Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which parts that were initially written are no longer relevant? One could say that the second amendment has been changed 30,000 times, once for every gun law that restricts the ability of citizens to own the guns needed to maintain a capable militiaNeither the Constitution or it's meaning has changed one bit since it was written
Not quite true. Since it was written, the Constitution has been changed twenty-seven times.
Better write SCOTUS, or Stare decisis overrules Originalism. The Constitutional text continues to evolve, as it has from the first day. That is not going to stop to please those who believe in Originalism.
If the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.
Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.
Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.
The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.
In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.
The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.
It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.
The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.
Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.
There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.
Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.
Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.
So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?
Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.
The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.
All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.
Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificIf the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.
Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.
Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.
The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.
In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.
The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.
It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.
The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.
Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.
There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.
Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.
Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.
So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?
Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.
The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.
All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.
Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificIf the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.
In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.
The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.
It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.
The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.
Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.
There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.
Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.
Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.
So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?
Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.
The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.
All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.
Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
Better write SCOTUS, or Stare decisis overrules Originalism. The Constitutional text continues to evolve, as it has from the first day. That is not going to stop to please those who believe in Originalism.
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificIf the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.
Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.
Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.
So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?
Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.
The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.
All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.
Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificSure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.
Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.
So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?
Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.
The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.
All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.
Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificSure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.
Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.
So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?
Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.
The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.
All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.
Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificSure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.
Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.
So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?
Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.
The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.
All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.
Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificDo you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
That isn't a bearable arm....that is a rocket......it is unusual....taking it out of the realm of the bearable arms as defined in Heller....
Please read D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, the dissent in Friedman v Highland Park to understand what the opinion of the court on which arms are protected.....
No more on why I want an AR-15?
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificDo you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
And to the "dangerous and unusual?"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]
The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]
First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]
Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
-----
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
--
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificDo you know why the Federalist Papers were established?
What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?
Why did you fail to offer the evidence?
Have you taken ConLaw?
Have you read and understood Heller:
to wit, this paragraph:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
From D.C. v Heller...on what is protected...
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.
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificSorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
From D.C. v Heller...on what is protected...
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.
How is a street legal AR-15 going to beat an invading military
It's neither, but believe differently if you wish. That the alt right does not understand Scalia or Heller is their problem.SCOTUS will not declare the 2dA invalid, Bob. It will take it apart bit by bit.
Whether it is done all at once, in a single stroke, or bit-by-bit, it is still the same lawlessness, and the same corruption.
Why do you need an AR-15, be specific
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
From D.C. v Heller...on what is protected...
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.
How is a street legal AR-15 going to beat an invading military
Here you go.....read the entire column.....it will enlighten you to irregular warfare...
Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too
Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.
Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.
Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.
And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.
For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.
But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.
Why do you need an AR-15, be specificSorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....
Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guaranteethe individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.
We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.
But we said in Heller that “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.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.
But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.
We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
From D.C. v Heller...on what is protected...
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.
How is a street legal AR-15 going to beat an invading military
Why do you need an AR-15, be specific
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
From D.C. v Heller...on what is protected...
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.
How is a street legal AR-15 going to beat an invading military
The same way the AK-47 defeated Helicopters, Tanks, Machine Guns, and every other known modern weapon including attack aircraft and heavy bombers in Vietnam. The same way that the simple rifle is defeating us in Afghanistan today. The same way that weapons bought in Miami gun shops overthrew the Government and Military of Cuba. But let’s play like the revolution that people warn about does happen shall we?
First, the Military has Helicopters, Jets, Drones, Satellites, Tanks, and armored vehicles right? But how many do they have? If you count every single person in the Military, Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard, and Coast Guard, you have perhaps two million. Of those two million, perhaps one hundred thousand are actually Infantry. Now, I don’t know about you, but I doubt that the clerks at Headquarters or the Dental Technicians from Medical are going to be doing a lot of fighting.
About a third of those are navy. How far inland can the Navy reach? A hundred miles? Four hundred? Again, look at the map, and see how thinly the coverage really is, not just limited in distance. There just ain’t that many planes and carriers.
But wait, there is more to consider. Napoleon said an Army marches on it’s stomach. That was true. Then. Now, the Army floats on a sea of Diesel Fuel. Tanks can’t just drive where they want to go, they are amazingly fragile pieces of equipment. So they need trucks to carry them, and fuel to make the truck and the tank go. A tank is not exactly like your car. It isn’t even remotely fuel efficient. A company of Armor burns hundreds of gallons of diesel every day. That is why the tanks spend most of their time in the Motor Pool. It is really expensive to drive them about. Helicopters, Jets, transports, drones, and all that neat flying stuff also burns a hell of a lot of fuel every single day.
If a Revolution starts, and most of the fuel is refined in Texas and Louisiana, where is the Military going to get it when the good old boys there stop showing up to work? Or worse, tamper with the fuel to make it tear up the engines of the tanks? Then how do you get it to the tanks from the refinery? Any revolution worth the word would target logistics first. You see, a lot of us are ex military, and we know what makes an army work. We know it desperately needs fuel, parts, and other supplies. This is why there were so many Convoys for the Insurgents to attack in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It’s why they are still being attacked.
Without Fuel, tanks, trucks, planes, helicopters, and drones are just static display pieces. Patton ran out of fuel on his attack, so it happens even when people are struggling to get the supplies to the front where it is needed.
All those awesome weapons of war also need maintainance. Generally speaking, for every hour of flight time, a helicopter needs ten hours of maintainance. Engines break, transmissions wear, rotors need replacement, and the electronics need repair. So you need a lot of parts to keep those things flying. Tanks too need a lot of maintainance. Tracks wear out quickly. Then if they are not replaced, the tank “throws a track” which means the hundred million dollar awesome tank has just become a stationary pillbox. Still dangerous, but not really threatening.
So in the first month, if the Government was unable to put the revolution down, the Government eventually lose. As the logistic train dried up, the ability of the small military to go where it was neeeded evaporates.
But where are the insurgents? Everywhere. Some here, some there, loosely affiliated, all just pissed off. They’ll fight the cops, and some will die, and so will the cops. The National Guard will probably refuse to move, because who wants to fight their own families? I suppose you could try and Motivate the Soldiers by shooting one or two but then you can never turn your back on the troops, because they fragged officers in Vietnam, and they can and will do so again.
When I made Sergeant, I called my Dad just as proud as could be. My Dad said to remember one thing. While I was leading the troops, I should look over my shoulder now and then to make sure someone was following me. I didn’t get that at first, but I did later. My soldiers might not be willing to follow me, and if they aren’t there isn’t much I can do about it.
If you imagine the military is filled with automatons, you are sadly mistaken. There are five types who join the military. The first group are the legacy’s. These are people who joined because Dad, Granddad, Great Granddad, and so on joined. These are the Lieutenant Dan’s of the military. The second Group are the lack of option people. They joined because there were no jobs, and it was either join the military, or end up in jail. The third group are the killers. These are the guys who want to kill someone. There aren’t many of them, thankfully. But there are always one or two in a company. The rest of the soldiers generally don’t trust them too much, but that is a case by case basis.
The fourth type are the college fund. These guys and girls just want to do their tour, and get the hell out and go to school. They have dreams that they want to pursue, and they are willing to serve, but aren’t looking for any heroics. They just want to do their time, and get the hell out.
The Fifth Type, that is the largest group. These are the Patriots. They believe that serving is good. They are off to defend their families, friends, neighbors. They love the nation, and their hearts swell hearing John Phillips Sousa’s various marches.
The Killers might fire on fellow Americans. The Legacy’s probably won’t. The College fund types, call that a coin toss. The lack of option people? They’ll go with the majority. They’re trying to stay out of trouble. The vast majority of the Patriots will not do it. They won’t fire on fellow Americans. They joined to defend America, and America is the people to them.
Or do you think that the Georgia National Guard will fire on their neighbors and friends? If you do, you are sadly mistaken. Oh, and all those drones, haven’t won anything.
For self defense. And as you can see.....from D.C. v Heller, all bearable arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. As affirmed in Scalia's further opinion on the topic in Friedman v Highland Park.
All bearable arms are not protected....................
Try again
From D.C. v Heller...on what is protected...
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.
How is a street legal AR-15 going to beat an invading military
The same way the AK-47 defeated Helicopters, Tanks, Machine Guns, and every other known modern weapon including attack aircraft and heavy bombers in Vietnam. The same way that the simple rifle is defeating us in Afghanistan today. The same way that weapons bought in Miami gun shops overthrew the Government and Military of Cuba. But let’s play like the revolution that people warn about does happen shall we?
First, the Military has Helicopters, Jets, Drones, Satellites, Tanks, and armored vehicles right? But how many do they have? If you count every single person in the Military, Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard, and Coast Guard, you have perhaps two million. Of those two million, perhaps one hundred thousand are actually Infantry. Now, I don’t know about you, but I doubt that the clerks at Headquarters or the Dental Technicians from Medical are going to be doing a lot of fighting.
About a third of those are navy. How far inland can the Navy reach? A hundred miles? Four hundred? Again, look at the map, and see how thinly the coverage really is, not just limited in distance. There just ain’t that many planes and carriers.
But wait, there is more to consider. Napoleon said an Army marches on it’s stomach. That was true. Then. Now, the Army floats on a sea of Diesel Fuel. Tanks can’t just drive where they want to go, they are amazingly fragile pieces of equipment. So they need trucks to carry them, and fuel to make the truck and the tank go. A tank is not exactly like your car. It isn’t even remotely fuel efficient. A company of Armor burns hundreds of gallons of diesel every day. That is why the tanks spend most of their time in the Motor Pool. It is really expensive to drive them about. Helicopters, Jets, transports, drones, and all that neat flying stuff also burns a hell of a lot of fuel every single day.
If a Revolution starts, and most of the fuel is refined in Texas and Louisiana, where is the Military going to get it when the good old boys there stop showing up to work? Or worse, tamper with the fuel to make it tear up the engines of the tanks? Then how do you get it to the tanks from the refinery? Any revolution worth the word would target logistics first. You see, a lot of us are ex military, and we know what makes an army work. We know it desperately needs fuel, parts, and other supplies. This is why there were so many Convoys for the Insurgents to attack in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It’s why they are still being attacked.
Without Fuel, tanks, trucks, planes, helicopters, and drones are just static display pieces. Patton ran out of fuel on his attack, so it happens even when people are struggling to get the supplies to the front where it is needed.
All those awesome weapons of war also need maintainance. Generally speaking, for every hour of flight time, a helicopter needs ten hours of maintainance. Engines break, transmissions wear, rotors need replacement, and the electronics need repair. So you need a lot of parts to keep those things flying. Tanks too need a lot of maintainance. Tracks wear out quickly. Then if they are not replaced, the tank “throws a track” which means the hundred million dollar awesome tank has just become a stationary pillbox. Still dangerous, but not really threatening.
So in the first month, if the Government was unable to put the revolution down, the Government eventually lose. As the logistic train dried up, the ability of the small military to go where it was neeeded evaporates.
But where are the insurgents? Everywhere. Some here, some there, loosely affiliated, all just pissed off. They’ll fight the cops, and some will die, and so will the cops. The National Guard will probably refuse to move, because who wants to fight their own families? I suppose you could try and Motivate the Soldiers by shooting one or two but then you can never turn your back on the troops, because they fragged officers in Vietnam, and they can and will do so again.
When I made Sergeant, I called my Dad just as proud as could be. My Dad said to remember one thing. While I was leading the troops, I should look over my shoulder now and then to make sure someone was following me. I didn’t get that at first, but I did later. My soldiers might not be willing to follow me, and if they aren’t there isn’t much I can do about it.
If you imagine the military is filled with automatons, you are sadly mistaken. There are five types who join the military. The first group are the legacy’s. These are people who joined because Dad, Granddad, Great Granddad, and so on joined. These are the Lieutenant Dan’s of the military. The second Group are the lack of option people. They joined because there were no jobs, and it was either join the military, or end up in jail. The third group are the killers. These are the guys who want to kill someone. There aren’t many of them, thankfully. But there are always one or two in a company. The rest of the soldiers generally don’t trust them too much, but that is a case by case basis.
The fourth type are the college fund. These guys and girls just want to do their tour, and get the hell out and go to school. They have dreams that they want to pursue, and they are willing to serve, but aren’t looking for any heroics. They just want to do their time, and get the hell out.
The Fifth Type, that is the largest group. These are the Patriots. They believe that serving is good. They are off to defend their families, friends, neighbors. They love the nation, and their hearts swell hearing John Phillips Sousa’s various marches.
The Killers might fire on fellow Americans. The Legacy’s probably won’t. The College fund types, call that a coin toss. The lack of option people? They’ll go with the majority. They’re trying to stay out of trouble. The vast majority of the Patriots will not do it. They won’t fire on fellow Americans. They joined to defend America, and America is the people to them.
Or do you think that the Georgia National Guard will fire on their neighbors and friends? If you do, you are sadly mistaken. Oh, and all those drones, haven’t won anything.
So you think that a semi auto AR-15 is the same weapon as a full auto AK-47..............
Kid go play with your toys
Neither the Constitution or it's meaning has changed one bit since it was written
Not quite true. Since it was written, the Constitution has been changed twenty-seven times.
Not by SCOTUS.
