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

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right

I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right

I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

it makes it true because it is an infringement

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta![2][3]

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

I'm interpreting it just fine. You, aren't readinging it correctly.

Presidents arrested journalists they didn't like since the adoption, too. Are you ok with presidents arresting journalists they don't like?

 

[Lesh]

It's amusing to see the insecure gun-dependent fantasize about a mythical past once upon a time in the West when cowpokes could mince around with their man-enhancers displayed on their hips with impunity, naughty-talkin', tobacco-chewin' peacocks with a decidedly macho demeanor.

In actuality, the laws of Tombstone circa 1880 required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. Many legendary "wild west" cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.

it was recognized that the townsfolk had a right to protect themselves from the jiggy, rootin' tootin' galoots.

View attachment 479571
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an easily-obtained gun
is a rich guy with a yacht!”

NRA leader took "security retreat" on yacht to Bahamas​

In fact the Gunfight at the OK Corral happened because the local LEOs were attempting to disarm cowboys who were breaking that law.

 

[Lesh]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right

I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

it makes it true because it is an infringement

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta![2][3]

Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even THAT Court ruled that concealed carry was illegal...so yea...gun regulations ARE a state/local matter

 

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right

I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

it makes it true because it is an infringement

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta![2][3]

Good point. Kudos on making an intelligent argument based on facts and not digressing to petty insults.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

I'm interpreting it just fine. You, aren't readinging it correctly.

Presidents arrested journalists they didn't like since the adoption, too. Are you ok with presidents arresting journalists they don't like?

Not without cause.

 

[RealDave]

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.

Why can't a militia be a bunch of highly trained archers?

 

[Lesh]

Why can't a militia be a bunch of highly trained archers?

it "could" be a lot of things.

But in actuality it doesn't exist

 

[Rigby5]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right

I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

Wrong.
There were some attempts at early rules, such as preventing Blacks from being armed, but they were struck down as being unconstitutional.
There were never any weapons regulations at all until the first that was not struck down in 1911,

{...

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911.[1] The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
,,,}

 

[Rigby5]

It's amusing to see the insecure gun-dependent fantasize about a mythical past once upon a time in the West when cowpokes could mince around with their man-enhancers displayed on their hips with impunity, naughty-talkin', tobacco-chewin' peacocks with a decidedly macho demeanor.

In actuality, the laws of Tombstone circa 1880 required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. Many legendary "wild west" cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.

it was recognized that the townsfolk had a right to protect themselves from the jiggy, rootin' tootin' galoots.

View attachment 479571
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an easily-obtained gun
is a rich guy with a yacht!”

NRA leader took "security retreat" on yacht to Bahamas​

In fact the Gunfight at the OK Corral happened because the local LEOs were attempting to disarm cowboys who were breaking that law.

Wrong.
The Tombstone gun ban was only for saloons and casinos, and anywhere else.
And it was quickly done away with, and the Earps run out of town.
We don't know if it was legal at all since it only lasted a short time.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right

I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

it makes it true because it is an infringement

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta![2][3]

Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even THAT Court ruled that concealed carry was illegal...so yea...gun regulations ARE a state/local matter

More carefully worded, concealed carry can be illegal and not violate the 2nd amendment.
The way you wrote it implies that concealed carry is always illegal, and instead it is dependent upon state law whether it is or isn't.

 

[Rigby5]

Why can't a militia be a bunch of highly trained archers?

it "could" be a lot of things.

But in actuality it doesn't exist

Yes a militia does exist and it beyond just federal or state needs.
When a village forms a posse, that is militia.
When a person prevent a home siege, that is militia.
Police did not exist to any significant degree till about 1900, so before then there was only the militia.
The fact we rarely need the militia now, does not mean it does not still exist and we no longer have any need for it.

 

[schmidlap]

In fact the Gunfight at the OK Corral happened because the local LEOs were attempting to disarm cowboys who were breaking that law.

Maintaining Law & Order vs "The State ain't gonna tell ME what to do!" is a recurring leitmotif of American history.

 

[schmidlap]

The Tombstone gun ban was only for saloons and casinos, and anywhere else.

Effective April 19, 1881, Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 states:​

​

"To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons​

​

Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.​

​

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.​

​

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance."​

Firearm permissiveness remains a problem, and most Americans support reasonable restrictions and law enforcement's duty to enforce them.

 

[Lesh]

Police did not exist to any significant degree till about 1900, so before then there was only the militia.

We certainly have police forces now...don't we...

The fact we rarely need the militia now, does not mean it does not still exist and we no longer have any need for it.

Yes...it does

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

You just said as long as there is a square circle.

You cannot have the right to BEAR arms IN YOUR HOME. Those concepts are not related.

 

[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.

The Dick Act established two classes of militia. The NG being one and the "unorganized militia" being the other.

It ONLY cover MALES 17-45. No one else. It also doesn't cover postal workers and a host of other exceptions

And Miller established that militia weapons CAN be regulated (machine guns etc.)

Personal protection was never part of the 2A until Scalia and his judicial activism in Heller

What the Dick act does is not relevant to a discussion on what the terminology means at the founding of the nation but that is also not relevant. It is unsurprising that anything would only apply to men as white men really were the only people that any of the BoR applied to at the founding. Since then we have realized our mistake and expanded all the rights and protections that we recognize to all people rather than just white men, well rich white men.

What we have not done is change the second amendment. Should you think that is what is warranted, as it seems virtually all of the left does, then that is what you MUST actually do.

A federal AWB is clearly unconstitutional as the constitution stands right now. The second stands and it does protect the right to keep and bear arms that are of military use and in common use as has been pointed out by Heller AND Miller. There is a process to address that and ignoring what the second actually says, all the case law around it and what it clearly means is not the way.

Of course, I do not expect you to realize this anyway as you just cannot get over demanding this was judicial activism even though it has been explained several times why it is not and all you have is demanding that it is.

 

[Rigby5]

The Tombstone gun ban was only for saloons and casinos, and anywhere else.

Effective April 19, 1881, Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 states:​

​

"To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons​

​

Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.​

​

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.​

​

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance."​

Firearm permissiveness remains a problem, and most Americans support reasonable restrictions and law enforcement's duty to enforce them.

I would contend that firearm permissiveness has only been a problem when there is government corruption and the use of violence against the government is warranted, such as the original American Revolution, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellions, Bacon's Rebellion, Native Americans attempting to uphold treaties broken by the US government, etc.

The authority for government comes from the inherent authority of individuals to defend their rights, that they can then delegate to a government charged with their collective defense. Legislation like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, asset forfeiture, illegal foreign wars, no-knock warrants, etc., then are NOT legal and do justify armed rebellion from this government corruption. When people are not harming others with alcohol, drugs, etc. then government has no legal authority.

When it comes to random violence, average people are not a problem. They are inherently social and have instincts against murder. But police do not. They not only have had their instinctive prohibitions against murder neutralized by military training, but encouraged to be exceptionally violent by horrendous and totally illegal police training and policies. Such as pointing loaded weapons at unarmed and innocent people, deliberately trying to kill fleeing suspects who are no immediate risk, etc.

Are there too many murders? Sure, but we know the causes of crime are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, inaccessible health care, etc. Access to weapons is not and never can be a cause of crime or violence. That is because just like the accessibility of illegal drugs, illegal weapons will ALWAYS be available. The additional minor penalty for violating gun control laws will never deter anyone who already intends to risk murder penalties.

The main threats we face in society does NOT come from average people even if they all had machineguns. It is not even from career criminals, because they are a small minority, not well organized, and only out for temporary profits.
The real threat to all normal people is and always will come from organized political corruption. We are always potentially on the cusp of 1933 Germany, and can easily descend down into that road of a total draconian dictatorship at any time. Things like murdering 3 million innocent Vietnamese, lying about WMD in Iraq and murdering half a million innocent Iraqis, etc., should be proof of how all governments are always a corrupt threat.