The Right To Bear Arms

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one; as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.

...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.

Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

You're making the claim I support confiscations. That is your Straw Man. The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.

For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous. Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.

Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?

"As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).

As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.

I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.

It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.

You ask, "Why was the phrase 'A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?"
And of course the phrase has value.
But you interpret it wrong.
The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, familiar, reliable, and ready to go.
Like in a "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".
So the meaning is that if the federal government were to ever infringe upon popular gun rights, that would make each state and the whole country more vulnerable to invasion, crime, takeover, etc.
The survival of a democratic republic is dependent upon a well armed and trained general population.
In no way does that imply any federal jurisdiction to restrict weapons, over anyone, at any time. It does not at all imply any exceptions to that. Clearly the 10th amendment says the federal government ONLY has very limited jurisdiction to exactly what it is explicitly given authority over in the Constitution, and that most certainly does not at all include weapons, in any way.

Still trying to peddle this wrongheaded, moronic tripe.

And yet again:

There is nothing in the text or case law of the Second Amendment authorizing insurrectionist dogma.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to ‘authorize’ the destruction of the Constitution and the Republic they just created.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to ‘fight crime,’ not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because some incorrectly perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

And the Federal government is at complete liberty to regulate firearms; the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to place regulations and restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms, including the Federal government.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one; as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.

...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.

Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

You're making the claim I support confiscations. That is your Straw Man. The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.

For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous. Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.

Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?

"As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).

As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.

I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.

It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.

You ask, "Why was the phrase 'A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?"
And of course the phrase has value.
But you interpret it wrong.
The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, familiar, reliable, and ready to go.
Like in a "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".
So the meaning is that if the federal government were to ever infringe upon popular gun rights, that would make each state and the whole country more vulnerable to invasion, crime, takeover, etc.
The survival of a democratic republic is dependent upon a well armed and trained general population.
In no way does that imply any federal jurisdiction to restrict weapons, over anyone, at any time. It does not at all imply any exceptions to that. Clearly the 10th amendment says the federal government ONLY has very limited jurisdiction to exactly what it is explicitly given authority over in the Constitution, and that most certainly does not at all include weapons, in any way.

Still trying to peddle this wrongheaded, moronic tripe.

And yet again:

There is nothing in the text or case law of the Second Amendment authorizing insurrectionist dogma.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to ‘authorize’ the destruction of the Constitution and the Republic they just created.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to ‘fight crime,’ not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because some incorrectly perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

And the Federal government is at complete liberty to regulate firearms; the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to place regulations and restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms, including the Federal government.

That seems pretty ignorant because the founders were famous for always authorizing insurrectionist dogma, like the Declaration of Independence.

You seem confused about historical fact. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendment, were not AFTER the Republic has just been created, but was BEFORE any single state was willing to join into the Republic. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to weaken the federal government enough so that states would change their minds and consider joining.

I have no problem with your statement, "The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service."
But you seem to be contradicting yourself because the right of lawful self-defense essentially is act as law enforcement and to overthrow tyrannies. Clearly there were NO police back then at all, and the founders had no faith or trust in any government at that point.

You do not seem to understand the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd amendment is not the source of any right, and is not where the right of individuals to bear arms comes from. All rights were considered to pre-exist, and not be created or granted by government. The Bill of Rights is just supposed to be line in the sand, reminders of what limits are not to be crossed by the federal government.
But it is the 10th amendment that prohibits all federal weapons law.
The 10th amendment says that the federal government has ZERO jurisdiction on anything not expressly authorized to the federal government by some article of the Constitution.
So for the federal government to legally have ANY jurisdiction over weapons inside the US, there would have to be some article in the Constitution, expressly stating that. But there is none.
{...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}

 

[Daryl Hunt]

THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.
Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.

Fact remains:
Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to. A good law or Amendment removes all ambiguity from it and the 2A hasn't done that. It did for the first 70 years but weapons outpaced the 2A as well as the cost of war in money, equipment and manpower.

Now, explain to me how it's so concise. And don't just grab 5 words from it and keep hammering away with them. Tell me how it's concise.

 

[Rigby5]

THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.
Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.

Fact remains:
Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to. A good law or Amendment removes all ambiguity from it and the 2A hasn't done that. It did for the first 70 years but weapons outpaced the 2A as well as the cost of war in money, equipment and manpower.

Now, explain to me how it's so concise. And don't just grab 5 words from it and keep hammering away with them. Tell me how it's concise.

The Constitution is very clear.
The federal government was strictly limited to only what states could not do themselves individually, such as protecting interstate commerce, negotiating international treaties, etc.
States have no difficulty at all in legislating their own weapons restrictions, so there obviously could not have been any need for any federal jurisdiction over weapons inside the US, and there is no article anywhere in the Constitution implying any such weapons jurisdiction. Without an express authorization for federal jurisdiction over weapons, clearly the federal government is totally and completely bared from any jurisdiction over weapons, in any way, except maybe importation.

 

[Lesh]

A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.

What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this dicussion

 

[Rigby5]

A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.

What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this discussion

Because A, then B does not imply there are not also other reasons C, D, E, etc., for B as well.
Only one reason needs be shown for something for it to become justified, but that in no way means that is the only, exclusive reason.
And since the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the federal government, all that matters is that the federal government then is forbidden jurisdiction over weapons.
But is also clear that militias were up to states to create and control, not the federal government.
The federal government only is allowed to call them up from the states during emergencies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.
What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this dicussion

So is your opinion on the matter.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?

 

[danielpalos]

We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?

The rules of logic.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already? Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?

The rules of logic.

And who determines that logic in a Country of Laws?

 

[hadit]

We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already? Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.

Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.

What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this discussion

Because A, then B does not imply there are not also other reasons C, D, E, etc., for B as well.
Only one reason needs be shown for something for it to become justified, but that in no way means that is the only, exclusive reason.
And since the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the federal government, all that matters is that the federal government then is forbidden jurisdiction over weapons.
But is also clear that militias were up to states to create and control, not the federal government.
The federal government only is allowed to call them up from the states during emergencies.

In re Militias: See Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

And by claiming no infringement ever, that interpretation in no way reflects reality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

…or that the ‘interpretation’ is legally relevant or valid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

And by claiming no infringement ever, that interpretation in no way reflects reality.

Correct.

Indeed – and again – all laws are valid and presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, including laws regulating firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?

The rules of logic.

And who determines that logic in a Country of Laws?

The rules of logic are independent of any country, or any law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, it's clear, plain language, is it. The fact is, it's not clear enough. It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.

That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.

And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?

The rules of logic.

And who determines that logic in a Country of Laws?

The rules of logic are independent of any country, or any law.

Explain this ^^^