What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,794
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,794
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.

You just make your shit up. No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.

Then you can't read the second amendment where is clearly says militias are a justification for the second and not a limit on it
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,880
Reaction score
3,186
Points
280
"Assault style weapons" were created for trench warfare and situations like Stalingrad. Those interested in firearms know precisely what the origins and meanings of the term are. They are not necessarily included in categories of arms that may be born. "Infringement" does not necessarily mean "anything and everything". Is sales tax on arms considered "infringement'?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,794
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,794
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Is sales tax on arms considered "infringement'?

Not as long as the tax is usual and customary for all transactions involving guns or not. You don't buy guns from the government. If the sales taxes are for all transactions, they are clearly not punitive.

Taxes that are higher on guns than other private transactions clearly are punitive and Unconstitutional
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
...

Did someone make the claim that a or the militia has a legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command. Anyone at all?

Just the Constitution.
No, it didn't. But that has already been pointed out.

Try and make a full point this time.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.

Correct, the States went to the people (aka property owning White males mostly) and said form a militia based on and trained according to the specification of Congress!

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
You left out the last part.... care to address?

laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.

Correct, the States went to the people (aka property owning White males mostly) and said form a militia based on and trained according to the specification of Congress!

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

A states militia is that states police force and state guard, is it not?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,794
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
You left out the last part.... care to address?

laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.

Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.

"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
You left out the last part.... care to address?

laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.

Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.

"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,794
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.

Correct, the States went to the people (aka property owning White males mostly) and said form a militia based on and trained according to the specification of Congress!

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

A states militia is that states police force and state guard, is it not?

You could consider them part of the State's militia, but the militia is not limited to that.

It's irrelevant since if you two brainiacs could read then you'd know militia is an explanation of the second and not a limit
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,794
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
You left out the last part.... care to address?

laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.

Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.

"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Hypocrisy has just reached fatal levels, run, do not walk to the nearest exit and scream like a banchi
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
No one went to their State and asked them to "sponsor" them or even for permission to start a militia.

Correct, the States went to the people (aka property owning White males mostly) and said form a militia based on and trained according to the specification of Congress!

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

A states militia is that states police force and state guard, is it not?

You could consider them part of the State's militia, but the militia is not limited to that.

It's irrelevant since if you two brainiacs could read then you'd know militia is an explanation of the second and not a limit
Im not calling the militia a limit. I’m just asking about what it is. Don’t get ahead of the conversation
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
You left out the last part.... care to address?

laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.

Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.

"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Hypocrisy has just reached fatal levels, run, do not walk to the nearest exit and scream like a banchi
Back to the subject captain random. Want to explain more about how Scalia was wrong about what the constitution says about the second amendment?? And what you have to back up your perspective?? Because history and law is certainly not on your side
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,794
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.
And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?
What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't
You left out the last part.... care to address?

laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.

Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.

"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power
Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Hypocrisy has just reached fatal levels, run, do not walk to the nearest exit and scream like a banchi
Back to the subject captain random. Want to explain more about how Scalia was wrong about what the constitution says about the second amendment?? And what you have to back up your perspective?? Because history and law is certainly not on your side

I answered your questions. If you have another one, ask it. You're square back into bickering now
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top