2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[frigidweirdo]

You silly person, every argument you make reinforces mine.

At the time the COTUS and Bill or Rights were written there was no Army. There was no Navy. There were wealthy INDIVIDUALS who equipped their ships, and their people with arms, and artillery.

That's an inconvenient fact for you. Today there are people all over the country who own tanks. Most are sans active cannon, but not all.

The reality is you have to be pretty well off to afford them, but we can have them.

Annoying to people like you, but we still have them.

You think every argument I make reinforces yours? I just pissed myself laughing. Let me go clean myself up.

U.S. Army's 251st Birthday Celebration

Since its official establishment, June 14, 1775 — more than a year before the Declaration of Independence — the U.S. Army has played a vital role in the growth and development of the American nation.

www.army.mil

"Since 1775, America's Army has stood ready to protect the nation and its people and will fight to defend its values. Help the Army celebrate its 251st birthday on June 14!"

The US Army was founded in 1775. (Taken from the US Army's official webpage)

US Army in its current form was founded in 1784.

US Constitution was passed in 1789.

The Bill of Rights was passed in 1791.

"At the time the COTUS and Bill or Rights were written there was no Army."

"At the time the COTUS and Bill or Rights were written there was no Army."
"At the time the COTUS and Bill or Rights were written there was no Army."
Yeah, you claim the US Army didn't exist in 1789, or 1791, and yet... IT DID. **** me.
Here's another concept you need to understand. Just because you can do something, or own something, does not mean you have the RIGHT to do or own that.
A right is when a power is taken away from the government/monarch/whoever is in charge.
In order to have a right to something, they have to say to the government "you cannot do this".
There's nothing in the US Constitution that states that they cannot take people's TVs away, or ban them. They don't because what would be the point?
But because they are not specifically banned from doing it, it means you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO A TV.
So, the 2A prevents the US govt from infringing (which is not 100% by any means) on the right to keep arms. Which means the US govt cannot stop people owning "arms".
What the Supreme Court said in Heller was:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
So, they were looking for evidence that this weapon, which happened to be a shotgun with a short barrel, had a "reasonable relationship" to the militia.

This does not mean that the owner has to be in the militia. This does not mean the gun has to be in the militia.

What it means is that a shotgun is not militia weaponry. It's not normal for a soldier in the militia to use a shotgun.

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Miller case essentially made the NFA precedent in the US. It bans certain types of firearms.

Garland v. Cargill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In this case they wanted to make Bump Stocks to be classified as machine guns.

"Following the Parkland high school shooting in February 2018, President Donald Trump spoke out against bump stocks, and the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) also threw its weight behind banning bump stocks."

So, the NRA opposed bump stocks. Why?

They're supposed to be "pro-2A".

Also I can't find any mention of the 2A in Garland v. Cargill

 

[westwall]

You think every argument I make reinforces yours? I just pissed myself laughing. Let me go clean myself up.

U.S. Army's 251st Birthday Celebration

Since its official establishment, June 14, 1775 — more than a year before the Declaration of Independence — the U.S. Army has played a vital role in the growth and development of the American nation.

www.army.mil

"Since 1775, America's Army has stood ready to protect the nation and its people and will fight to defend its values. Help the Army celebrate its 251st birthday on June 14!"

The US Army was founded in 1775. (Taken from the US Army's official webpage)

US Army in its current form was founded in 1784.

US Constitution was passed in 1789.

The Bill of Rights was passed in 1791.

"At the time the COTUS and Bill or Rights were written there was no Army."

"At the time the COTUS and Bill or Rights were written there was no Army."
"At the time the COTUS and Bill or Rights were written there was no Army."
Yeah, you claim the US Army didn't exist in 1789, or 1791, and yet... IT DID. **** me.
Here's another concept you need to understand. Just because you can do something, or own something, does not mean you have the RIGHT to do or own that.
A right is when a power is taken away from the government/monarch/whoever is in charge.
In order to have a right to something, they have to say to the government "you cannot do this".
There's nothing in the US Constitution that states that they cannot take people's TVs away, or ban them. They don't because what would be the point?
But because they are not specifically banned from doing it, it means you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO A TV.
So, the 2A prevents the US govt from infringing (which is not 100% by any means) on the right to keep arms. Which means the US govt cannot stop people owning "arms".
What the Supreme Court said in Heller was:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
So, they were looking for evidence that this weapon, which happened to be a shotgun with a short barrel, had a "reasonable relationship" to the militia.

This does not mean that the owner has to be in the militia. This does not mean the gun has to be in the militia.

What it means is that a shotgun is not militia weaponry. It's not normal for a soldier in the militia to use a shotgun.

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Miller case essentially made the NFA precedent in the US. It bans certain types of firearms.

Garland v. Cargill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In this case they wanted to make Bump Stocks to be classified as machine guns.

"Following the Parkland high school shooting in February 2018, President Donald Trump spoke out against bump stocks, and the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) also threw its weight behind banning bump stocks."

So, the NRA opposed bump stocks. Why?

They're supposed to be "pro-2A".

Also I can't find any mention of the 2A in Garland v. Cargill

Yes, the Miller ruling said any weapon that "HAD NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE" could be controlled.

Like I said, everytime you post you reinforce my position.

Thank you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, the Miller ruling said any weapon that "HAD NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE" could be controlled.

Like I said, everytime you post you reinforce my position.

Thank you.

But your argument isn't this.

Your argument is that weaponry that isn't personal weaponry, ie, something that cannot be picked up by an individual, is PROTECTED by the 2A.

If a shotgun isn't protected by the 2A, then why would artillery?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms

arm 3 of 5 noun (2)

"1a: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense
especially : firearm"

Here is says "especially "firearm".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm

"
a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder

—usually used of small arms"


So, essentially here we're talking "small arms".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/small%20arms

"
a handheld firearm (such as a handgun or shoulder arm)

—usually used in plural"

We're talking something that can be held in someone's hands. Not artillery.

Your argument is that artillery is allowed under the 2A.

Your only argument is "some dudes in the past owned private artillery". You haven't provided the evidence for this, even though I've asked multiple times.

So, your only argument isn't even valid yet, because you can't back it up.

My argument is that just because someone has something, doesn't mean they have a right to it.

You haven't even tried to attack that argument.

So, you have a steep hill ahead of you.

You need to prove there is right to own artillery. And you haven't even started yet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What did they mean by "shall not be infringed", means, basically that the government shall not take guns away from people BEFORE DUE PROCESS.

You cannot in any way demonstrate this is to be true.
You're talking out your ass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, I've shown this with the Founding Fathers talking about the 2A,...

And now, you're openly lying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can find no description of the type of weapon a militia can have either and remember, the 'militia' encompasses all American citizens. There should be no restrictions at all. Besides even a Musket today can put a hole in you.

Right?
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use "all bearable arms", which includes all firearms in common use, and commonly chosen for use, for traditionally lawful purposes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, the Miller ruling said any weapon that "HAD NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE" could be controlled.

Never mind that shotguns have been commonly issued to any number of line and support troops for well over a century.

 

[westwall]

Never mind that shotguns have been commonly issued to any number of line and support troops for well over a century.

They were talking about a sawed off shotgun, which you and I know has tons of uses in CQB, but the Court ruled that way and Miller's lawyer didn't bother to show up for a counter argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They were talking about a sawed off shotgun, which you and I know has tons of uses in CQB, but the Court ruled that way and Miller's lawyer didn't bother to show up for a counter argument.

Miller died before his court date - no one was there to counter the government's arguments.

 

[Dante]

Dainty doesn't know. She just throws crap at the wall hoping something sticks.

Dante supports gun ownership and gun laws.

imagine that

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Miller case essentially made the NFA precedent in the US. It bans certain types of firearms.

Oh look. More of your head-in-the ass nonsense.
The NFA does not ban any weapons.

Also I can't find any mention of the 2A in Garland v. Cargill

For the same reason you did not find any mention of the 1st and 4th amendments.
That said. Cargill was a -massive- win for the pro-gun side.

 

[westwall]

Dante supports gun ownership and gun laws.

imagine that

Sure, gun ownership for people you like. But laws to prevent those you don't.

Not surprising at all.

That's leftist policy.

DURRRRRR

 

[Dante]

Sure, gun ownership for people you like. But laws to prevent those you don't.

Not surprising at all.

That's leftist policy.

DURRRRRR

I love guns. I believe more people should have them. I also believe there are many who should never have them.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I love guns. I believe more people should have them. I also believe there are many who should never have them.

Like brainwashed left wing trannies on ssris that has to kill kill kill the christo fascists children

Define comma

Nobody cares
They're already overregulated

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

You see blah blah blah blah blah

Black people in chicago kill each other because across the border, blah blah blah blah blah guns are easy to get
Wa wa wa blah blah blah blah blah
Systemic waycism blah blah blah wah wah wah
Now if we regulate it even harder across all 50 states blah blah blah
It's for the greater good
End gun violence
Blah blah shut up nazis
I have a p h d in homo Erectus erotica and a minor in gender studies

 

[westwall]

I love guns. I believe more people should have them. I also believe there are many who should never have them.

Yeah, people you don't like.

Far better is anyone who shouldn't own a gun, most likely should be in prison.

 

[Dante]

Yeah, people you don't like.

Far better is anyone who shouldn't own a gun, most likely should be in prison.

Like Trump? Yes.

 

[Leo123]

I love guns. I believe more people should have them. I also believe there are many who should never have them.

I don't believe YOU should own a gun.

 

[Dante]

I don't believe YOU should own a gun.

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

 

[Rumpole]

Sure it does. "That which is not EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN" is not controlled.

That's how our country works.

Your quote is not from any court ruling, so political slogans are irrelevant to law, that's how are country works. Moreover, you're missing the point; The Second Amendment, as construed in Heller, is no longer a militia-based provision; and because modern weapons vastly exceed founding-era weaponry, the text does not clearly define scope, so a modern amendment would be a better place to specify the right and its limits.