When the 2nd Amendment was written....

[westwall]

wrong people had the right as private citizens to own and possess firearms without a need to be in a militia. The amendment is clear as a bell the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the Government and not because they were in a militia. EVERY single amendment in the bill of rights thaat states a right for the people is understood by law to mean an INDIVIDUAL right, but you would have us believe this one just is different. An English expert on language stated that the clause about the militia was not a controlling clause but rather an example of what the controlling clause might include.

They also owned cannons. The first artillery unit in the US was The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.

A PRIVATE group.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The vast majority of people didn't own guns during the late 1700s. They were expensive and had to be maintained. That was indeed one of the reasons why Congress wanted States to have militias - for the common defense in case England and France decided to take back parts of America and also to put down mobs like those responsible for the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays Rebellion. You all have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Lie.

He's wrong. The people who drafted the 2nd Amendment never said anything about the 2nd Amendment being an individual right.

Lie.

They absolutely did not say that.

Lie.

where did you find this in any founding documents??

He squatted and bore down.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If it were self-explanatory there wouldn't have been court cases to decide what it meant.

Actually, come to think of it, before 2008, there was really only one Supreme Court case that ever truly made a judgment regarding the 2nd Amendment's relationship to personal firearms, and that was the United States v Miller case of 1939.

It wasn't until 2008 that the Courts suggested that the 2nd Amendment protected personal firearms ownership for anything other than militia service. My position, in case you haven't figured it out, is that the Court replaced originalism with strict textualism.

Ironically, three of the justices who were around to decide that case (Heller) on the basis of textualism, now appear likely to use originalism to argue that Trump should remain on the ballot in all 50 states.

Up until idiots like you came along recently, there was no need for the courts to decide what the second amendment meant.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They also owned cannons. The first artillery unit in the US was The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.

A PRIVATE group.

Not just cannons, but private specially designed dedicated warships as well. Private ownership of cannon was common, nearly every normal merchant ship carried at least a few cannon to protect it from attacks by pirates and savages.

 

[Flash]

The 2nd Amendment was never meant to protect individual gun ownership; it was meant to ensure that each state had a functional militia - for a variety of purposes, ranging from civil defense in cases of insurrections, riots, or attacks from Native tribes, to being called up by Congress and the President to repel foreign invasion.

You may be a little confused about this.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. In the Heller case they stated that the Second numerated an individual right just like the freedom of speech and freedom of religion and is not connected to membership to any organization. It was also reaffirmed in the McDonald and Bruen cases.

 

[Flash]

...... the guns at the time were -

Revolutionary War Guns | Facts, Information & History

These revolutionary war guns are the firearms most represented throughout the course of the revolutionary war. Find out more facts & information.

www.revolutionary-war.net

The Supreme Court has ruled several times that changes in technology does not negate or change the Bill of Rights. For example, the right of free speech is protected with electronic technology nowadays just like it was protected with manual printing presses in Colonial times.

My AR-15 is protected just as much for me as a smooth bore musket was protected in the old days.

 

[multivita-man]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Understood, and I disagree with the Supreme Court, specifically the justices who, by a narrow 5-4 majority, took it upon themselves to rewrite the 2nd Amendment's originally intended meaning in Heller and subsequent cases. What I'm saying is, the Supreme Court has been making shit up since 2008. Moreover, I have the historical record to prove it.

In the Heller case they stated that the Second numerated an individual right just like the freedom of speech and freedom of religion and is not connected to membership to any organization. It was also reaffirmed in the McDonald and Bruen cases.

Understood, but their opinions have no basis in historical fact. They are based on their own ideological leanings, which this court has had a tendency to do in a wide range of issues since they became a majority in the 2000s.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court has ruled several times that changes in technology does not negate or change the Bill of Rights. For example, the right of free speech is protected with electronic technology nowadays just like it was protected with manual printing presses in Colonial times.

My AR-15 is protected just as much for me as a smooth bore musket was protected in the old days.

in accordance with the original intent of the 2nd A full auto is just as protected as the old muzzle loaders,,

 

[multivita-man]

Up until idiots like you came along recently, there was no need for the courts to decide what the second amendment meant.

More like, until egomaniacal bullshitters like Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito came along. It was clear what the amendment meant before, as it is clear from the original debates over the amendment itself.

 

[progressive hunter]

Understood, and I disagree with the Supreme Court, specifically the justices who, by a narrow 5-4 majority, took it upon themselves to rewrite the 2nd Amendment's originally intended meaning in Heller and subsequent cases. What I'm saying is, the Supreme Court has been making shit up since 2008. Moreover, I have the historical record to prove it.



Understood, but their opinions have no basis in historical fact. They are based on their own ideological leanings, which this court has had a tendency to do in a wide range of issues since they became a majority in the 2000s.

more like youve been making shit up,,

and the historical record proves it,,

 

[multivita-man]

in accordance with the original intent of the 2nd A full auto is just as protected as the old muzzle loaders,,

In the hands of an active duty United States Marine maybe, but not my jackass neighbor down the street.

 

[progressive hunter]

More like, until egomaniacal bullshitters like Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito came along. It was clear what the amendment meant before, as it is clear from the original debates over the amendment itself.

whats clear is the 2nd A was specific to any weapon that may be used against you,,ie,, weapons of war,,

 

[multivita-man]

more like youve been making shit up,,

and the historical record proves it,,

I know you are, but what am I

 

[progressive hunter]

In the hands of an active duty United States Marine maybe, but not my jackass neighbor down the street.

thanks for your opinion,,

the 2nd A is clear,, the people have a right to any weapon that could be used against them,,

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Understood, and I disagree with the Supreme Court, specifically the justices who, by a narrow 5-4 majority, took it upon themselves to rewrite the 2nd Amendment's originally intended meaning in Heller and subsequent cases. What I'm saying is, the Supreme Court has been making shit up since 2008. Moreover, I have the historical record to prove it.



Understood, but their opinions have no basis in historical fact. They are based on their own ideological leanings, which this court has had a tendency to do in a wide range of issues since they became a majority in the 2000s.

wrong it is clear that every amendment that has the people as the designated benefactor is an individual right the second is no different. Further historically it has always been understood to be the right of the people not the Government to own personal weapons. Got another one for you the 2nd also protects the right of a state to have a militia and since that includes a militia not federalize every state can have a militia separate from the National Guard and a lot do have them.

 

[progressive hunter]

I know you are, but what am I

we dont expect more from you,,

 

[Flash]

Understood, and I disagree with the Supreme Court, specifically the justices who, by a narrow 5-4 majority, took it upon themselves to rewrite the 2nd Amendment's originally intended meaning in Heller and subsequent cases. What I'm saying is, the Supreme Court has been making shit up since 2008. Moreover, I have the historical record to prove it.



Understood, but their opinions have no basis in historical fact. They are based on their own ideological leanings, which this court has had a tendency to do in a wide range of issues since they became a majority in the 2000s.

Just because you disagree with the Supremes don't mean their rulings aren't the law of the land.

You should have filled a brief in the Heller case and informed them of your opinion. I am sure you would have convinced them with your fantastic Constitutional knowledge. Oh well, you let that one get away, didn't you?

I disagree with them on occasion and that doesn't mean jackshit.

If the government at any level can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms then that means the Bill of Rights is not worth the paper it is written on.

Leftest assholes have always hated the Bill of Rights because it protects individual Rights and they only want collective rights.

 

[multivita-man]

Just because you disagree with the Supremes don't mean their rulings aren't the law of the land.

I'm not saying they aren't the law of the land; I'm saying they shouldn't be. If you want to say "Ha! Ha! Fuck you, my side has the power," that's fine, but don't complain if one day people get fed up and demand court packing and a new slate of judges throws out all of their nonsensical rulings.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm not saying they aren't the law of the land; I'm saying they shouldn't be. If you want to say "Ha! Ha! Fuck you, my side has the power," that's fine, but don't complain if one day people get fed up and demand court packing and a new slate of judges throws out all of their nonsensical rulings.

the only nonsense is coming from the left, we have a judge that cannot even identify between a man and a woman and another that thinks her race is more important than the rule of law.

 

[multivita-man]

wrong it is clear that every amendment that has the people as the designated benefactor is an individual right the second is no different.

Wrong.

Further historically it has always been understood to be the right of the people not the Government to own personal weapons.

Just judging from your avatar, I would submit that you, of all people, should know how ridiculously off-base that quote is. The government has a lot of fucking weapons. They're not personal, I guess.

Got another one for you the 2nd also protects the right of a state to have a militia and since that includes a militia not federalize every state can have a militia separate from the National Guard and a lot do have them.

I don't really disagree with this. I think requiring states to have its own well-regulated militia was the driving concern behind the inclusion of that amendment. It had nothing to do with guaranteeing that every household had firearms, though. Indeed, the vast majority of people didn't own them.