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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Now, it does not say any arms, it does not say all arms. If assault weapons are banned, well that does not "debar" anyone of arms. There are still shotguns, handguns, and rifles

If you debar the use of a particular arm, isn't that debarring the use of arms! I don't know how you can justify it otherwise.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My ideal:

Violent felon smokes a splif, toting a loaded, belt-fed machine gun in his daughter's school.

Machine guns or Valhalla

 

[Winston]

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

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

The Dick Act codified two types of militia. The Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia which was mandated as only being males from 17-45.

In other words ONLY males between 17 and 45 have any Federal 'right to bear arms'

That is just it. At the time of the second amendment all kinds of people were prevented from owning guns. Catholics most notably, wonder how Amy Coney Barrett feels about that. Indentured servants and slaves, of course they were banned from
owning guns. Basically, when viewed in the historical context, it is not just males between 17 and 45. It was white males, that owned land, and were Protestant. No Catholics, no Quakers, as if a Quaker would have a damn gun anyway. Jews, nope, no guns for Jews. But let's just be honest, the white Protestants have had their chance. How about we make it that only minorities that are Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim, have the right to bear arms. We will call it affirmative action.

 

[Winston]

So, no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Now, it does not say any arms, it does not say all arms. If assault weapons are banned, well that does not "debar" anyone of arms. There are still shotguns, handguns, and rifles

If you debar the use of a particular arm, isn't that debarring the use of arms! I don't know how you can justify it otherwise.

Hell no, how is that logical. The key word, "particular". Barring a "particular" arm does not in any way bar the use of arms. Hell, until 2007 Absinthe was banned in the United States. Did that mean that drinking was banned?

 

[BlindBoo]

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

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

 

[Slade3200]

The militia is controlled by the people.

You really never grasp a discussion. I'll try to give it one more shot.

Let's say you're into golf. The club you belong to says,

Because we love well disciplined golfers, your right as a member at our club to golf shall not be limited. Golf all you want!

That isn't a limit on your right to golf, it's saying they expect you are like them.

Is this really that hard for you?

That’s a great analogy given the tournament I just watched. Now that my right to golf shall not be limited does that mean I can take 20 clubs with me during a tournament and give myself 2 mulligans a round, drive a cart across the greens, tee off during somebody elses tee time, etc?

Yes, your right to have guns means that you are Constitutionally protected when you to cheat in shooting competitions. That was exactly my point.

Every time I think you can't be more stupid than I already think you are, you prove me wrong.

I mean oh my God, so kaz, you're saying the second amendment means I can cheat in shooting competitions!!!!

You are a total fucktard. Unbelievable

Its your analogy. Its only cheating if you are breaking the rules. In the real life scenario you the "rules" are laws and regulations that you are saying are not constitutional. Get it?

You and BlindBoob are just too stupid

Then beat me with logic and address my points instead of just calling me stupid. I can’t think of a dumber response than what you just gave.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Now, it does not say any arms, it does not say all arms. If assault weapons are banned, well that does not "debar" anyone of arms. There are still shotguns, handguns, and rifles

If you debar the use of a particular arm, isn't that debarring the use of arms! I don't know how you can justify it otherwise.

Hell no, how is that logical. The key word, "particular". Barring a "particular" arm does not in any way bar the use of arms. Hell, until 2007 Absinthe was banned in the United States. Did that mean that drinking was banned?

Barring a particular arm is, BY FUCKING DEFINITION, debarring the use of arms.

So, letting me only have knives is NOT debarring the use of arms?

Get bent with that shit logic.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

If they aren't state sanctioned, they are illegal. Considering the gerrymandered right wing grip on Texas politics, I understand why no effort is made to enforce the law.

The law doesn't prohibit their existance. It's prohibits certain actions.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

So, no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Now, it does not say any arms, it does not say all arms. If assault weapons are banned, well that does not "debar" anyone of arms. There are still shotguns, handguns, and rifles

If you debar the use of a particular arm, isn't that debarring the use of arms! I don't know how you can justify it otherwise.

Hell no, how is that logical. The key word, "particular". Barring a "particular" arm does not in any way bar the use of arms. Hell, until 2007 Absinthe was banned in the United States. Did that mean that drinking was banned?

Banning AR's violates the Heller ruling.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

They have access to much better toys than the citizens gun clubs do.

 

[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 true 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

What's a "quell"?

ask King George traitor tory while you're kissing his ass

I would like you where you get this tory bullshit? I am genetically more Norse than I am anything else. You are fucking mental case.

I would like you where???? What the fuck is wrong with you could you translate that gibberish?
2: an American upholding the cause of the British Crown against the supporters of colonial independence during the American Revolution : LOYALIST

Definition of TORY

conservative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

They have access to much better toys than the citizens gun clubs do.

well, have you ever heard of Asymmetric warfare?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.

This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.

Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.

Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.

I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.

No, you made up what you wanted the amendment to say as it does not say anything even remotely what you claim. I have shown you quotes from Heller that establish what those phrases actually mean.

Then, you ignore all of that, ignore the plan reading of the text and reassert you just 'read' the amendment. Try again.

Heller. A perfect example of the rampant cognitive dissonance of the right. They will talk and talk about how terrible judicial activism is, and then at the same time celebrate the greatest incident of judicial activism in American History, Heller.

conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism: an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the Second Amendment and, given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint. Justice Scalia’s opinion, these judicial conservatives argued, deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right, and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.

Justice Scalia, the Second Amendment, and Judicial Conservatives

Following Justice Scalia’s famous opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, conservative and liberal judges generally agree on the scope of the Second Amendment right.

www.brennancenter.org

Yes, the justices in Heller were definitely playing up to a base and not saying what they knew the Amendment meant.

Sure, because they disagree with you....

No, you want your narrative on top so you claim it is everyone else doing such. If you don't like Heller then address exactly why would be far more effective. The reality is the second is clear in one aspect, the right of the people. You can quibble all you want about what the militia is and means in the prefatory clause but that does not get around that simple fact.

Heller defines judicial activism because, for the first time in American history, the court ruled that the second amendment pertained to an individual right to self defense. Scalia, like he often did, twisted and distorted both the words of the founders and jurist prudence, to come up with a preconceived outcome that centered more on politics than legal standing. He was a disgrace to the legal profession.

actually, Scalia was Constitutionally sound Shall not be infringed means exactly that

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.

The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.

The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...​

​

All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. ​

​

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

www.law.georgetown.edu

.​

The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democrats

And you are an idiot.

and as always you're illinformed

So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?

you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federal
That's why we have a second amendment

That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?

North Carolina
G.S. 127A-7 The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

They have access to much better toys than the citizens gun clubs do.

well, have you ever heard of Asymmetric warfare?

Didn't Abbie Hoffman and the Weather Underground preach that shit 50 years ago?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

They have access to much better toys than the citizens gun clubs do.

well, have you ever heard of Asymmetric warfare?

Didn't Abbie Hoffman and the Weather Underground preach that shit 50 years ago?

I don't know ask obama he's good friends with them.

 

[BlindBoo]

Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.

The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.

The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...​

​

All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. ​

​

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

www.law.georgetown.edu

.​

The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democrats

And you are an idiot.

and as always you're illinformed

So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?

you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federal
That's why we have a second amendment

That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?

North Carolina
G.S. 127A-7 The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

How does that make them private? Sound more like a draft pool to me.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.

In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."

I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.

I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

Thank you. I looked into this and found that Thomas Jefferson was pretty much the only Founding Father that did so. He also advocated "spilling the blood of Tyrants" referring to the very government he was the head of.

Virtually every other FF spoke of the "right to bear arms" only in the context of the militia

Post 359 conveniently overlooked by you shows one of the cofounders of the 2nd amendment clearly stating the "militia" is the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The Constitutional framework is already in place – having nothing to do with ‘militias.’

The Court need only rule as to whether the AR 15 is a weapon considered to be ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; if the latter then banning AR 15s would be un-Constitutional.

The heavy lift is getting the Court to hear such a case, which it’s currently not inclined to do.