What's wrong with smart guns?

[Abatis]

So, here it is. It's long but it is a comprehensive answer . . .

The first half (declaratory clause) of the 2nd Amendment is an inactive, dependent statement of principle, a maxim of our republic.

Now, "inactive" does not mean meaningless . . . I say "inactive" because the declaratory clause has never had any legal action; it has never been examined or held to inform on any aspect of militia powers or organization or control. It commands nothing, it demands nothing it creates no new structure of organization or control nor does it expand any powers beyond what is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 of the Constitution (which SCOTUS has said is the full explanation of Congressional militia powers).

The wording of all the Amendments were carefully considered and represents and conforms with the varying proposals from the states which mirrored the provisions in their own constitutions. In their constitutions the states lumped themes with similar objects together in their bills of rights. Most of the states had a provision that had the intent of binding / restricting government powers of force. These provisions had three prongs:

a) The citizens retained the right to arms
b) standing armies in time of peace were dangerous to a free state and not to be maintained
c) the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority.​

Here are some examples of state provisions that were in force during the enactment of the federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power. . . .

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.​

The separate prongs of these provisions were never considered interdependent (that all must exist for any to be actionable, i.e., that if a standing army does exist, the right to arms of the people doesn't).

Actually, it is clear that the standing army declarative clauses can never actually bind action; that they are merely inactive statements of principle.

Those clauses can't possibly refer to state powers to create a standing army because the states are forbidden to keep troops by the federal Constitution and certainly those clauses can not be interpreted to prevent the federal government from exercising its supreme Art I, § 8, cl's 11, 12, 13 & 14 powers.

Considering that the wording of the 2nd Amendment was drawn from similar provisions and the framers were well accustomed to such constructions, one can't really say that the 2nd Amendment is unique or clumsy, ambiguous or confusing without announcing their ignorance and lack of understanding.

The declaration in the federal 2nd Amendment, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers each represented the same sentiment.

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that an armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

So, without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment can only be said to be a statement of why the 2nd AMENDMENT exists, and as such it does not, CAN NOT qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right; it only states one reason (the political one) for why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference.

The belief / position that the declaratory clause conditions / qualifies / modifies / restricts the right to arms has no support in the philosophical, historical or legal foundation or action of the Constitution. It is an early 20th Century theory that was created for one purpose, to support an anti-individual right political agenda and to extinguish claims of rights injury by citizens in the courts .

.

 

[Pogo]

You and your designs for usurpation through misconstruction

Link?

Didn't think so. Assssss-ume much?

Link?

I quoted you and then proved my claim with analysis and the Federalist quote.

The action of trying to discern conditions and qualifications on the right from a reading of the declaratory clause (what you erroneously call the "conditional clause") of the 2nd, and using those invented conditions to justify legislative / regulatory limitations and restrictions on the right to arms, is certainly a "design for usurpation". Such thinking and action runs counter to the foundational principles of the Constitution and multiple Supreme Court statements over the last 140 years recognizing, explaining and enforcing those principles.

Maybe if I bolded it it might penetrate:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​

Please explain how you take words -upon which the right in no matter depends- and read into them conditions and qualifications on the right to keep and bear arms. . . Making the right to arms in all manner, dependent upon the Constitution.

Please justify your dismissing and ignoring the Supreme Court's clear and unambiguous statement that what you are doing is constitutionally illegitimate.

All of which is still completely irrelevant to my point and does not address the question.
To wit, and to reiterate, and maybe it needs to be bolded to penetrate:
What is the function of the conditional clause?
Address that ---- if you can.

It has been addressed. Your question is moot and meaningless because it begins from a profoundly incorrect assumption; that the declaratory clause imparts conditions and qualifications on the right to arms.

I could explain to you what the purpose / meaning is of the declaratory clause, but I ask that you rephrase the question so it asks a real question.

Still not an answer. And complete lack of link to previous ass-umption noted and logged.

"Declaratory clause" is meaningless bullshit. It's not a declarative sentence, as it's not a complete thought. And it's certainly not interrogative or imperative. Perhaps the term you're groping for is "prefatory" clause, which turd has been floated on these pages before and is likewise, bullshit, as all that means is that it precedes. We already know it precedes; what we're after is what it means.

Again, the phrase in question reads thus:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"​

This is a conditional phrase. It means that whatever follows depends on the condition stated, to wit: that "a well regulated Militia IS necessary to the security of a free State".

In other words in the event that a well regulated Militia [sic] is not so necessary, then presumably what follows no longer applies.

But --- that's not the question. That's simply how English works.

The question (and we are for now leaving completely aside the matters of the definition of "well regulated" as well as the insistent comma) ---- is why that phrase would need to be there at all. Somebody wrote it into a document, and therefore somebody had a reason for its placement there.

What would it be?

There is no other Amendment, neither in the Bill of Rights nor to the present day, that feels a need to stop and explain or justify itself. Nor is such justification or reasoning needed. It's a Constitution. That's a simple declaration of "how we're going to do things", period. It has no need to justify anything.

Yet this one -- and only this one-- does.
Why this one, alone among all? What is the significance? Why is it there?

 

[2aguy]

You and your designs for usurpation through misconstruction

Link?

Didn't think so. Assssss-ume much?

Link?

I quoted you and then proved my claim with analysis and the Federalist quote.

The action of trying to discern conditions and qualifications on the right from a reading of the declaratory clause (what you erroneously call the "conditional clause") of the 2nd, and using those invented conditions to justify legislative / regulatory limitations and restrictions on the right to arms, is certainly a "design for usurpation". Such thinking and action runs counter to the foundational principles of the Constitution and multiple Supreme Court statements over the last 140 years recognizing, explaining and enforcing those principles.

Maybe if I bolded it it might penetrate:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​

Please explain how you take words -upon which the right in no matter depends- and read into them conditions and qualifications on the right to keep and bear arms. . . Making the right to arms in all manner, dependent upon the Constitution.

Please justify your dismissing and ignoring the Supreme Court's clear and unambiguous statement that what you are doing is constitutionally illegitimate.

All of which is still completely irrelevant to my point and does not address the question.
To wit, and to reiterate, and maybe it needs to be bolded to penetrate:
What is the function of the conditional clause?
Address that ---- if you can.

It has been addressed. Your question is moot and meaningless because it begins from a profoundly incorrect assumption; that the declaratory clause imparts conditions and qualifications on the right to arms.

I could explain to you what the purpose / meaning is of the declaratory clause, but I ask that you rephrase the question so it asks a real question.

Still not an answer. And complete lack of link to previous ass-umption noted and logged.

"Declaratory clause" is meaningless bullshit. It's not a declarative sentence, as it's not a complete thought. And it's certainly not interrogative or imperative. Perhaps the term you're groping for is "prefatory" clause, which turd has been floated on these pages before and is likewise, bullshit, as all that means is that it precedes. We already know it precedes; what we're after is what it means.

Again, the phrase in question reads thus:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"​

This is a conditional phrase. It means that whatever follows depends on the condition stated, to wit: that "a well regulated Militia IS necessary to the security of a free State".

In other words in the event that a well regulated Militia [sic] is not so necessary, then presumably what follows no longer applies.

But --- that's not the question. That's simply how English works.

The question (and we are for now leaving completely aside the matters of the definition of "well regulated" as well as the insistent comma) ---- is why that phrase would need to be there at all. Somebody wrote it into a document, and therefore somebody had a reason for its placement there.

What would it be?

There is no other Amendment, neither in the Bill of Rights nor to the present day, that feels a need to stop and explain or justify itself. Nor is such justification or reasoning needed. It's a Constitution. That's a simple declaration of "how we're going to do things", period. It has no need to justify anything.

Yet this one -- and only this one-- does.
Why this one, alone among all? What is the significance? Why is it there?

You were just shlonged...........

 

[Spoonman]

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

You have repeatedly been shown your claim that NO ONE is trying to take all guns is a bald faced lie. We have shown you prominent members of Congress that have advocated EXACTLY that as well as board members here.

Spoon was talking to me --- not to "prominent members of Congress" or "board members here" -- me.

And he's full of shit, as I demonstrated by calling for a link he can't provide.

remain ignorant, thats your call,

 

[Spoonman]

Do you have links to the gun making info. I get tired of the lefty gun grabbers talking about muskets and that would be a nice thing to throw at them. Thanks.

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

you obviously don;t listen to what the idiots you vote for are saying

 

[Pogo]

The first half (declaratory clause) of the 2nd Amendment is an inactive, dependent statement of principle, a maxim of our republic.

Agreed. And that may have great utility in, say, a debate or a message board. It has no function in a Constitution.

And yet -- there it sits. Doesn't it.

Now, "inactive" does not mean meaningless . . . I say "inactive" because the declaratory clause has never had any legal action; it has never been examined or held to inform on any aspect of militia powers or organization or control. It commands nothing, it demands nothing it creates no new structure of organization or control nor does it expand any powers beyond what is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 of the Constitution (which SCOTUS has said is the full explanation of Congressional militia powers).

AGREED.

So ---- why go to the trouble to put it in there? These Amendments were carefully haggled and hammered out word for word. The presence of the phrase, in these conditions, cannot have been an oversight that nobody noticed. It must have a purpose. To suggest it has none and is just 'hanging out' is just playing loosely with the known facts.

The belief / position that the declaratory clause conditions / qualifies / modifies / restricts the right to arms has no support in the philosophical, historical or legal foundation or action of the Constitution. It is an early 20th Century theory that was created for one purpose, to support an anti-individual right political agenda and to extinguish claims of rights injury by citizens in the courts .

Ah, back to the old ass-umptions again. You remember what happened last time you did that? I do. It's here in the log.

 

[westwall]

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Correct, "the intent of which has never been discerned" and never will be because all those "linguistic hazards" that anti-gunners invent, are relieved when one comports his thinking with that of 140 years of SCOTUS, affirming foundational constitutional principles for the right to arms.

The right to arms is a pre-existing right and is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

First , "not in any manner dependent" extinguishes any attempt to restrict the right by reading the "nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head" of the 2nd Amendment, as conditioning the right to arms.

Second, "not in any manner dependent" means that the right to arms can not be argued to be qualified upon one's membership / attachment to an entity and structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia).

Supreme Court, 1876: "bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

In that first case, the right of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" recognized by the Court, was the right possessed and exercised of being armed in public for the purpose of self defense (from the KKK / Night Riders) of two Freemen (former slaves, then US citizens, victims of the Colfax Massacre) in 1873 Louisiana.

An important point about that year, Louisiana was among some states which had no organized state militia at the time -- it having been disbanded by Congress. So SCOTUS could not be recognizing a right of bearing arms for militia members because 1), there was no state militia and 2), the people who had their rights violated were themselves barred from enrolling in the state militia.

The above quotes serve another purpose . . . To correct the commonly heard disinformation that DC v Heller in 2008 was "the first time the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms" . . . That statement is shown to be the bullshit it is; Heller only demonstrated the boring consistency of SCOTUS explanations of the right to arms / 2nd Amendment.

All of which is still completely irrelevant to my point and does not address the question.

To wit, and to reiterate, and maybe it needs to be bolded to penetrate:
What is the function of the conditional clause?

Address that ---- if you can.

He already did silly boy. Wake up.

 

[TheCrusader]

So, here it is. It's long but it is a comprehensive answer . . .

The first half (declaratory clause) of the 2nd Amendment is an inactive, dependent statement of principle, a maxim of our republic.

Now, "inactive" does not mean meaningless . . . I say "inactive" because the declaratory clause has never had any legal action; it has never been examined or held to inform on any aspect of militia powers or organization or control. It commands nothing, it demands nothing it creates no new structure of organization or control nor does it expand any powers beyond what is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 of the Constitution (which SCOTUS has said is the full explanation of Congressional militia powers).

The wording of all the Amendments were carefully considered and represents and conforms with the varying proposals from the states which mirrored the provisions in their own constitutions. In their constitutions the states lumped themes with similar objects together in their bills of rights. Most of the states had a provision that had the intent of binding / restricting government powers of force. These provisions had three prongs:

a) The citizens retained the right to arms
b) standing armies in time of peace were dangerous to a free state and not to be maintained
c) the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority.​

Here are some examples of state provisions that were in force during the enactment of the federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power. . . .

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.​

The separate prongs of these provisions were never considered interdependent (that all must exist for any to be actionable, i.e., that if a standing army does exist, the right to arms of the people doesn't).

Actually, it is clear that the standing army declarative clauses can never actually bind action; that they are merely inactive statements of principle.

Those clauses can't possibly refer to state powers to create a standing army because the states are forbidden to keep troops by the federal Constitution and certainly those clauses can not be interpreted to prevent the federal government from exercising its supreme Art I, § 8, cl's 11, 12, 13 & 14 powers.

Considering that the wording of the 2nd Amendment was drawn from similar provisions and the framers were well accustomed to such constructions, one can't really say that the 2nd Amendment is unique or clumsy, ambiguous or confusing without announcing their ignorance and lack of understanding.

The declaration in the federal 2nd Amendment, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers each represented the same sentiment.

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that an armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

So, without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment can only be said to be a statement of why the 2nd AMENDMENT exists, and as such it does not, CAN NOT qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right; it only states one reason (the political one) for why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference.

The belief / position that the declaratory clause conditions / qualifies / modifies / restricts the right to arms has no support in the philosophical, historical or legal foundation or action of the Constitution. It is an early 20th Century theory that was created for one purpose, to support an anti-individual right political agenda and to extinguish claims of rights injury by citizens in the courts .

.

You absolutely do not know what you're talking about because it is a Constitutional Law 101 basic knowledge that the 2nd Amendment applied only in a militia context until after the Civil War.

Repent from YOUR IGNORANCE, you Republican snake and false prophet!

• Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:
  "We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States."

 

[Pogo]

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

You have repeatedly been shown your claim that NO ONE is trying to take all guns is a bald faced lie. We have shown you prominent members of Congress that have advocated EXACTLY that as well as board members here.

Spoon was talking to me --- not to "prominent members of Congress" or "board members here" -- me.

And he's full of shit, as I demonstrated by calling for a link he can't provide.

remain ignorant, thats your call,

Uh, I tell ya what Spoon.

---- When you make an assertion, and then get called on it, and can't back it up ................ that doesn't make me the ignorant one.

You said "gun grabber"; I challenged you to back it up. And you can't do it.

 

[Abatis]

"Declaratory clause" is meaningless bullshit.

I'm just using the words Congress used when the proposed amendments were transmitted to the states for ratification.

According to Congress, there were/are only two types of clauses in the proposed amendments, declaratory and restrictive.

The preamble of the Bill of Rights begins with:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."​

 

[TheCrusader]

"Declaratory clause" is meaningless bullshit.

I'm just using the words Congress used when the proposed amendments were transmitted to the states for ratification.

According to Congress, there were/are only two types of clauses in the proposed amendments, declaratory and restrictive.

The preamble of the Bill of Rights begins with:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."​

Oh you poor naive misguided uneducated pretend Lawyer.

"Declaratory AND restrictive" clauses is fully inclusive and defines two separate attributes of ONE thing (a clause).

Some clauses are not declaratory and others are restrictive, in legal writing this would be written "further declaratory OR restrictive clauses..."

You have much to learn.

 

[Abatis]

You absolutely do not know what you're talking about because it is a Constitutional Law 101 basic knowledge that the 2nd Amendment applied only in a militia context until after the Civil War.

Repent from YOUR IGNORANCE, you Republican snake and false prophet!

Easy there Skipper . . .

Did you know that SCOTUS began its review of militia law in the early 1800's and the 2nd Amendment was never mentioned?

Can you explain what this "militia context" is and how it manifested itself?

 

[Spoonman]

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

You have repeatedly been shown your claim that NO ONE is trying to take all guns is a bald faced lie. We have shown you prominent members of Congress that have advocated EXACTLY that as well as board members here.

Spoon was talking to me --- not to "prominent members of Congress" or "board members here" -- me.

And he's full of shit, as I demonstrated by calling for a link he can't provide.

remain ignorant, thats your call,

Uh, I tell ya what Spoon.

---- When you make an assertion, and then get called on it, and can't back it up ................ that doesn't make me the ignorant one.

You said "gun grabber"; I challenged you to back it up. And you can't do it.

any attempt to put any restriction on gun ownership is gun grabbing. the right shall not be infringed. it is as simple as that. would you be ok with government saying minorities can only vote in local elections but not in state or federal ones. the can still vote, there are just restrictions.

 

[TheCrusader]

You absolutely do not know what you're talking about because it is a Constitutional Law 101 basic knowledge that the 2nd Amendment applied only in a militia context until after the Civil War.

Repent from YOUR IGNORANCE, you Republican snake and false prophet!

Easy there Skipper . . .

Did you know that SCOTUS began its review of militia law in the early 1800's and the 2nd Amendment was never mentioned?

Can you explain what this "militia context" is and how it manifested itself?

Your question is too vague.

Explain what militia context? The fact that the Revolutionary War wasn't fought with men owning private guns, but was fought by militias using guns owned by colonies?

The fact that the first battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to maintain control of colonial Armories which housed all the guns, and in all colonies the only people allowed to own guns individually were those who could prove that they required a gun to hunt for food to subsist?

The fact that this remained true except in the south (where dueling became prevalent and slaveholders felt the need to own guns personally to protect against slave attacks and uprisings) and by the Civil War all rifles and small arms were still in the majority secured in Armories?

When Slave Patrols would arm themselves for their nightly duties (non-slaveholding whites were pressed into gangs every night to patrol for runaway slaves) they went to their town's armories to arm themselves.

When the Civil War happened the first battles were state militias capturing Federal Armories and distributing the weapons to the people forming state volunteer regiments.

Abraham Lincoln was heavily criticized for not going to war to fight for the Federal Armories but waited until Fort Sumter was attacked.

SO.

Please...elaborate your position further.

 

[TheCrusader]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

You have repeatedly been shown your claim that NO ONE is trying to take all guns is a bald faced lie. We have shown you prominent members of Congress that have advocated EXACTLY that as well as board members here.

Spoon was talking to me --- not to "prominent members of Congress" or "board members here" -- me.

And he's full of shit, as I demonstrated by calling for a link he can't provide.

remain ignorant, thats your call,

Uh, I tell ya what Spoon.

---- When you make an assertion, and then get called on it, and can't back it up ................ that doesn't make me the ignorant one.

You said "gun grabber"; I challenged you to back it up. And you can't do it.

any attempt to put any restriction on gun ownership is gun grabbing. the right shall not be infringed. it is as simple as that. would you be ok with government saying minorities can only vote in local elections but not in state or federal ones. the can still vote, there are just restrictions.

No it absolutely is not.

Restrictions on Gun Ownership has been true for the entire history of the United States.

 

[Abatis]

Oh you poor naive misguided uneducated pretend Lawyer.

"Declaratory AND restrictive" clauses is fully inclusive and defines two separate attributes of ONE thing (a clause).

Some clauses are not declaratory and others are restrictive, in legal writing this would be written "further declaratory OR restrictive clauses..."

You have much to learn.

Can you please tell everyone the history of calling the first half of the 2nd Amendment a "conditional clause"?

 

[TheCrusader]

Oh you poor naive misguided uneducated pretend Lawyer.

"Declaratory AND restrictive" clauses is fully inclusive and defines two separate attributes of ONE thing (a clause).

Some clauses are not declaratory and others are restrictive, in legal writing this would be written "further declaratory OR restrictive clauses..."

You have much to learn.

Can you please tell everyone the history of calling the first half of the 2nd Amendment a "conditional clause"?

The problem is you're only armed with the most elementary talking points to support your position.

A conditional clause (from a legal dictionary) is a clause formed by the use of "if" or "unless" and is a statement of factual condition required to make the main clause true.

What does this mean?

It actually means that a conditional clause must be a true fact for the main clause to also be true.

Does the 2nd Amendment actually contain a conditional clause? Let's hope not for the sake of your own twisted argument.

We don't have to care what the supreme court says to point out the truth, we only have to follow what they say (or throw the system in the toilet), but the same supreme court said the same Constitution that was never once altered in any way regarding blacks, both supported and denied within a single lifetime that a state had the ability to institutionalize SEGREGATION.

So I really wouldn't put much faith in the Supreme Court's decisions to support your belief, the Supreme Court can use 20 pages to reinterpret a comma any time they want and as long as the People don't hang them or burn them at the stake they will continue to get away with it.

 

[TheCrusader]

The dirty secret about the Supreme Court is they represent the Dictatorship of the fascists. That is their SOLE purpose. They are a controlled Dictatorship of the people, they are the will of the people to do anything extra-judicially.

The Congress makes a law? With the stroke of the pen the Supreme Court obliterates the law.

They don't have to make sense, they don't have to be right or true.

They only have to impress the will of the people, the people can take away their power, but the Congress and President cannot.

That is the secret fact of the Supreme Court that they don't teach you in high school civics.

The supreme court never never uses the law as the sole principle on which they judge constitutionality, they use public opinion, if the opinion is too equally divided almost always the court will throw out the case and give it to the politicians to fight over it, because the existence of the authority of the Judiciary rests on the opinion of the people.

If the opinion of the people is obvious, then they will side with the people for self preservation.

You don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court analyzes a law and comes to a logical conclusion do you?

Then explain how the same court can support Segregation in 1870, then throw it out in 1950.

Explain how the same court can reinterpret a sentence that has never been altered?

If you use the Supreme Court to support your beliefs you are basing your beliefs on the whims of a Dictator like Hitler.

Whatever that Dictator says, is law, whenever they want it to be.

It just so happens "Our Dictator" (the panel of nine supreme court justices) is a benevolent one, carefully crafted that way, to jealously guard its position from losing legitimacy.

This was actually in the "Marshall v. Ferguson" case that defined the role of the Judiciary as having Judicial Review (previously a realm of only Juror review which no almost no longer exists).

Marshall made the claim that so long as the people supported his dictatorial power over Jefferson's constitutional authority, via interpretation, then the interpretation is valid. He made his interpretation, the people didn't hang him, and so it was valid.

Does that sound like some logical and democratic institution?

No, it is the necessary dictatorship that exists to break stalemate and overcome minority prejudice against majority opinion in a system designed to give powerful veto power to minorities who protect their once privileged majority position.

 

[2aguy]

You absolutely do not know what you're talking about because it is a Constitutional Law 101 basic knowledge that the 2nd Amendment applied only in a militia context until after the Civil War.

Repent from YOUR IGNORANCE, you Republican snake and false prophet!

Easy there Skipper . . .

Did you know that SCOTUS began its review of militia law in the early 1800's and the 2nd Amendment was never mentioned?

Can you explain what this "militia context" is and how it manifested itself?

Your question is too vague.

Explain what militia context? The fact that the Revolutionary War wasn't fought with men owning private guns, but was fought by militias using guns owned by colonies?

The fact that the first battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to maintain control of colonial Armories which housed all the guns, and in all colonies the only people allowed to own guns individually were those who could prove that they required a gun to hunt for food to subsist?

The fact that this remained true except in the south (where dueling became prevalent and slaveholders felt the need to own guns personally to protect against slave attacks and uprisings) and by the Civil War all rifles and small arms were still in the majority secured in Armories?

When Slave Patrols would arm themselves for their nightly duties (non-slaveholding whites were pressed into gangs every night to patrol for runaway slaves) they went to their town's armories to arm themselves.

When the Civil War happened the first battles were state militias capturing Federal Armories and distributing the weapons to the people forming state volunteer regiments.

Abraham Lincoln was heavily criticized for not going to war to fight for the Federal Armories but waited until Fort Sumter was attacked.

SO.

Please...elaborate your position further.

You are kidding right....pulling our legs...people didn't own guns....they were in common stores..really?

 

[TheCrusader]

You absolutely do not know what you're talking about because it is a Constitutional Law 101 basic knowledge that the 2nd Amendment applied only in a militia context until after the Civil War.

Repent from YOUR IGNORANCE, you Republican snake and false prophet!

Easy there Skipper . . .

Did you know that SCOTUS began its review of militia law in the early 1800's and the 2nd Amendment was never mentioned?

Can you explain what this "militia context" is and how it manifested itself?

Your question is too vague.

Explain what militia context? The fact that the Revolutionary War wasn't fought with men owning private guns, but was fought by militias using guns owned by colonies?

The fact that the first battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to maintain control of colonial Armories which housed all the guns, and in all colonies the only people allowed to own guns individually were those who could prove that they required a gun to hunt for food to subsist?

The fact that this remained true except in the south (where dueling became prevalent and slaveholders felt the need to own guns personally to protect against slave attacks and uprisings) and by the Civil War all rifles and small arms were still in the majority secured in Armories?

When Slave Patrols would arm themselves for their nightly duties (non-slaveholding whites were pressed into gangs every night to patrol for runaway slaves) they went to their town's armories to arm themselves.

When the Civil War happened the first battles were state militias capturing Federal Armories and distributing the weapons to the people forming state volunteer regiments.

Abraham Lincoln was heavily criticized for not going to war to fight for the Federal Armories but waited until Fort Sumter was attacked.

SO.

Please...elaborate your position further.

You are kidding right....pulling our legs...people didn't own guns....they were in common stores..really?

Yes they absolutely were, probably less than 1% of able bodied men in the colonies actually owned their own firearm.

When the Red Coats made out from Boston to seize one of Massachusetts' armories they weren't met with an army of volunteers armed with their own guns. They were harassed by fewer than 100 men in a colony of 100,000.

So tell me...does that sound like every man had a gun to you?

If that's the case then what is the military importance of an Armory? And why did the Minutemen get called out to defend it? It was only full of rifles, it wasn't an artillery armory or anything militarily significant outside of the normal arms for a militia infantry.