head a fuzzy mess.... you need to stop.

Ah yes, I'm an idiot because you don't know NRA policy and you're an NRA life member.

Right.........

I'm an idiot because you've insulted me in every post you've replied to me today.

Right.......

I'm an idiot because you can't keep to the topic for a whole post.

Right.......

The NRA is the biggest gun Rights group, I don't follow every policy they support because they have a mixed record. What they do is get out the vote. Insulting you is the rational thing to do since you are a left wing asshat who supports totalitarian left wing policies.

And yes... you are an idiot.

Ah, insulting is the logical thing to do because I'm an idiot because I write things that are true.

Whereas you're the intelligent one who insults in every single post, doesn't know what the NRA stands for and yet is a life member of the NRA.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

And why would I worry about that?

So, here's the thing. They're playing you.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

Here's what they wrote here.

"Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States"

Yes, all true. What they didn't say was that self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

What they did say was what the Supreme Court had said in the Heller case, which they know what it says and what it doesn't say, but they won't tell you that.

The right to keep and bears arms was put into the US Constitution for a reason. Each of the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights was there to prevent the US Federal Government from doing things. These things weren't plucked out of thin air, they were there for a very real reason.

The First Amendment, or example.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

It was there because the British Monarch was the head of the Church of England etc and this then led to repression of other people's religious persuasion.

Abridging the freedom of speech was because the British had repressed people's political thoughts in order to gain power over people.

Freedom of the press was because the British would limit freedom of the press to prevent political thought spreading.

Each of these had a reason for being there. Each reason was connected to politics.

The NRA knows this. Their legal people know this.

The Second Amendment doesn't read "People have the right to own arms and to walk around with them."

It starts with "A well regulated militia...." because this is the reason to have these protections. They're protecting the militia.

Now, before your brain starts going crazy, this argument is not the typical argument of "collective rights", it's not the argument that you need to be in the militia to have these rights.

The point is the reason why they had the right to keep arms was so the militia would have a ready supply of arms in the event of an emergency. Arms that the US Federal government could not touch.

If individuals (yes, individuals, you see I wrote individuals?) had their own weapons which the US government could not take away from them before due process, then the militia could use those weapons in the event the US Federal government went a little crazy, or bad, or mad, or whatever might pass.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.

What about the right to bear arms?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Remember?

If the Federal government couldn't take away the guns from the militia. Perhaps it could take away the personnel. How useful would a militia be if it had lots of guns but no one to use those guns? It'd be pretty fucking useless.

So, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals (see, I wrote individuals again) to be in the militia. To be able to use those arms that are protected in militia service.

So, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.

I can prove it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They wanted this clause in the Second Amendment. But it was voted out.

Mr Gerry said about this clause:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he said the Feds could declare people religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

Now, either this means they could prevent people from being in the militia, or it could mean they could prevent people from carry arms around.

Which is more likely to give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the constitution? The militia being ineffective or people carrying guns around?

Well, Mr Gerry said:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Do we think Mr Gerry thought it was carry guns around? Nah, he's talking about preventing people being in the militia.

Mr Gerry also said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Right, so, Mr Gerry to "prevent them from bearing arms" and changed it to "exclude those from militia duty".

Mr Jackson said: "by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Would you demand people pay an equivalent because they refused to carry arms around with them at all times? No. There's nothing demanding people carry arms around with them at all times.

But not carrying out militia duty however, might be considered worthy of paying an equivalent.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

See here, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, you have a document, from the FOUNDING FATHERS in the HOUSE debating the future of the Second Amendment.

Not once did they talk about carrying arms. But lots of times they talked about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia".

It's about protecting the militia from the US govt. It does so by protecting the individual rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

It does NOT protect the right to self defense. Self defense is in the Constitution, just not in the Second Amendment. The same as the right to privacy is in the Constitution but not specifically stated.

This Supreme court case PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was made long before the NRA started to play silly beggars with the Amendment.

"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."

They stated that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right of people to carry arms around with them.

This case also states a similar thing ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 used language that makes it clear that "bear arms" is "Military duties"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

All in all the NRA know that the 2A does not protect a right to carry arms. This is why they don't fight the carry and conceal permits. They know they'll never win a court case that directly goes after making "carry arms" mean "bear arms".

Yet at the same time they're stringing their followers along. They're using clever language to hide the fact that they know there is no right to carry arms. But they'll tell you in a round about way that there is. Just not in terms that they think can bite them on the ass.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

And why would I worry about that?

So, here's the thing. They're playing you.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

Here's what they wrote here.

"Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States"

Yes, all true. What they didn't say was that self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

What they did say was what the Supreme Court had said in the Heller case, which they know what it says and what it doesn't say, but they won't tell you that.

The right to keep and bears arms was put into the US Constitution for a reason. Each of the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights was there to prevent the US Federal Government from doing things. These things weren't plucked out of thin air, they were there for a very real reason.

The First Amendment, or example.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

It was there because the British Monarch was the head of the Church of England etc and this then led to repression of other people's religious persuasion.

Abridging the freedom of speech was because the British had repressed people's political thoughts in order to gain power over people.

Freedom of the press was because the British would limit freedom of the press to prevent political thought spreading.

Each of these had a reason for being there. Each reason was connected to politics.

The NRA knows this. Their legal people know this.

The Second Amendment doesn't read "People have the right to own arms and to walk around with them."

It starts with "A well regulated militia...." because this is the reason to have these protections. They're protecting the militia.

Now, before your brain starts going crazy, this argument is not the typical argument of "collective rights", it's not the argument that you need to be in the militia to have these rights.

The point is the reason why they had the right to keep arms was so the militia would have a ready supply of arms in the event of an emergency. Arms that the US Federal government could not touch.

If individuals (yes, individuals, you see I wrote individuals?) had their own weapons which the US government could not take away from them before due process, then the militia could use those weapons in the event the US Federal government went a little crazy, or bad, or mad, or whatever might pass.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.

What about the right to bear arms?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Remember?

If the Federal government couldn't take away the guns from the militia. Perhaps it could take away the personnel. How useful would a militia be if it had lots of guns but no one to use those guns? It'd be pretty fucking useless.

So, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals (see, I wrote individuals again) to be in the militia. To be able to use those arms that are protected in militia service.

So, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.

I can prove it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They wanted this clause in the Second Amendment. But it was voted out.

Mr Gerry said about this clause:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he said the Feds could declare people religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

Now, either this means they could prevent people from being in the militia, or it could mean they could prevent people from carry arms around.

Which is more likely to give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the constitution? The militia being ineffective or people carrying guns around?

Well, Mr Gerry said:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Do we think Mr Gerry thought it was carry guns around? Nah, he's talking about preventing people being in the militia.

Mr Gerry also said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Right, so, Mr Gerry to "prevent them from bearing arms" and changed it to "exclude those from militia duty".

Mr Jackson said: "by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Would you demand people pay an equivalent because they refused to carry arms around with them at all times? No. There's nothing demanding people carry arms around with them at all times.

But not carrying out militia duty however, might be considered worthy of paying an equivalent.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

See here, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, you have a document, from the FOUNDING FATHERS in the HOUSE debating the future of the Second Amendment.

Not once did they talk about carrying arms. But lots of times they talked about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia".

It's about protecting the militia from the US govt. It does so by protecting the individual rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

It does NOT protect the right to self defense. Self defense is in the Constitution, just not in the Second Amendment. The same as the right to privacy is in the Constitution but not specifically stated.

This Supreme court case PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was made long before the NRA started to play silly beggars with the Amendment.

"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."

They stated that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right of people to carry arms around with them.

This case also states a similar thing ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 used language that makes it clear that "bear arms" is "Military duties"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

All in all the NRA know that the 2A does not protect a right to carry arms. This is why they don't fight the carry and conceal permits. They know they'll never win a court case that directly goes after making "carry arms" mean "bear arms".

Yet at the same time they're stringing their followers along. They're using clever language to hide the fact that they know there is no right to carry arms. But they'll tell you in a round about way that there is. Just not in terms that they think can bite them on the ass.

Dont smoke crack!!!!

 

[Abatis]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

Lifetime since '96, Endowment Member since 2003.

 

[Abatis]

Are you a member of Gun owners of America or the 2nd Amedment Foundation....? How about local gun rights groups? I belong to as many as I can, they all play their part.

Definitely! Belong to GOA and SAF and PA4SP, Pennsylvanians For Self Protection.

Got a call from SAF today, gave them $50.00.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

And why would I worry about that?

So, here's the thing. They're playing you.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

Here's what they wrote here.

"Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States"

Yes, all true. What they didn't say was that self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

What they did say was what the Supreme Court had said in the Heller case, which they know what it says and what it doesn't say, but they won't tell you that.

The right to keep and bears arms was put into the US Constitution for a reason. Each of the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights was there to prevent the US Federal Government from doing things. These things weren't plucked out of thin air, they were there for a very real reason.

The First Amendment, or example.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

It was there because the British Monarch was the head of the Church of England etc and this then led to repression of other people's religious persuasion.

Abridging the freedom of speech was because the British had repressed people's political thoughts in order to gain power over people.

Freedom of the press was because the British would limit freedom of the press to prevent political thought spreading.

Each of these had a reason for being there. Each reason was connected to politics.

The NRA knows this. Their legal people know this.

The Second Amendment doesn't read "People have the right to own arms and to walk around with them."

It starts with "A well regulated militia...." because this is the reason to have these protections. They're protecting the militia.

Now, before your brain starts going crazy, this argument is not the typical argument of "collective rights", it's not the argument that you need to be in the militia to have these rights.

The point is the reason why they had the right to keep arms was so the militia would have a ready supply of arms in the event of an emergency. Arms that the US Federal government could not touch.

If individuals (yes, individuals, you see I wrote individuals?) had their own weapons which the US government could not take away from them before due process, then the militia could use those weapons in the event the US Federal government went a little crazy, or bad, or mad, or whatever might pass.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.

What about the right to bear arms?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Remember?

If the Federal government couldn't take away the guns from the militia. Perhaps it could take away the personnel. How useful would a militia be if it had lots of guns but no one to use those guns? It'd be pretty fucking useless.

So, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals (see, I wrote individuals again) to be in the militia. To be able to use those arms that are protected in militia service.

So, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.

I can prove it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They wanted this clause in the Second Amendment. But it was voted out.

Mr Gerry said about this clause:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he said the Feds could declare people religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

Now, either this means they could prevent people from being in the militia, or it could mean they could prevent people from carry arms around.

Which is more likely to give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the constitution? The militia being ineffective or people carrying guns around?

Well, Mr Gerry said:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Do we think Mr Gerry thought it was carry guns around? Nah, he's talking about preventing people being in the militia.

Mr Gerry also said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Right, so, Mr Gerry to "prevent them from bearing arms" and changed it to "exclude those from militia duty".

Mr Jackson said: "by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Would you demand people pay an equivalent because they refused to carry arms around with them at all times? No. There's nothing demanding people carry arms around with them at all times.

But not carrying out militia duty however, might be considered worthy of paying an equivalent.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

See here, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, you have a document, from the FOUNDING FATHERS in the HOUSE debating the future of the Second Amendment.

Not once did they talk about carrying arms. But lots of times they talked about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia".

It's about protecting the militia from the US govt. It does so by protecting the individual rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

It does NOT protect the right to self defense. Self defense is in the Constitution, just not in the Second Amendment. The same as the right to privacy is in the Constitution but not specifically stated.

This Supreme court case PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was made long before the NRA started to play silly beggars with the Amendment.

"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."

They stated that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right of people to carry arms around with them.

This case also states a similar thing ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 used language that makes it clear that "bear arms" is "Military duties"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

All in all the NRA know that the 2A does not protect a right to carry arms. This is why they don't fight the carry and conceal permits. They know they'll never win a court case that directly goes after making "carry arms" mean "bear arms".

Yet at the same time they're stringing their followers along. They're using clever language to hide the fact that they know there is no right to carry arms. But they'll tell you in a round about way that there is. Just not in terms that they think can bite them on the ass.

Dont smoke crack!!!!

That's all you've got? Someone posts FACTS and all you can do is make some snide high school type remark?

No argument in counter to this? No. Just insults.

What a fucking surprise. The same as 2Aguy.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

And why would I worry about that?

So, here's the thing. They're playing you.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

Here's what they wrote here.

"Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States"

Yes, all true. What they didn't say was that self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

What they did say was what the Supreme Court had said in the Heller case, which they know what it says and what it doesn't say, but they won't tell you that.

The right to keep and bears arms was put into the US Constitution for a reason. Each of the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights was there to prevent the US Federal Government from doing things. These things weren't plucked out of thin air, they were there for a very real reason.

The First Amendment, or example.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

It was there because the British Monarch was the head of the Church of England etc and this then led to repression of other people's religious persuasion.

Abridging the freedom of speech was because the British had repressed people's political thoughts in order to gain power over people.

Freedom of the press was because the British would limit freedom of the press to prevent political thought spreading.

Each of these had a reason for being there. Each reason was connected to politics.

The NRA knows this. Their legal people know this.

The Second Amendment doesn't read "People have the right to own arms and to walk around with them."

It starts with "A well regulated militia...." because this is the reason to have these protections. They're protecting the militia.

Now, before your brain starts going crazy, this argument is not the typical argument of "collective rights", it's not the argument that you need to be in the militia to have these rights.

The point is the reason why they had the right to keep arms was so the militia would have a ready supply of arms in the event of an emergency. Arms that the US Federal government could not touch.

If individuals (yes, individuals, you see I wrote individuals?) had their own weapons which the US government could not take away from them before due process, then the militia could use those weapons in the event the US Federal government went a little crazy, or bad, or mad, or whatever might pass.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.

What about the right to bear arms?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Remember?

If the Federal government couldn't take away the guns from the militia. Perhaps it could take away the personnel. How useful would a militia be if it had lots of guns but no one to use those guns? It'd be pretty fucking useless.

So, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals (see, I wrote individuals again) to be in the militia. To be able to use those arms that are protected in militia service.

So, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.

I can prove it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They wanted this clause in the Second Amendment. But it was voted out.

Mr Gerry said about this clause:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he said the Feds could declare people religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

Now, either this means they could prevent people from being in the militia, or it could mean they could prevent people from carry arms around.

Which is more likely to give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the constitution? The militia being ineffective or people carrying guns around?

Well, Mr Gerry said:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Do we think Mr Gerry thought it was carry guns around? Nah, he's talking about preventing people being in the militia.

Mr Gerry also said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Right, so, Mr Gerry to "prevent them from bearing arms" and changed it to "exclude those from militia duty".

Mr Jackson said: "by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Would you demand people pay an equivalent because they refused to carry arms around with them at all times? No. There's nothing demanding people carry arms around with them at all times.

But not carrying out militia duty however, might be considered worthy of paying an equivalent.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

See here, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, you have a document, from the FOUNDING FATHERS in the HOUSE debating the future of the Second Amendment.

Not once did they talk about carrying arms. But lots of times they talked about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia".

It's about protecting the militia from the US govt. It does so by protecting the individual rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

It does NOT protect the right to self defense. Self defense is in the Constitution, just not in the Second Amendment. The same as the right to privacy is in the Constitution but not specifically stated.

This Supreme court case PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was made long before the NRA started to play silly beggars with the Amendment.

"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."

They stated that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right of people to carry arms around with them.

This case also states a similar thing ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 used language that makes it clear that "bear arms" is "Military duties"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

All in all the NRA know that the 2A does not protect a right to carry arms. This is why they don't fight the carry and conceal permits. They know they'll never win a court case that directly goes after making "carry arms" mean "bear arms".

Yet at the same time they're stringing their followers along. They're using clever language to hide the fact that they know there is no right to carry arms. But they'll tell you in a round about way that there is. Just not in terms that they think can bite them on the ass.

Dont smoke crack!!!!

That's all you've got? Someone posts FACTS and all you can do is make some snide high school type remark?

No argument in counter to this? No. Just insults.

What a fucking surprise. The same as 2Aguy.

Not my problem you hate the 2nd amendment.

 

[Abatis]

Does the NRA support carry and conceal permits? Yes or no?

Yes.

Can the US govt or state governments have permits on rights? Yes or no?

Feds? No . . . States? We are in flux right now. The 2nd Amendment did not impact state or local laws until 2010 but states have ALWAYS possessed the power to dictate as to manner of carry.

We see as cases have come up through the Circuits law being developed that a private citizen does possess a right -- secured by the 2nd Amendment--to carry a gun for self defense in public.

Discretionary state laws that condition the issuance of permits to essentially barring concealed carry are permissible only if people are allowed to carry open (see the 9th's decision in Young last month).

Is a person considered crazy for posting facts? Yes or no?

No, unless those "facts" are filtered through a mesh of BS. Even then, probably not crazy, just disingenuous . . .

 

[frigidweirdo]

Does the NRA support carry and conceal permits? Yes or no?

Yes.

Can the US govt or state governments have permits on rights? Yes or no?

Feds? No . . . States? We are in flux right now. The 2nd Amendment did not impact state or local laws until 2010 but states have ALWAYS possessed the power to dictate as to manner of carry.

We see as cases have come up through the Circuits law being developed that a private citizen does possess a right -- secured by the 2nd Amendment--to carry a gun for self defense in public.

Discretionary state laws that condition the issuance of permits to essentially barring concealed carry are permissible only if people are allowed to carry open (see the 9th's decision in Young last month).

Is a person considered crazy for posting facts? Yes or no?

No, unless those "facts" are filtered through a mesh of BS. Even then, probably not crazy, just disingenuous . . .

The point being that the state governments don't have permits on a right at all. Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

Hence why state governments get away with it EVEN THOUGH the NRA is there. And the NRA does nothing about it. Why?

Some states might say that carrying openly is protected. They're allowed to do that. They're allowed to make up rights and stick them in their constitution.

But under Federal law, ie, the Second Amendment, there is no right to carry arms.


Well, lucky for me that none of my facts are "filtered through a mess of BS" then, isn't it?

And you know how I know this is the case? Because half the people will simply insult me, rather than bother to even debate this, the other half will, at some point, just tell me they "believe" things to be the case.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

And why would I worry about that?

So, here's the thing. They're playing you.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

Here's what they wrote here.

"Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States"

Yes, all true. What they didn't say was that self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

What they did say was what the Supreme Court had said in the Heller case, which they know what it says and what it doesn't say, but they won't tell you that.

The right to keep and bears arms was put into the US Constitution for a reason. Each of the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights was there to prevent the US Federal Government from doing things. These things weren't plucked out of thin air, they were there for a very real reason.

The First Amendment, or example.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

It was there because the British Monarch was the head of the Church of England etc and this then led to repression of other people's religious persuasion.

Abridging the freedom of speech was because the British had repressed people's political thoughts in order to gain power over people.

Freedom of the press was because the British would limit freedom of the press to prevent political thought spreading.

Each of these had a reason for being there. Each reason was connected to politics.

The NRA knows this. Their legal people know this.

The Second Amendment doesn't read "People have the right to own arms and to walk around with them."

It starts with "A well regulated militia...." because this is the reason to have these protections. They're protecting the militia.

Now, before your brain starts going crazy, this argument is not the typical argument of "collective rights", it's not the argument that you need to be in the militia to have these rights.

The point is the reason why they had the right to keep arms was so the militia would have a ready supply of arms in the event of an emergency. Arms that the US Federal government could not touch.

If individuals (yes, individuals, you see I wrote individuals?) had their own weapons which the US government could not take away from them before due process, then the militia could use those weapons in the event the US Federal government went a little crazy, or bad, or mad, or whatever might pass.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.

What about the right to bear arms?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Remember?

If the Federal government couldn't take away the guns from the militia. Perhaps it could take away the personnel. How useful would a militia be if it had lots of guns but no one to use those guns? It'd be pretty fucking useless.

So, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals (see, I wrote individuals again) to be in the militia. To be able to use those arms that are protected in militia service.

So, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.

I can prove it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They wanted this clause in the Second Amendment. But it was voted out.

Mr Gerry said about this clause:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he said the Feds could declare people religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

Now, either this means they could prevent people from being in the militia, or it could mean they could prevent people from carry arms around.

Which is more likely to give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the constitution? The militia being ineffective or people carrying guns around?

Well, Mr Gerry said:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Do we think Mr Gerry thought it was carry guns around? Nah, he's talking about preventing people being in the militia.

Mr Gerry also said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Right, so, Mr Gerry to "prevent them from bearing arms" and changed it to "exclude those from militia duty".

Mr Jackson said: "by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Would you demand people pay an equivalent because they refused to carry arms around with them at all times? No. There's nothing demanding people carry arms around with them at all times.

But not carrying out militia duty however, might be considered worthy of paying an equivalent.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

See here, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, you have a document, from the FOUNDING FATHERS in the HOUSE debating the future of the Second Amendment.

Not once did they talk about carrying arms. But lots of times they talked about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia".

It's about protecting the militia from the US govt. It does so by protecting the individual rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

It does NOT protect the right to self defense. Self defense is in the Constitution, just not in the Second Amendment. The same as the right to privacy is in the Constitution but not specifically stated.

This Supreme court case PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was made long before the NRA started to play silly beggars with the Amendment.

"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."

They stated that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right of people to carry arms around with them.

This case also states a similar thing ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 used language that makes it clear that "bear arms" is "Military duties"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

All in all the NRA know that the 2A does not protect a right to carry arms. This is why they don't fight the carry and conceal permits. They know they'll never win a court case that directly goes after making "carry arms" mean "bear arms".

Yet at the same time they're stringing their followers along. They're using clever language to hide the fact that they know there is no right to carry arms. But they'll tell you in a round about way that there is. Just not in terms that they think can bite them on the ass.

Dont smoke crack!!!!

That's all you've got? Someone posts FACTS and all you can do is make some snide high school type remark?

No argument in counter to this? No. Just insults.

What a fucking surprise. The same as 2Aguy.

Not my problem you hate the 2nd amendment.

Oh, now I've gone from smoking crack to hating the 2nd Amendment.

Would you care to actually debate this or just keep flinging the insults?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

Waste of money – the NRA has abandoned promoting the responsible use of firearms and instead has become a political arm of the GOP; it’s all about politics, not guns.

 

[Abatis]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

 

[Missourian]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

You really need to stop mixing your meds with beer..... it isn't helping you post......

Translation: What you said is right, but I don't like it, so I'm going to say something stupid and hope that you take the bait.

What did I say that is factually incorrect?

No....what you said may or may not be true, but the NRA is not the arbiter of what is or isn't Constitutional. They play their part, but they aren't the final authority. The only ones who suck up to their borg masters are you and the other left wingers....

And really..... get help, mixing your meds with booze is really bad....

Okay, let's slow it down for you a little. Answer yes or not.

Does the NRA support carry and conceal permits? Yes or no?

Can the US govt or state governments have permits on rights? Yes or no?

Is a person considered crazy for posting facts? Yes or no?

Just a means to an end brother.

Missouri went from a permits and registrations to buy a gun, to CCW permits to Constitutional Carry. It's a journey back to Constitutional Carry...CCW permits are just a stepping stone.

Want to see the journey so far...here's 32 years of progress in one map...

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia

Look at all that beautiful sea of green and blue replacing that desert of red and yellow.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The NRA is the biggest gun Rights group, I don't follow every policy they support because they have a mixed record. What they do is get out the vote. Insulting you is the rational thing to do since you are a left wing asshat who supports totalitarian left wing policies.

And yes... you are an idiot.

Do you really have to be so insulting? Can't you disagree without the name calling?

I opted for a membership with Gun Owners of America ("No Compromise") instead of the NRA because as an African American female I wasn't sure that the NRA fully supported my 2nd amendment rights while GOA fights legislatively and through the courts to protect our second amendment rights. Not to take anything away from the NRA because I do know that both the Second Amendment Foundation & the NRA have stepped in and sued on behalf of the rights of disenfranchised members of society such as when the New Orlean Police Department were unlawfully seizing firearms after hurricane Katrina, I was just not confident enough at the time.

I also am familiar with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committe for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, an affiliated orgnization of SAF. After learning about my history and the reasoning behind my decision to obtain my concealed carry permit one of their writers asked me if they could include an article about me in their Women & Guns magazine. I agreed to the interview but instead of just including the article, they featured me on the cover of the Fall 2003 issue.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(2) 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."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(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."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The NRA is the biggest gun Rights group, I don't follow every policy they support because they have a mixed record. What they do is get out the vote. Insulting you is the rational thing to do since you are a left wing asshat who supports totalitarian left wing policies.

And yes... you are an idiot.

Do you really have to be so insulting? Can't you disagree without the name calling?

The answer is no. He insults in just about every post he writes in response to other people who disagree with him.

His arguments are, at best, nonsense. So he needs something else to carry him, which are insults.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(2) 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."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(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."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

The Heller Court could address only the issue before it.

Consequently, the Constitutionality of the following issues, regulations, and restrictions remains unresolved:

AWBs

Waiting periods

Universal background checks

Magazine capacity restrictions

‘May issue’ concealed carry licensing

Waiting periods

Licensing/permit requirements and fees

Training requirements

And the level of appropriate judicial review when examining a firearm regulatory measure.

The lower courts have addressed the above regulations and restrictions and have consistently upheld them to be Constitutional – the Supreme Court has yet to review these issues.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, only prohibits the banning of handguns because Americans have overwhelmingly determined them to be the most popular means of self-defense, regardless the level of judicial review.

As long as a given jurisdiction affords its residents adequate access to firearms – handguns in particular – prohibiting the possession of specific types of firearms is Constitutionally permitted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(2) 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."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(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."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

The Heller Court could address only the issue before it.

Consequently, the Constitutionality of the following issues, regulations, and restrictions remains unresolved:

AWBs

Waiting periods

Universal background checks

Magazine capacity restrictions

‘May issue’ concealed carry licensing

Waiting periods

Licensing/permit requirements and fees

Training requirements

And the level of appropriate judicial review when examining a firearm regulatory measure.

The lower courts have addressed the above regulations and restrictions and have consistently upheld them to be Constitutional – the Supreme Court has yet to review these issues.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, only prohibits the banning of handguns because Americans have overwhelmingly determined them to be the most popular means of self-defense, regardless the level of judicial review.

As long as a given jurisdiction affords its residents adequate access to firearms – handguns in particular – prohibiting the possession of specific types of firearms is Constitutionally permitted.

Of course it could only address the case before it. But it tried to do more than this. That's part of the problem.

The fact that it didn't bother to correct anyone on the meaning of "bear arms" is telling.