Zone1 Why not just amend the National Firearms Act to include ARs and AKs?

[alang1216]

the part about the militia is not a controlling clause you retard several prominent English professors in the past have stated so and basic English skills prove it, it is simply one of any number of things that could be used to justify the right.

So 'several prominent English professors in the past have stated so...'. Does that mean others have not?

Joseph Blocher is Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law. As an associate at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, he co-authored the briefs for the District of Columbia in District of Columbia v. Heller. Joseph Blocher states that the traditional reading is the first, that “the Second Amendment was long understood by many if not most courts and scholars to protect state militias from disarmament by the federal government. […] The phrase ‘keep and bear arms’ was read as referring to the possession and use of weapons in connection with militia service.”

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So 'several prominent English professors in the past have stated so...'. Does that mean others have not?

Joseph Blocher is Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law. As an associate at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, he co-authored the briefs for the District of Columbia in District of Columbia v. Heller. Joseph Blocher states that the traditional reading is the first, that “the Second Amendment was long understood by many if not most courts and scholars to protect state militias from disarmament by the federal government. […] The phrase ‘keep and bear arms’ was read as referring to the possession and use of weapons in connection with militia service.”

yes that is ONE of the reasons the others just were not mentioned to keep the amendment short. It has also been understood since its inception to include self defense

 

[MarathonMike]

Find a dozen GOP Senators who will go along and it's a doe deal in the Senate.
You'll need a dozen or so GOP votes in the House as well.

Good luck with that.

You've missed the point again. If Democrats really wanted a limit or ban on ARs, amending the NFA would be how to go about it. They just love to stand on bodies and point the finger at Republicans.

 

[alang1216]

yes that is ONE of the reasons the others just were not mentioned to keep the amendment short. It has also been understood since its inception to include self defense

I think 'self defense' meant something different at a time where the US essentially had no national military force and relied on militias.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think 'self defense' meant something different at a time where the US essentially had no national military force and relied on militias.

nope it meant INDIVIDUAL citizens had a right to own keep and use firearms.

 

[alang1216]

nope it meant INDIVIDUAL citizens had a right to own keep and use firearms.

I know what you meant, I just don't agree that is what the amendment meant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I know what you meant, I just don't agree that is what the amendment meant.

you dont matter the Supreme Court matters and they ruled in 2008 it is an individual right not associated with being a member of an organized militia, but even without that ruling ALL citizens aged 17 to 45 are members of the unorganized Militia which means they are granted even by your feeble attempt the right to own possess and use firearms.

 

[alang1216]

you dont matter the Supreme Court matters and they ruled in 2008 it is an individual right not associated with being a member of an organized militia,

True and is was a radical decision since it redefined 200+ years of precedent. Funny I didn't hear any complaints from the Right concerning activist judges.

but even without that ruling ALL citizens aged 17 to 45 are members of the unorganized Militia which means they are granted even by your feeble attempt the right to own possess and use firearms.

Thanks, I never heard that term before.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

True and is was a radical decision since it redefined 200+ years of precedent. Funny I didn't hear any complaints from the Right concerning activist judges.


Thanks, I never heard that term before.

go ahead name a single time the Supreme Court EVER ruled it was a collective right.

 

[alang1216]

go ahead name a single time the Supreme Court EVER ruled it was a collective right.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In perhaps the most cited Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment, the Court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with the end in view.” Essentially, the focus of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of states to form militias, not the rights of individuals to own guns, and that the protections of the Second Amendment must be understood within the context of militia service. However, the Supreme Court hinted that an individual right may exist in the context of a “common obligation … to possess arm … and to cooperate in the work of defense” and that a sawed-off shotgun, the firearm at issue in the case, was unprotected because it had no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” This implied that all “free men” could possess weapons of the type used for militia service, but the Court halted this argument by insisting that only those guns usable in militia service and held for the purpose of militia service were protected by the Second Amendment

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, the 2nd only protected individuals from the FEDERAL government, state restrictions were never prohibited until recently.

Irrelevant to my statement.
The USSC has only ever held the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd is an individual right unconnected to the militia.
Said otherwise:
The USSC has never held the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd connected to service in the militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you don't have an answer that supports your ideology just admit it.

There's no need for me to address you red herrings.

 

[alang1216]

Irrelevant to my statement.
The USSC has only ever held the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd is an individual right unconnected to the militia.
Said otherwise:
The USSC has never held the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd connected to service in the militia.

As posted previously:

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In perhaps the most cited Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment, the Court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with the end in view.” Essentially, the focus of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of states to form militias, not the rights of individuals to own guns, and that the protections of the Second Amendment must be understood within the context of militia service. However, the Supreme Court hinted that an individual right may exist in the context of a “common obligation … to possess arm … and to cooperate in the work of defense” and that a sawed-off shotgun, the firearm at issue in the case, was unprotected because it had no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” This implied that all “free men” could possess weapons of the type used for militia service, but the Court halted this argument by insisting that only those guns usable in militia service and held for the purpose of militia service were protected by the Second Amendment

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need to work on your strawmen.

YOU said no right is absolute.
YOU said it.
YOU.
Its YOUR statement and thus YOUR belief
This means you believe blacks and women can be denied the right to vote because they are blacks and women.
No way around it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Aside from the right to assemble, which of the amendments mentioned membership in a group such as a militia?

None of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

....This implied that all “free men” could possess weapons of the type used for militia service but the Court halted this argument by insisting that only those guns usable in militia service and held for the purpose of militia service were protected by the Second Amendment

This is a lie.
Miller ruled no such thing.
You cannot provide the text to this effect from Miller because it does not exist.
Why do you need to lie to make a point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As posted previously:

I addressed your lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So 'several prominent English professors in the past have stated so...'. Does that mean others have not?
Joseph Blocher is Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law.

The USSC says otherwise.
Thus, his opinion means nothing.

 

[alang1216]

YOU said no right is absolute.
YOU said it.
YOU.
Its YOUR statement and thus YOUR belief
This means you believe blacks and women can be denied the right to vote because they are blacks and women.
No way around it.

No rights are absolute, every one has limitations. However you can't just make up a limitation that does not exist under our current legal system.

 

[PredFan]

They can name them whatever they want, they can amend any law they want but they are not getting either my AR or my AK.