Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[Slade3200]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?

well regulated means as to be expected in working order

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

 

[Lesh]

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written

It's described in Article 1 Section 8

And it AIN'T a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s sitting around a barber shop

And it DOES mention putting DOWN the kinds of insurrections you claim militias are supposed to enable

if that is you you have no first amendment rights other than parchment and quell written you have no privacy on electronics or the phones or your data
You only have protected rights for what they had during the 18the century.
No privacy in your car. Check

Pure babble

 

[bigrebnc1775]

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written

It's described in Article 1 Section 8

And it AIN'T a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s sitting around a barber shop

And it DOES mention putting DOWN the kinds of insurrections you claim militias are supposed to enable

if that is you you have no first amendment rights other than parchment and quell written you have no privacy on electronics or the phones or your data
You only have protected rights for what they had during the 18the century.
No privacy in your car. Check

Pure babble

nope if you believe AR15's aren't protect then all rights we have today are not protected unless they had those rights in the 18th century.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?

well regulated means as to be expected in working order

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

 

[Lesh]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Wow, that's stupid, even for you

Really dumfuk? Check Article 1 Section 8 clause 15

• Clause 15
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  • ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
• Clause 16
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I included Clause 16 because it describes what a "Well Regulated Militia" consists of.

 

[kaz]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

The individual right to possess a firearm is unconnected with militia service, weapons in common use, such as the AR 15, are protected by the Second Amendment.

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

 

[Lesh]

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written

It's described in Article 1 Section 8

And it AIN'T a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s sitting around a barber shop

And it DOES mention putting DOWN the kinds of insurrections you claim militias are supposed to enable

if that is you you have no first amendment rights other than parchment and quell written you have no privacy on electronics or the phones or your data
You only have protected rights for what they had during the 18the century.
No privacy in your car. Check

Pure babble

nope if you believe AR15's aren't protect then all rights we have today are not protected unless they had those rights in the 18th century.

NOTHING is protected UNLESS it is being used in a "Well Regulated Militia" as described above.

 

[Lesh]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written

It's described in Article 1 Section 8

And it AIN'T a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s sitting around a barber shop

And it DOES mention putting DOWN the kinds of insurrections you claim militias are supposed to enable

if that is you you have no first amendment rights other than parchment and quell written you have no privacy on electronics or the phones or your data
You only have protected rights for what they had during the 18the century.
No privacy in your car. Check

Pure babble

nope if you believe AR15's aren't protect then all rights we have today are not protected unless they had those rights in the 18th century.

NOTHING is protected UNLESS it is being used in a "Well Regulated Militia" as described above.

In working order as to be expected

 

[sartre play]

PRO gun anti gun nut, We have way to many gun nuts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

The supreme court as ruled otherwise

 

[Lesh]

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

• Clause 16
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Done

 

[Lesh]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

The supreme court as ruled otherwise

The SC is always subject to re-interpretation.

The NRA worked very hard to get the make up in their favor...for now

 

[kaz]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Wow, that's stupid, even for you

Really dumfuk? Check Article 1 Section 8 clause 15

• Clause 15
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  • ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
• Clause 16
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I included Clause 16 because it describes what a "Well Regulated Militia" consists of.

God you're stupid.

Yes, the military was already IN the Constitution.

So according to a total moron like you, after already giving the government the power of the military, they wrote 10 rights that were to be specifically preserved. Nine of them for the people, one of them for the government. You're actually arguing that in the middle of the BILL OF RIGHTS the right to be armed was a power to be preserved ... for the government. The other nine only were for the people.

And your argument is pointing out they had ALREADY GIVEN GOVERNMENT THAT POWER.

My God you're stupid

 

[kaz]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

The supreme court as ruled otherwise

The SC is always subject to re-interpretation.

The NRA worked very hard to get the make up in their favor...for now

The NRA is and always was a mediocre to poor defender of the second amendment

 

[kaz]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

No shit. I was mocking the post I was responding to you cut from the quote

 

[Lesh]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Wow, that's stupid, even for you

Really dumfuk? Check Article 1 Section 8 clause 15

• Clause 15
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  • ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
• Clause 16
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I included Clause 16 because it describes what a "Well Regulated Militia" consists of.

God you're stupid.

Yes, the military was already IN the Constitution.

So according to a total moron like you, after already giving the government the power of the military, they wrote 10 rights that were to be specifically preserved. Nine of them for the people, one of them for the government. You're actually arguing that in the middle of the BILL OF RIGHTS the right to be armed was a power to be preserved ... for the government. The other nine only were for the people.

And your argument is pointing out they had ALREADY GIVEN GOVERNMENT THAT POWER.

My God you're stupid

Hey dumbfuk...the described the militia in Article 1 Section 8 Claus 16

They added the 2A to SUPPORT that militia...which of course no longer exists

 

[kaz]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Wow, that's stupid, even for you

Really dumfuk? Check Article 1 Section 8 clause 15

• Clause 15
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  • ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
• Clause 16
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I included Clause 16 because it describes what a "Well Regulated Militia" consists of.

God you're stupid.

Yes, the military was already IN the Constitution.

So according to a total moron like you, after already giving the government the power of the military, they wrote 10 rights that were to be specifically preserved. Nine of them for the people, one of them for the government. You're actually arguing that in the middle of the BILL OF RIGHTS the right to be armed was a power to be preserved ... for the government. The other nine only were for the people.

And your argument is pointing out they had ALREADY GIVEN GOVERNMENT THAT POWER.

My God you're stupid

Hey dumbfuk...the described the militia in Article 1 Section 8 Claus 16

They added the 2A to SUPPORT that militia...which of course no longer exists

Being a terrible reader who went to government schools, you can't read the second amendment. The militia is only an explanation of the right and not a limit on the right. You'd know that if you hadn't just gone to government schools and never learned to read beyond a third grade education

 

[Slade3200]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?

well regulated means as to be expected in working order

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I looked it up but couldn’t find an answer. Can you tell me what you think it is?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?

well regulated means as to be expected in working order

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I looked it up but couldn’t find an answer. Can you tell me what you think it is?

well show me what you looked at