CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution is a body of work, the 2nd Amendment is part of that body, NOTHING in the 2nd invalidates or conflicts with any other part of the Constitution. The 2nd grants an Individual right to keep, possess and use firearms within the restrictions of applicable law that recognizes what the right entails. The Supreme Court, also a part of the Constitution ruled it is an individual right. That it is not connected to any requirement to be a member or party of a Militia.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either to stupid to understand the written word or is a liar.

 

[Moonglow]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The police want it that whey....

 

[Moonglow]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

They shouldn't be.

because you can poke your eye out with a switch blade, we all know why sawed off shot guns had to be made illegal.

They will put out an eye?

 

[danielpalos]

"Do you know you have nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law to work with?"

Transference piled on with projection?

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The case in Waco, for one of many examples, is a case where someone thought that a suspect might have failed to pay a tax on a gun. The suspect was not only held, without due process, without a Grand Jury presentment, the suspect and at least 80 people were burned alive, and the criminals perpetrating that crime, from the top of the criminal heap down, gave themselves extra credit for a crime well done.

You can go on writing your false claims of authority over the facts while those facts can persist to be available for anyone who cares to actually understand.

Still citing case law. Our supreme code law of the land is all I need.

The case in Waco would not have happened if those Persons had been a well regulated militia of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution is a body of work, the 2nd Amendment is part of that body, NOTHING in the 2nd invalidates or conflicts with any other part of the Constitution. The 2nd grants an Individual right to keep, possess and use firearms within the restrictions of applicable law that recognizes what the right entails. The Supreme Court, also a part of the Constitution ruled it is an individual right. That it is not connected to any requirement to be a member or party of a Militia.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either to stupid to understand the written word or is a liar.

Where are you getting your individual rights, then, if Nothing in the Second Amendment invalidates or conflicts with Article 1, Section 8 regarding the socialization of Arms for the Militia.

Your problem is you are simply not semper fi enough to the discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution is a body of work, the 2nd Amendment is part of that body, NOTHING in the 2nd invalidates or conflicts with any other part of the Constitution. The 2nd grants an Individual right to keep, possess and use firearms within the restrictions of applicable law that recognizes what the right entails. The Supreme Court, also a part of the Constitution ruled it is an individual right. That it is not connected to any requirement to be a member or party of a Militia.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either to stupid to understand the written word or is a liar.

Where are you getting your individual rights, then, if Nothing in the Second Amendment invalidates or conflicts with Article 1, Section 8 regarding the socialization of Arms for the Militia.

Your problem is you are simply not semper fi enough to the discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

You are an idiot. I don't think you are lying, I think you are just to stupid to know you are wrong. The right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed is clear. EVERYWHERE else in the Constitution where that phrase is used or we talk about the people it is understood to codify an individual right. The 14th Incorporated the Constitution on the States. Any right granted under the Constitution is supreme law of the land and negates any law by a State that disagrees with the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional when it is a matter between the States and the Federal Government. The Supreme Court ruled specifically in Heller that the 2nd conveys an Individual right not associated with a need to belong to a Militia.

 

[Idadunno]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

 

[DarkFury]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

Correction. NO WHERE does it say government CAN regulate those arms.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The Constitution is a body of work, the 2nd Amendment is part of that body, NOTHING in the 2nd invalidates or conflicts with any other part of the Constitution. The 2nd grants an Individual right to keep, possess and use firearms within the restrictions of applicable law that recognizes what the right entails. The Supreme Court, also a part of the Constitution ruled it is an individual right. That it is not connected to any requirement to be a member or party of a Militia.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either to stupid to understand the written word or is a liar.

Actually, Gunny, you and I part ways here. "Marbury V. Madison" was argued for nearly 100 years. The SCOTUS (Constitutionally) has little basis in fact. In short - the Judges "appointed" themselves as final arbiter of all things Constitutional - much to the chagrin of Thomas Jefferson -

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

It doesn't take much of a stretch to understand (with recent events involving the SCOTUS) that they exist to do the bidding of their "appointers". What will happen to the 2nd Amendment when 5-6 liberals are appointed to the bench? They change their "opinions" at will - just like the politicians they are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution is a body of work, the 2nd Amendment is part of that body, NOTHING in the 2nd invalidates or conflicts with any other part of the Constitution. The 2nd grants an Individual right to keep, possess and use firearms within the restrictions of applicable law that recognizes what the right entails. The Supreme Court, also a part of the Constitution ruled it is an individual right. That it is not connected to any requirement to be a member or party of a Militia.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either to stupid to understand the written word or is a liar.

Actually, Gunny, you and I part ways here. "Marbury V. Madison" was argued for nearly 100 years. The SCOTUS (Constitutionally) has little basis in fact. In short - the Judges "appointed" themselves as final arbiter of all things Constitutional - much to the chagrin of Thomas Jefferson -

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

It doesn't take much of a stretch to understand (with recent events involving the SCOTUS) that they exist to do the bidding of their "appointers". What will happen to the 2nd Amendment when 5-6 liberals are appointed to the bench? They change their "opinions" at will - just like the politicians they are.

The thing is that Judicial Power means what?

The thing is that the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional, but Congress can make new laws. Checks and Balances. They can also appoint and impeach justices. So, many would say that it's better that the Supreme Court hold this power than any one else.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

You dumb ass, do you know what the words "shall not be infringed " means?

 

[RandallFlagg]

The Constitution is a body of work, the 2nd Amendment is part of that body, NOTHING in the 2nd invalidates or conflicts with any other part of the Constitution. The 2nd grants an Individual right to keep, possess and use firearms within the restrictions of applicable law that recognizes what the right entails. The Supreme Court, also a part of the Constitution ruled it is an individual right. That it is not connected to any requirement to be a member or party of a Militia.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either to stupid to understand the written word or is a liar.

Actually, Gunny, you and I part ways here. "Marbury V. Madison" was argued for nearly 100 years. The SCOTUS (Constitutionally) has little basis in fact. In short - the Judges "appointed" themselves as final arbiter of all things Constitutional - much to the chagrin of Thomas Jefferson -

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

It doesn't take much of a stretch to understand (with recent events involving the SCOTUS) that they exist to do the bidding of their "appointers". What will happen to the 2nd Amendment when 5-6 liberals are appointed to the bench? They change their "opinions" at will - just like the politicians they are.

The thing is that Judicial Power means what?

The thing is that the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional, but Congress can make new laws. Checks and Balances. They can also appoint and impeach justices. So, many would say that it's better that the Supreme Court hold this power than any one else.

Indeed. The SCOTUS can declare laws "unconstitutional". Lately, however, they have been doing what (seems to be) what every other "judge" in this country is doing - legislating from the bench. Read Jefferson's statement above.

If, when the court is leaning to the liberal side - what is to stop them from re-hearing a 2nd amendment case and overturning themselves? These "checks and balances" you speak of have been thrown out the window, for the most part. The executive branch does what it wants, when it wants. The legislative branch sits on their hands and refuses to do much of anything and the judicial branch changes written law at will to satisfy those who appointed them.

It's called "tyranny".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Indeed. The SCOTUS can declare laws "unconstitutional". Lately, however, they have been doing what (seems to be) what every other "judge" in this country is doing - legislating from the bench. Read Jefferson's statement above.

If, when the court is leaning to the liberal side - what is to stop them from re-hearing a 2nd amendment case and overturning themselves? These "checks and balances" you speak of have been thrown out the window, for the most part. The executive branch does what it wants, when it wants. The legislative branch sits on their hands and refuses to do much of anything and the judicial branch changes written law at will to satisfy those who appointed them.

It's called "tyranny".

I don't believe that they're being legislative. They're just simply saying things are unconstitutional. However they're changing their mind on things, which is where people get irate. Take gay marriage, it should have changed in 1868, it didn't. For 150 years they allowed things to remain as they were, using their "judgement" to keep things as they wanted, ie, not interpreting the constitution as it should have been interpreted.

So it's not tyranny.

 

[there4eyeM]

The prospect of freeing the slaves was liberty to the blacks, tyranny to the slave 'owners'.
Perspective changes 'truth'.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution is a body of work, the 2nd Amendment is part of that body, NOTHING in the 2nd invalidates or conflicts with any other part of the Constitution. The 2nd grants an Individual right to keep, possess and use firearms within the restrictions of applicable law that recognizes what the right entails. The Supreme Court, also a part of the Constitution ruled it is an individual right. That it is not connected to any requirement to be a member or party of a Militia.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either to stupid to understand the written word or is a liar.

Where are you getting your individual rights, then, if Nothing in the Second Amendment invalidates or conflicts with Article 1, Section 8 regarding the socialization of Arms for the Militia.

Your problem is you are simply not semper fi enough to the discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

You are an idiot. I don't think you are lying, I think you are just to stupid to know you are wrong. The right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed is clear. EVERYWHERE else in the Constitution where that phrase is used or we talk about the people it is understood to codify an individual right. The 14th Incorporated the Constitution on the States. Any right granted under the Constitution is supreme law of the land and negates any law by a State that disagrees with the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional when it is a matter between the States and the Federal Government. The Supreme Court ruled specifically in Heller that the 2nd conveys an Individual right not associated with a need to belong to a Militia.

Good thing for me you are not a First Sergeant or I may take you more seriously.

The Constitution is a body of work, the 2nd Amendment is part of that body, NOTHING in the 2nd invalidates or conflicts with any other part of the Constitution.

How do you reconcile this, then:

Powers Delegated to Congress by the People--To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[danielpalos]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

Correction. NO WHERE does it say government CAN regulate those arms.

Sure it does: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" Wellness of regulation for a Militia include wellness of regulation in the keeping and bearing of Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

You dumb ass, do you know what the words "shall not be infringed " means?

Yes, and, It Only applies literally to well regulated militias of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

The prospect of freeing the slaves was liberty to the blacks, tyranny to the slave 'owners'.
Perspective changes 'truth'.

It is why public policy must constitute public use.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

You dumb ass, do you know what the words "shall not be infringed " means?

Yes, and, It Only applies literally to well regulated militias of the People.

oops sorry mods didn't realize at the time this was in the CDZ.... Was at work

the militia is US. We the people. It is not talking about the US military.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

The 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say the government cannot regulate those arms.

You dumb ass, do you know what the words "shall not be infringed " means?

Yes, and, It Only applies literally to well regulated militias of the People.

Sorry pal in 2008 the supreme court disagrees, it is an individual right


District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right