The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

No

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "

The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

 

[Auld Phart]

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

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.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

It supports ALL of the states right.

 

[Rigby5]

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

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.

You mean state jurisdiction.
States do not have rights.
Only individuals have rights.
Then the individuals create states, bases on the needs of the inherent rights of the individuals.
For states to have rights, they would have to exist before the people, and that is impossible.

 

[Lesh]

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

But oddly we have all sorts of laws regarding weapons. Machine guns in particular.

Huh...

 

[Ambivalent1]

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

But oddly we have all sorts of laws regarding weapons. Machine guns in particular.

Huh...

You'll lead the charge to come for them....right?

 

[Rigby5]

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.

Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"

They clearly thought that a militia was "necessary". They had just fought a war for Independence in which that militia ws crucial.

The 2A was obviously about that militia and how to make sure it was "armed".

We no longer HAVE a militia

We obviously still have a militia and will ALWAYS have a militia.
When you hear a noise outside and go out with a weapon to see if someone is breaking into your property, that is a militia.
The fact we now have mercenary police and military is not a good idea, is very risky, prone to corruption, expensive, and not at all the way the founders wanted things. Nor can we trust them, so they in no way alter the need for the militia.
The reality is that paid police and military are always going to be beholding to who pays them, not to the general public.
So the need for citizens solider and militia not only will never go away, but having paid police and military makes the unpaid militia even more important, as those 2 paid factors are even more potential threats.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

You can repeat this ignorant nonsense all you want but it will always be wrong; you indeed have no idea what you’re talking about.

The people and the government are one in the same; government derives its authority from the consent of the people.

When government places limits and restrictions on a right, it does so at the behest of the people, where the will of the people is paramount.

The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

That case law acts as a guide to the people (government) with regard to what restrictions are permitted, and what restrictions are not.

When the people (government) err and enact firearm regulatory measures repugnant to Second Amendment case law – such as prohibiting the possession of handguns – those disadvantaged by the law may seek relief in the courts resulting in such measures being invalidated.

That’s how our Constitutional Republic functions: legislative bodies act first, reflecting the will of the people, the judiciary responds second when warranted and determines the Constitutionality of legislative acts in the context of applicable case law.

Consequently, all and any Federal weapons law is clearly and completely legal provided that law comports with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[danielpalos]

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.

Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
...}
Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well. You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside. And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.

no, it isn't. there is no implication for immigration. Our Constitution is express. Naturalization is not immigration.

There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration. Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant. Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.

Naturalization is the Only express clause.

Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.

 

[danielpalos]

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Rigby5]

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

But oddly we have all sorts of laws regarding weapons. Machine guns in particular.

Huh...

The states got lazy, the federal government got corrupt, and here we go down the slippery slope to dictatorship.
The founders were very clear that any federal laws usurping state jurisdiction, like over weapons, is totally and completely illegal.
Basically the test is whether or not states could do something.
Because if they can, it is always better to have the states do it, since they are closer to the people, and less expensive to implement and maintain.
There is absolutely not a single advantage for federal weapons laws, and huge reasons against it.
For example, you clearly want different weapons laws in Alaska than in NY.
There is no justification or legal basis for any federal weapons laws at all.

 

[danielpalos]

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

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.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

It supports ALL of the states right.

ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.

how special, is that.

 

[danielpalos]

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

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.

You mean state jurisdiction.
States do not have rights.
Only individuals have rights.
Then the individuals create states, bases on the needs of the inherent rights of the individuals.
For states to have rights, they would have to exist before the people, and that is impossible.

States' rights is a real concept.

 

[Auld Phart]

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

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.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

It supports ALL of the states right.

ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.

how special, is that.

ad hom?

You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.

I stated they all do


Which State does NOT support the Second?

 

[danielpalos]

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

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.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

It supports ALL of the states right.

ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.

how special, is that.

ad hom?

You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.

I stated they all do


Which State does NOT support the Second?

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.

 

[Rigby5]

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.

Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
...}
Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well. You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside. And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.

no, it isn't. there is no implication for immigration. Our Constitution is express. Naturalization is not immigration.

There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration. Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant. Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.

Naturalization is the Only express clause.

Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.

Naturalization is the legal process by which one immigrates.
So they refer explicitly to the same thing, and are only different synonyms.

But well regulated militia and security of a free State are not implied or express.
They are a rational.
A consideration.
A concern or thought.
They do not change the actual amendment itself, which is a strict bar on all federal weapons jurisdiction.

 

[Rigby5]

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

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.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

It supports ALL of the states right.

ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.

how special, is that.

ad hom?

You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.

I stated they all do


Which State does NOT support the Second?

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.

But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
The fact municipalities usually call them posses and no term is used when individuals defend themselves, does not alter the fact they are still aspects of a militia.
Remember there were zero police back then.
Who do you think did keep the peace then?

 

[McRocket]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I don't think it is obsolete...just woefully (and deliberately) misinterpreted.

'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

The ENTIRE point on the Second Amendment is the Militia (the military). It is NOTHING to do with burglars or stopping robberies or protecting people from the American, democratically elected government. ONLY about the militia (military).

Back when it was written, the full-time military was small and the Militia was necessary during times of war (which was the right way - BTW). So Militiamen HAD to own weapons to bring to the fight.

Today, that is obviously not the way it is. The US military is GINORMOUS.

It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.

That is what the 2'nd Amendment basically says.


And to those gun bunnies who disagree...I do not even begin to care what you think (nor will I waste my time reading what you think about this). I KNOW some of you people literally love your guns more than your children. Many of you are flat out nuts. And all of you are mentally disturbed to some extent (IMO).
And I am talking about 'gun bunnies' - NOT just gun owners. BIG difference.

 

[Auld Phart]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I don't think it is obsolete...just woefully (and deliberately) misinterpreted.

'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

The ENTIRE point on the Second Amendment is the Militia (the military). It is NOTHING to do with burglars or stopping robberies or protecting people from the American, democratically elected government. ONLY about the militia (military).

Back when it was written, the full-time military was small and the Militia was necessary during times of war (which was the right way - BTW). So Militiamen HAD to own weapons to bring to the fight.

Today, that is obviously not the way it is. The US military is GINORMOUS.

It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.

That is what the 2'nd Amendment basically says.


And to those gun bunnies who disagree...I do not even begin to care what you think (nor will I waste my time reading what you think about this). I KNOW some of you people love your guns more than your children. Many of you are flat out out-to-lunch on this issue.

It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.

Didn't need to belong to a militia when it was written, no need to now.

 

[Lesh]

But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.

Then if you are a member of an actual ell regulated militia it may apply to you. I have never met such a person

It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves

Just being a member of the reserves does not give you a need for a gun. Reserves store their weapons in an armory

 

[McRocket]

But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.

Then if you are a member of an actual ell regulated militia it may apply to you. I have never met such a person

It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves

Just being a member of the reserves does not give you a need for a gun. Reserves store their weapons in an armory

Agreed.

But if someone's job is to carry a rifle and risk their life for their country - seems rather silly to deny them the right to do so at home. Also, I like the way the Swiss do it.