The Right To Bear Arms

[M14 Shooter]

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"

You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
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.

Ah. So Utah can ban abortions, and Mississippi can force blacks to pay a poll tax.
Who knew?

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.

Outstanding!
What has the USSC said in this regard?

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

That's a pretty long way of saying little to nothing.

 

[Lesh]

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"

You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.

Lie?

I'm expressing my opinion and explaining what I base that opinion on . The actual words in the 2A.

An opinion can not be a lie by definition ya fucking moron.

 

[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

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.

That's aside from the point. There is no NEED for that in order to be a member of the reserves. The 2A simply doesn't apply there...silly or not.

That's not to say that the 2A in any bans anything. It simply doesn't apply outside the need for a weapon in a militia. There is no such need and no such militia

 

[Lesh]

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

Machine guns?

Nahhh the BATF will do that.

You misunderstand. I'm not in favor of taking guns away at all.

But it's plain that "gun rights" don't really stem from the 2A.

WHat I favor the banning of future sales of assault weapons and universal background checks

 

[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.

That's aside from the point. There is no NEED for that in order to be a member of the reserves. The 2A simply doesn't apply there...silly or not.

That's not to say that the 2A in any bans anything. It simply doesn't apply outside the need for a weapon in a militia. There is no such need and no such militia

I agree 100% with the way the Swiss do it (except that I do not believe people who do not want to be in the military should be forced to be). If you are in the military - you keep your weapon at home. And their crime rate is MILES lower than America's.

Countries Compared by Crime > Crime levels. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

Also, I am not against people owning guns. I am just against anyone owning one who is not in the military/reserves (outside of police, of course).

BTW, I also believe that anyone who legally owns a gun should automatically be allowed to carry it concealed. This would MASSIVELY cut down on mass shooting's. No way you start a mass shooting (looking for a big body count) if you have no idea who is carrying among your potential victims).


You disagree, so be it. But nothing you can say will change my mind - so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Good day.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Naturalization is not immigration. Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

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?

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The People are the Militia.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The People are the Militia; you are either Organized and well regulated or complaining about gun control laws Because you are unorganized.

 

[hadit]

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.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

 

[danielpalos]

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"

You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.

only the Unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

naturalization is express not implied.

this is express:

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.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Naturalization is not immigration. Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

Most obtuse poster on the site

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Naturalization is not immigration. Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

Most obtuse poster on the site

express not implied.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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"

You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.

Lie?

Yes.
You're making statements you know are not true.
Thus, a lie -- or, in your case, a series of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's not to say that the 2A in any bans anything. It simply doesn't apply outside the need for a weapon in a militia.

This is another of your lies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

WHat I favor the banning of future sales of assault weapons and universal background checks

For no rational reason whatsoever.

 

[Lesh]

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"

You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.

Lie?

Yes.
You're making statements you know are not true.
Thus, a lie -- or, in your case, a series of them.

How the fuck do you know what I know?

You don't. Take your bullshit elsewhere

 

[hadit]

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.

Naturalization is not immigration. Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms, period.