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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Banning AR 15s does not ‘violate’ Heller.

Heller concerned solely the banning of handguns; the banning of other types of firearms was not subject to review.

Heller reaffirmed the individual right, the right to self-defense, and the right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense:

“…handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

 

[Lesh]

Heller reaffirmed the individual right, the right to self-defense, and the right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense:

It didn't "reaffirm" it. It invented it. Until that judicial activism there was no Federal protection for any for any of that.

“…handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

Until Heller the Federal government did not involve itself in that. It was a state issue.

 

[Lesh]

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

Fully automatic rifles and carbines, grenade launchers, and various types of explosive devices would be examples of ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons not entitled to Second Amendment protections; banning such weapons would be perfectly Constitutional.

And assault weapons (semi-auto long guns with detachable magazines) should be treated exactly the same for the exact same reasons

 

[Bobob]

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.

Maybe, but they can regulate the shit out of it and make it difficult to use. I believe that the Supreme Court will be involved in this.

 

[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.

Banning AR 15s does not ‘violate’ Heller.

Heller concerned solely the banning of handguns; the banning of other types of firearms was not subject to review.

Heller reaffirmed the individual right, the right to self-defense, and the right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense:

“…handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

In Heller, the SC ruled that "firearms in common use" are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Lesh]

In Heller, the SC ruled that "firearms in common use" are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia cribbed that phrase from Miller v US and it originally "in common use by the military".

Like machine guns...which by the way are heavily regulated and banned if made after 1986

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

In Heller, the SC ruled that "firearms in common use" are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia cribbed that phrase from Miller v US and it originally "in common use by the military".

Scalia didn't say anything about military weapons.

Like machine guns...which by the way are heavily regulated and banned if made after 1986

Automatic weapons built after 1986 aren't banned. They can still be built and owned by FFL's, they just can't be transferred.

 

[kaz]

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.

Slade: Wow, that's dumb, kaz. It's not what Democrats and the media told me to think

 

[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.

Actually they are.

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment:

‘Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

LOL, it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. You're a propagandist, fascist

 

[FA_Q2]

In Heller, the SC ruled that "firearms in common use" are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia cribbed that phrase from Miller v US and it originally "in common use by the military".

Like machine guns...which by the way are heavily regulated and banned if made after 1986

Except that phrase does not exist in Miller. Not one single time.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

The important paragraph IMHO would be:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Which is not saying that a weapon need be in common use by the military or even in use by the military at all. Even the very idea would be nonsensical in the extreme considering that the founders intention was for 'the' military to not even exist in the first place. It is saying that a weapon must have a military application and be in common use at the time for the second amendment to apply. That is a very different question. Machine guns are not in common use and do not actually have a military application in the frame of the common soldier. Auto fire has been removed from pretty much every single weapon carried by the general infantryman in the military because it is counter productive. The military is less effective with full auto capabilities on all weapons. The AR15 does fit both the categories covered in miller though - it has clear military application and is the most widely used long gun in the entire nation ergo protected under the second amendment.

 

[FA_Q2]

Heller reaffirmed the individual right, the right to self-defense, and the right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense:

It didn't "reaffirm" it. It invented it. Until that judicial activism there was no Federal protection for any for any of that.

Because I disagree with the ruling is not judicial activism as has already been said. That you dislike Heller's assertion that the right is individual is irrelevant, one does not need to read anything that is not there to conclude there is an individual right.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

See, that quote right there pretty much sums it up. No man shall ever be "debarred", which means excluding or prohibiting someone from doing something. 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.

Oh, NOW you want to ignore the militia part, the one and only time it actually applies to your statements. There is a right in the second - the right of the people to bear arms. Then there is a purpose, the militia being necessary for a free state. Hence why the second only applies to arms that are in common use AND have a military purpose. Exactly like the AR15.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Second Amendment right does not address solely the possession of weapons needed to serve in a militia; the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms detrimental to militia service.

?
I do not see where you pull that from in your selected quotes. I get the opposite impression, the government has, at least in the interpretation from those 2 cases, the full power to regulate weapons that would be 'detrimental to militia service' but does not have the power to regulate weapons that are common and able to be used should the militia be organized. Your right is utterly unconnected with militia service BUT the right itself applies to the capability of the unorganized militia to even exist.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I'm not aware of any N. Carolina militias that have been in continuous existence since 1792.

North Carolina General Statutes § 127A-10 Corps entitled to retain privileges - Legal Research

North Carolina General Statutes includes North Carolina state laws on civil procedure, common law, evidence, criminal law, criminal procedure, offenses against public morals, motor vehicles, wills, landlord and tenant, divorce, and marriage.

law.onecle.com

View attachment 479249

Because you do not seem to know what the unorganized militia is.

From Heller:
"...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. "

Essentially, the unorganized militia has always existed by definition.

 

[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.

Slade: Wow, that's dumb, kaz. It's not what Democrats and the media told me to think

It’s dumb because you avoided addressing all the points I made and decided to change the discussion to empty insults. You attempted to make an analogy and flopped so now all you have are insults. That’s sad

 

[kaz]

Slade: Wow, that's dumb, kaz. It's not what Democrats and the media told me to think

It’s dumb because you avoided addressing all the points I made and decided to change the discussion to empty insults. You attempted to make an analogy and flopped so now all you have are insults. That’s sad

I made an analogy over a golf club giving you unlimited golfing, and you came back with that means you can cheat at tournaments, which is a total non-sequitur. You can golf all day and the golf club doesn't care how many mulligans you take. They like it, frankly, it keeps you moving along. But that being bound on a gulf tournament to let you take endless mulligans is just dumb as shit.

I give up, you're too stupid to discuss with

 

[Slade3200]

Slade: Wow, that's dumb, kaz. It's not what Democrats and the media told me to think

It’s dumb because you avoided addressing all the points I made and decided to change the discussion to empty insults. You attempted to make an analogy and flopped so now all you have are insults. That’s sad

I made an analogy over a golf club giving you unlimited golfing, and you came back with that means you can cheat at tournaments, which is a total non-sequitur. You can golf all day and the golf club doesn't care how many mulligans you take. They like it, frankly, it keeps you moving along. But that being bound on a gulf tournament to let you take endless mulligans is just dumb as shit.

I give up, you're too stupid to discuss with

I came back with all kinds of examples that involved golfing by the rules and regulations that the club had in place. I didn’t only say cheating in tournaments. Unlimited golf doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want, it doesn’t mean you get to golf whenever you want and however you want. That’s where your example falls apart and I think you know it

 

[Winston]

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.

I'm not aware of any N. Carolina militias that have been in continuous existence since 1792.

North Carolina General Statutes § 127A-10 Corps entitled to retain privileges - Legal Research

North Carolina General Statutes includes North Carolina state laws on civil procedure, common law, evidence, criminal law, criminal procedure, offenses against public morals, motor vehicles, wills, landlord and tenant, divorce, and marriage.

law.onecle.com

View attachment 479249

Because you do not seem to know what the unorganized militia is.

From Heller:
"...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. "

Essentially, the unorganized militia has always existed by definition.

Actually, not all able bodied men. During the debate over the second amendment there was almost nothing said about a right to self-defense. But much was said about who would be "required" to be in a militia. It was not even close to all able-bodied men. I have already mentioned that Catholics, indentured servants, and Quakers were not included. But the list is much longer. Doctors, millers, and members of the clergy were also exempted. Obviously, it was much more important to the founders to support individuals NOT OWNING A GUN, than it was for them to support everyone owning a gun for self-defense. That seems to be the reality that all the gun proponents ignore.

 

[JimH52]

You are a member of a State Militia? The 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted for years.....and people like the GOPQ and the soon to be defunct NRA have taken advantage of the lie.