we are not evil for defending the 2nd amendment

[Billo_Really]

SCOTUS has already ruled against your interpretation and sided with this to be interpreted as an individual right.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For the security of the state, not personal liberty.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

However, Heller v. DC does allow for government to regulate firearms in public places.

 

[Ringel05]

SCOTUS has already ruled against your interpretation and sided with this to be interpreted as an individual right.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For the security of the state, not personal liberty.

SCOTUS Link?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

However, Heller v. DC does allow for government to regulate firearms in public places.

The opinion in Heller should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arm.

This is not an allowance or prescription of power to the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

SCOTUS has already ruled against your interpretation and sided with this to be interpreted as an individual right.
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For the security of the state, not personal liberty.

False.
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

 

[Billo_Really]

SCOTUS Link?

Funny, I was going to ask you the same thing.

In the full statement of the 2nd Amendment, it is more than obvious the Framers are talking about the security of the state, not liberty of the individual.

“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.”​

 

[Billo_Really]

False.
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

That's not what it says.

 

[OODA_Loop]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

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. Pp. 2–53.

 

[Ringel05]

SCOTUS Link?

Funny, I was going to ask you the same thing.

In the full statement of the 2nd Amendment, it is more than obvious the Framers are talking about the security of the state, not liberty of the individual.

“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.”​

If it was so obvious then why is there still and ongoing debate between the minority who believe as you do and the majority that SCOTUS upheld? Besides we are discussing the SCOTUS decision, not your opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

False.
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

That's not what it says.

For every relevant purpose, that is what it means.
You may feel free to disagree, but for every relevant purpose, it means you are intentionally wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

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. Pp. 2–53.

Within the home, not in public places.

From your own link:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333.

 

[Billo_Really]

If it was so obvious then why is there still and ongoing debate between the minority who believe as you do and the majority that SCOTUS upheld? Besides we are discussing the SCOTUS decision, not your opinion.

There's a difference between what SCOTUS upheld and what you think it upheld.

 

[OODA_Loop]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

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. Pp. 2–53.

Within the home, not in public places.

From your own link:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333.

Exactly. Other laws provide for that.

 

[Ringel05]

If it was so obvious then why is there still and ongoing debate between the minority who believe as you do and the majority that SCOTUS upheld? Besides we are discussing the SCOTUS decision, not your opinion.

There's a difference between what SCOTUS upheld and what you think it upheld.

The individual right. Now you made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you. Show where in the last SCOTUS decision it specifically adheres to your interpretation. This aught to be good.........

 

[M14 Shooter]

Within the home, not in public places.

No.... self defense within the home.
And every other traditionally lawful purpose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If it was so obvious then why is there still and ongoing debate between the minority who believe as you do and the majority that SCOTUS upheld? Besides we are discussing the SCOTUS decision, not your opinion.

There's a difference between what SCOTUS upheld and what you think it upheld.

Not that you have any hope of showing...