91 Million Armed American Civilians Makes Me Feel Damned Good

[JimBowie1958]

It was not a badly written anything. It was a guarantee that the people could always have a means to reject a tyrannical gov't.

Again, by that logic, then, Mateen was expressing his "rights". I mean, right. If your purpose is to use violence to acheive an end, Mateen was a hero by you guys.

Not even your logic can make that stretch. He was a murderer.

JoeBitch is a very confused little boy.

He cannot distinguish between self defense and mass murder.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Drop the terror watch list thing.

The terror watch list is an arbitrary thing and people who have committed no crimes are on that list.

We need to have something that is less arbitrary and more procedure where people have the right to challenge their classification with criminal rights available to them..

Libtards dont like that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And the victims of crimes who were unable to protect themselves.

There is just something evil ass twisted about people like Jillian who laugh at the thought of people being able to defend themselves.

 

[2aguy]

We have thousands of reasonable gun laws on the books already

well, not in all states. which is why guns come from the south up into NYC

the system of background checks should be good enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies, abusers and people on the terrorist watch list.

and perhaps the way to view it is this.... about 90% of the people in this country agree on the above parameters. should they be thwarted because the NRA gives money to the people responsible for the governance of our country?

You do realize that the Orlando Night club shooter, the guy who murdered 49 men....whose father supports hilary clinton.......went through 3 background checks....one for his work as a security guard......one, 10 month deep investigation by the FBI......and one for each gun he purchased.....plus he had 3 interviews with 3 trained FBI interrogators......and they still gave him a pass...

How much more rigorous do you want background checks to be?

Criminals can't pass background checks...so they use people who can pass background checks....right now, for federal background checks..that is how they are getting guns to New York....so what will you do to improve background checks for people who can pass them already?

the 90% are uniformed on the issue..they take people like you for their word, not realizing that what you really want is gun registration like in Germany, Britain and Australia, which will then allow you to ban and confiscate guns at a later date.......

so much stupid in that post its comical.

what on earth does who the killer's father supports have to do with anything? my father is a republican. and??? idiot.

the rest of what you said is nonsense....

I want a background check rigorous enough to know who is on the terrorist watch list so that if they get a gun, the FBI and homeland security know about it.

I want gun laws rigorous enough to keep the guns from the southern states out of our state.

I want the controls that 90% of this country asked for and support..... without the obstruction of the NRA shills.

d'uh.

I would be disappointed if my daughters turned out to be Liberals. They were taught better.

Mine taught me at a young age that when you want something, you have two options. Shit in one hand, want in the other, and see which one fills up quicker. All that means is you don't necessarily get what you want.

As far as that 90%, apply the if you don't want one don't get one mindset those of us that aren't women are told to apply when it comes to abortions.

then you're an idiot.

given your posts, I doubt you had anything to teach.

and your 90% analogy to reproductive choices is absurd. if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it's none of your business and doesn't affect you.

if because you're an NRA shill, guns come to NY, then it affects us here.

as to your purported rights, a) until Scalia polluted our body of caselaw with Heller, there was no individual rigfht of gun ownership (that whole "well-regulated militia" thing); and b) even under Heller, reasonable regulation is permissible so long as it isn't a ban.... same as with reproductive choice....which is why the heavy handed BS passed by the Texas legislature got the ax. Best decision for reproductive rights in ages.

see what happens when rightwingnuts overplay their hands.

btw, if your daughters' politics could "disappoint" you, you're disgusting. just saying. me and my dad? we've discussed issues our whole lives. we'd be bored if we agreed.

but then again, he's not an ass.

You twits keep citing anti gunners who keep lying about Heller, and the individual right to bear arms....here...you asked for it....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

--------------

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

----------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8


It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”


------------

That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms.

They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

-------

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

------------
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training
----
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

----

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution

-------------
Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,”

----------

B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the


---------

1. Post-ratification Commentary Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 33 Opinion of the Court the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

--------




c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because 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 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

 

[2aguy]

There were rulings before Heller that found the right to be individual...just like the Amendment states....


(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

And Miller protects the AR-15 as the most commonly used rifle in the country....

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[2aguy]

Ginsburg in 1998....


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8

So you guys are just wrong...there is a God given right to self defense and it was enshrined in our legal history in the 18th century....

 

[JoeB131]

If I legally own one gun or one thousand it's none of your business and does not affect you

Until that day you flip out and go on a shooting spree, yeah.

Guns are no more dangerous than thousands of other tool in existence today

Uh, they are specifically designed to KILL people. They really have no other function. So, um, yeah, that makes them more dangerous.

 

[JoeB131]

Not even your logic can make that stretch. He was a murderer.

No, man, he was a 2nd Amendment enthusiast expressing his dissatisfaction with the fact that we were defying Allah by letting the gays mince around with rights and stuff.

This is what you gun nuts believe. That if you can't get your way on shit, you should shoot shit up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If I legally own one gun or one thousand it's none of your business and does not affect you

Until that day you flip out and go on a shooting spree, yeah.

Guns are no more dangerous than thousands of other tool in existence today

Uh, they are specifically designed to KILL people. They really have no other function. So, um, yeah, that makes them more dangerous.

Yeah because everyone will eventually "flip out" and want to commit mass murder

When are you going to flip out ? Silly question because you have already obviously done so.

All a gun is designed to do is fire a projectile. Where that projectile goes is the choice of the person.

So you see it is people that were designed to kill and over tens of thousands of years that fact has been proven to be true

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, he was batshit crazy. And no one at the college, at the facility where he received therapy, or around his neighborhood reported him so that he would have been unable to buy a gun. And you expect the gun store clerk to be able to diagnose his mental illness after talking 10 mins and then watching him fill out the forms. Complete insanity there too.

If 10 minutes is an inadequate amount of time to ascertain if someone is too crazy to have a gun, then it should take longer than 10 minutes.

Again- throw the gun sellers in jail, make the manufacturers pay out huge damages, and I promise you, they WILL find out who the nuts are before they sell them guns.

 

[JoeB131]

Because they couldn't see the future?

Because it was obvious to everyone else what this guy was.

Come on, we found out within 24 hours everything we wanted to know about Mateen.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not even your logic can make that stretch. He was a murderer.

No, man, he was a 2nd Amendment enthusiast expressing his dissatisfaction with the fact that we were defying Allah by letting the gays mince around with rights and stuff.

This is what you gun nuts believe. That if you can't get your way on shit, you should shoot shit up.

LMAO!! Too funny. You seem to enjoy telling us what we want, enjoy and would do. And yet, there is no evidence that the shootings you reference were anything but extremely rare events.

The guy was gay (or at least bi) and was horrified by it. He went nuts.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah because everyone will eventually "flip out" and want to commit mass murder

No, not everyone. Just enough of you to make giving you guns a really bad idea.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because they couldn't see the future?

Because it was obvious to everyone else what this guy was.

Come on, we found out within 24 hours everything we wanted to know about Mateen.

Did you see him before he was arrested?

No? Imagine that

 

[JoeB131]

LMAO!! Too funny. You seem to enjoy telling us what we want, enjoy and would do. And yet, there is no evidence that the shootings you reference were anything but extremely rare events.

The guy was gay (or at least bi) and was horrified by it. He went nuts.

And he was able to buy a machine gun and hundreds of rounds of ammo...

What's wrong with that picture?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah because everyone will eventually "flip out" and want to commit mass murder

No, not everyone. Just enough of you to make giving you guns a really bad idea.

Yeah like less than one one hundredth of a percent

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, he was batshit crazy. And no one at the college, at the facility where he received therapy, or around his neighborhood reported him so that he would have been unable to buy a gun. And you expect the gun store clerk to be able to diagnose his mental illness after talking 10 mins and then watching him fill out the forms. Complete insanity there too.

If 10 minutes is an inadequate amount of time to ascertain if someone is too crazy to have a gun, then it should take longer than 10 minutes.

Again- throw the gun sellers in jail, make the manufacturers pay out huge damages, and I promise you, they WILL find out who the nuts are before they sell them guns.

Do you know how long it takes to earn a degree and the license to practice as a psychologist? And you want to give those who are actually professionals, with the knowledge and skills to DO something, a free pass.

If you can get the laws and rules for selling guns changed, do it. (i doubt very much you can)
But as long as the sellers follow the laws and rules, we do not send them to prison, regardless of the tantrums you throw.

 

[WinterBorn]

LMAO!! Too funny. You seem to enjoy telling us what we want, enjoy and would do. And yet, there is no evidence that the shootings you reference were anything but extremely rare events.

The guy was gay (or at least bi) and was horrified by it. He went nuts.

And he was able to buy a machine gun and hundreds of rounds of ammo...

What's wrong with that picture?

That is an outright lie. He did not buy a machine gun.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because they couldn't see the future?

Because it was obvious to everyone else what this guy was.

Come on, we found out within 24 hours everything we wanted to know about Mateen.

Yes, we found out within 24 hours AFTER he committed the horrific crime. That is why I said "Because they couldn't see the future?".

 

[Skull Pilot]

LMAO!! Too funny. You seem to enjoy telling us what we want, enjoy and would do. And yet, there is no evidence that the shootings you reference were anything but extremely rare events.

The guy was gay (or at least bi) and was horrified by it. He went nuts.

And he was able to buy a machine gun and hundreds of rounds of ammo...

What's wrong with that picture?

That is an outright lie. He did not buy a machine gun.

Joe says he knows about guns because he was in the service yet he does not know the difference between a full auto and a semi auto