Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?

[Porter Rockwell]

Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online. Yeah, it takes a little effort. The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.

You can't get the info on line.

I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.

Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?

IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage

Do you really think you're telling me I haven't already stated as fact in this thread? Did you forget post # 48 that fast?

My experience is that if someone can get something by digging for it, somebody out there is making it easier to get for a price. If people want rid of you, they will find a reason. So, BFD, people have to work in order to invade your privacy. How long before someone is doing this for a profit and it is commonplace? SURPRISE!!! It is being done. What makes you think that high dollar rollers don't already do this stuff?

I'm not going to try and convince you. Little infringements become larger ones as they become more and more profitable. If you choose to wallow in ignorance, you have every legal Right to do so, but it still won't make you right.

I know what's public record and what isn't and I know that someone finding out I have a CC permit is no big deal.

If they want to waste their time and money to find out I have a CC permit IDGAF because it is nothing that can be used against me.

Your replies are really immature. As I write this, both the left and the right are busy trying to pass Red Flag Laws across this country. If your neighbor, boss, relative, etc. know you have a firearm, all they have to do under these Red Flag Laws is call the police and say that you are acting crazy and may pose a danger.

When the general public has access to your private information and when they want to do something against you... be it get you fired from a job, run out of a neighborhood, etc. they will do it. An IRS agent may get whizzed that you hired an attorney he didn't like to represent you at an audit. Then, without even a warrant ANYONE can find out if you have a weapon.

You may not "GAF," but some people do. And if you think that just because there are a lot of attorneys out there you can get one to take your case, you have left the world of reality. Fact is, I have a medical malpractice case in front of me right now. The case is solid and any medical malpractice attorney could win it. They won't take it. I am going to have to do it - and I've never done medical malpractice. The reason: it's over a relatively small amount of money where legal jockeying is concerned. You get fired from your job over owning a firearm. If you aren't black, Jewish, Muslim, handicapped or some other protected class, where is your case? Gun owners are not a protected class of people.

A rad flag law has nothing to do with whether or not your CC permit is public record.

And FYI I do not support red flag laws because they circumvent due process

And FYI gun owners aren't a class of people at all.

There is no way anyone will know if I own a weapon unless there is a legal search warrant executed at my home. And since there will never be cause for a search warrant of my home I have nothing to worry about.

And an IRS agent doesn't give a shit if you hire a tax attorney to represent you in fact I bet they would expect you to do that very thing.

I'm as private a person as anyone but I'm not pathologically paranoid.

Dude, you're the king of silliness and repetitive dumbassery. I tell you something and you repeat it as if you're telling ME something? WTH?

I grew up in the era when Congressman George Hanson wrote the book To Harass Our People: The IRS and Government Abuse of Power. So, excuse the Hell out of me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You think you're smarter than those who have information you don't, so you know what...

If you're happy with the society that is all about the pee test, blood test, hair sample, DNA sample, criminal background check, credit check, Interpol background check, ccw, occupation license, hunting license, National ID / REAL ID - E Verify, Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "Social Security Number," fishing license, proof of insurance, 24 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance, then you and I have little else to discuss.

Either your reading skills are so minimal that you cannot participate in a civil and understandable conversation or you are a fucking idiot. My training is not in psychiatry, so you're SOL.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons.

You do know that any right ALLOWS you to do something don't you?

If you have the right to keep and bear arms then by definition you are ALLOWED to keep and bear arms

Refuted earlier for those with an IQ above their shoe size.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

Let us say you were born in North Korea. Would you still have been born with that right?

EVERY human being is born with unalienable Rights - or so says the Declaratory Charter of the United States, according to Thomas Jefferson.

HAVING unalienable Rights does not mean there are not people that will infringe on them. And so the United States has sent more soldiers onto foreign soil in the name of Freedom and Liberty than any country on this planet. We've never occupied countries as a political participant in exchange. We've not taken an acre of the land for our sacrifices.

We are a country built on foundational principles that when we organized our government and ratified a Constitution, we presupposed these things and that is why we have been a beacon to every nation living under tyrants.

A good analogy is that you have a Right to the car you bought. That does not guarantee that you car is incapable of being stolen. Some days I don't know when some of you guys are bullshitting me OR you really don't understand the foundational principles.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

You wrote this which is why I found confusing
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.

And your point? Do you have kids? If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "allowing" them to stay out until a certain time. As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.

Do you not understand that if you say the government "allows" you to own a firearm, you could never, ever, under any circumstances argue an unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms? By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government. THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Did the government create you? If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make. If not, you have unalienable Rights that are above the Constitution.

I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

You wrote this which is why I found confusing
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.

And your point? Do you have kids? If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "allowing" them to stay out until a certain time. As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.

Do you not understand that if you say the government "allows" you to own a firearm, you could never, ever, under any circumstances argue an unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms? By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government. THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Did the government create you? If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make. If not, you have unalienable Rights that are above the Constitution.

I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.

I believe we are both on the same side of second amendment right. I was just trying to get a clarification on why you thought the courts rules the second amendment does not allow for private ownership? The bill of rights were created separately that reminds the federal government citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[diver52]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

Let us say you were born in North Korea. Would you still have been born with that right?

EVERY human being is born with unalienable Rights - or so says the Declaratory Charter of the United States, according to Thomas Jefferson.

HAVING unalienable Rights does not mean there are not people that will infringe on them. And so the United States has sent more soldiers onto foreign soil in the name of Freedom and Liberty than any country on this planet. We've never occupied countries as a political participant in exchange. We've not taken an acre of the land for our sacrifices.

We are a country built on foundational principles that when we organized our government and ratified a Constitution, we presupposed these things and that is why we have been a beacon to every nation living under tyrants.

A good analogy is that you have a Right to the car you bought. That does not guarantee that you car is incapable of being stolen. Some days I don't know when some of you guys are bullshitting me OR you really don't understand the foundational principles.

I assume you meant the Declaration of Independence.

I was just curious. I personally don't see how rights which have existed only recently and only in select locations can be called unalienable. Jefferson wrote that we were born with the inalienable rights of life and liberty, while simultaneously owning human beings. It's a pleasant enough phrase, but really has no meaning unless the society you live in is willing to allow you those rights.

 

[toobfreak]

of course you have unlimited Free Speech but you might be arrested for causing a panic after you yell FIRE in a theatre where there is NO Fire .

no no--it's not free if you get arrested / fired from your job/lose $$$/etc
lot's have people have been fired for '''racist'' free speech
lot's of people have been fired for '''''free speech''''
or your pay/income is effected
free
/frē/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. 1.
   not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
   "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
2. 2.
   not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
   "the researchers set the birds free"
   synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large; More

adverb

1. 1.
   without cost or payment.

Your employer cannot violate your right to free speech.

The First Amendment only applies to the government not the general public

As in the words "Congress shall pass no law...."

It's the same thing for any social media platform. Facebook etc has no obligation to provide you a venue to exercise your rights to free speech and cannot violate your right to free speech since you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up.

....please look at the definition again ..the employers can and DO tell you what you can say or not = NOT FREE
.....this is undeniable---employers limit free speech and the government/constitution can't do anything about it
free speech IS limited

Case in point. Even the police can't say what they think in their free time:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-25-officers-posted-shared-offensive-material

 

[sparky]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

Unless you've a F16 with a suitcae nuke parked in your dooryard, an armed populace can't confront a rouge government Bluesdude ~S~

 

[Dick Foster]

Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?

No

YES!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

You wrote this which is why I found confusing
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.

And your point? Do you have kids? If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "allowing" them to stay out until a certain time. As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.

Do you not understand that if you say the government "allows" you to own a firearm, you could never, ever, under any circumstances argue an unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms? By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government. THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Did the government create you? If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make. If not, you have unalienable Rights that are above the Constitution.

I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.

I believe we are both on the same side of second amendment right. I was just trying to get a clarification on why you thought the courts rules the second amendment does not allow for private ownership? The bill of rights were created separately that reminds the federal government citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

We are on the same side of the Second Amendment for the most part.

I part company with a lot of people on the issue because after about 1875 (IIRC) the United States Supreme Court began issuing rulings that contradict other PREVIOUS rulings. My understanding was that America has three branches of government:

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

The United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the laws, but nothing in the Constitution gives them the authority to revisit their own rulings and then change them. As a result, the high Court has made a tremendous clusterphuck out of gun laws in general.

Add to that Trump and the United States Supreme Court are having a dick measuring contest now over who has the authority to ask if you're a citizen on the Census. The real answer: That was a job for the legislature. We cannot keep being ruled by changing court rulings and Executive Orders. So, as in my long winded post, I go back to the FIRST court rulings and that, in my mind, legitimately conveys what the law is and it is consistent with the other documentation I posted. It is consistent with the words of the founders / framers.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What does shall not be infringe mean?

“Infringe” is related to the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something, or in more modern usage, to a form of decoration applied to the edge of something.

As used in the Second Amendment, …shall not be infringed” means that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edge of the right disussed therein.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

It's worth pointing out that Jack Miller had died before his case reached the Supreme Court, and nobody appeared to argue for his side. The court heard only one side of the argument, and not the other. If someone had been there to present Mr. Miller's case, there's a good chance he would have persuaded the court away from the restriction that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons that were suitable for military use. Certainly a competent advocate would have pointed out that short-barrelled shotguns were, in fact, a standard military issue item at that time, and with that bit of knowledge that the court did not receive, they would have had, by the logic that they used, to have ruled that the Second Amendment did indeed protect Mr. Miller's right to possess such a weapon.

It's interesting that today, our government absolutely refuses to allow us citizens to own modern military-grade arms,the standard-issue rifle now being a select-fire rifle capable of both semi automatic operation and either fully-automatic or burst-fire operation; and the weapons that are now being most strongly targeted by attempts to ban or restrict them are weapons being singled out because of a superficial cosmetic resemblance to military-grade weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

You wrote this which is why I found confusing
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.

And your point? Do you have kids? If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "allowing" them to stay out until a certain time. As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.

Do you not understand that if you say the government "allows" you to own a firearm, you could never, ever, under any circumstances argue an unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms? By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government. THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Did the government create you? If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make. If not, you have unalienable Rights that are above the Constitution.

I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.

I believe we are both on the same side of second amendment right. I was just trying to get a clarification on why you thought the courts rules the second amendment does not allow for private ownership? The bill of rights were created separately that reminds the federal government citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

We are on the same side of the Second Amendment for the most part.

I part company with a lot of people on the issue because after about 1875 (IIRC) the United States Supreme Court began issuing rulings that contradict other PREVIOUS rulings. My understanding was that America has three branches of government:

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

The United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the laws, but nothing in the Constitution gives them the authority to revisit their own rulings and then change them. As a result, the high Court has made a tremendous clusterphuck out of gun laws in general.

Add to that Trump and the United States Supreme Court are having a dick measuring contest now over who has the authority to ask if you're a citizen on the Census. The real answer: That was a job for the legislature. We cannot keep being ruled by changing court rulings and Executive Orders. So, as in my long winded post, I go back to the FIRST court rulings and that, in my mind, legitimately conveys what the law is and it is consistent with the other documentation I posted. It is consistent with the words of the founders / framers.

My point is and forever will be that the bill of rights the first 10 are a directive to the federal government what it must do and forbids it from creating arbitrary laws restricting those rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What does shall not be infringe mean?

“Infringe” is related to the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something, or in more modern usage, to a form of decoration applied to the edge of something.

As used in the Second Amendment, …shall not be infringed” means that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edge of the right disussed therein.

I understand what it means but I doubt some others don't.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

You wrote this which is why I found confusing
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.

And your point? Do you have kids? If so, if you require them to be home by a certain time, you are "allowing" them to stay out until a certain time. As minors they are not afforded the same Rights as adults.

Do you not understand that if you say the government "allows" you to own a firearm, you could never, ever, under any circumstances argue an unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms? By saying that you are agreeing that your Rights are given to you by government. THAT contradicts the foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Did the government create you? If so, maybe you're a robot and the government does tell you every move you can make. If not, you have unalienable Rights that are above the Constitution.

I know that one post I did is long, but you should take the time to read it.

I believe we are both on the same side of second amendment right. I was just trying to get a clarification on why you thought the courts rules the second amendment does not allow for private ownership? The bill of rights were created separately that reminds the federal government citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

We are on the same side of the Second Amendment for the most part.

I part company with a lot of people on the issue because after about 1875 (IIRC) the United States Supreme Court began issuing rulings that contradict other PREVIOUS rulings. My understanding was that America has three branches of government:

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

The United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the laws, but nothing in the Constitution gives them the authority to revisit their own rulings and then change them. As a result, the high Court has made a tremendous clusterphuck out of gun laws in general.

Add to that Trump and the United States Supreme Court are having a dick measuring contest now over who has the authority to ask if you're a citizen on the Census. The real answer: That was a job for the legislature. We cannot keep being ruled by changing court rulings and Executive Orders. So, as in my long winded post, I go back to the FIRST court rulings and that, in my mind, legitimately conveys what the law is and it is consistent with the other documentation I posted. It is consistent with the words of the founders / framers.

My point is and forever will be that the bill of rights the first 10 are a directive to the federal government what it must do and forbids it from creating arbitrary laws restricting those rights.

We're saying the same, exact thing, but you just need to look up the word allow. It is antithetical to the point you're making. The Second Amendment is a limitation on government. It's how far we allow the government to go, not vice versa. Thanks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't have unlimited free speech rights
You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
You don't have unlimited rights

In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.

How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[harmonica]

You don't have unlimited free speech rights
You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
You don't have unlimited rights

In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.

How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?

????!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below

MURDER

 

[harmonica]

You don't have unlimited free speech rights
You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
You don't have unlimited rights

In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.

How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?

I don't see cars on the list either

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't have unlimited free speech rights
You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
You don't have unlimited rights

In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.

How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?

????!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below

Ah. You do not have the capacity to meaningfully address the issue put to you.
Thanks.

 

[harmonica]

You don't have unlimited free speech rights
You don't have unlimited rights for pursuit of happiness
You don't have unlimited rights

In all of the cases where a right protected by the constitution has been limited, said limit was drawn where someone else was harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.

How do you suppose this applies to limits on the right to keep and bear arms?

????!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhaahahahhahaha
I don't see '''free speech'' on the list below

Ah. You do not have the capacity to meaningfully address the issue put to you.
Thanks.

you use the coward's way out--Mr Tough Guy
afraid to even discuss the issue--hahahahahahhahaha
and I guess you're ready to quick draw on some badass criminal
hahahahhahahaha
you'd pee in your pants