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

[BlindBoo]

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;

The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

constitutioncenter.org

A states mi litia 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

A State can recognize a militia as part of it's organized militia, but the members of the Gun Clubs are simply Draft Fodder, like everyone else in the unorganized militia.

 

[BULLDOG]

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;"

The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

constitutioncenter.org

"... 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 ******* 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.

Heller did not define the militia. If you think I am wrong, please provide exact paragraph where they did.

 

[FA_Q2]

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;"

The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

constitutioncenter.org

"... 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 ******* 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.

Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

 

[FA_Q2]

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;"

The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

constitutioncenter.org

"... 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 ******* 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.

Heller did not define the militia. If you think I am wrong, please provide exact paragraph where they did.

I did in post 455:

"...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. "

 

[meaner gene]

I did in post 455:

"...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. "

Actually the definition of able-bodied men was of white males, age 18 to 45.

 

[BlindBoo]

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;"

The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

constitutioncenter.org

"... 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 ******* 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.

Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.

 

[Slade3200]

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

I did ask a question and your responded with this....

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.

 

[kaz]

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

I did ask a question and your responded with this....

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.

Yes, you said that to have an opinion on the Constitution is to say we must blindly believe the SCOTUS. That was flaming hypocrisy and stupid as hell. We can't have our own views, we have to blindly believe what the government tells us.

That's just stupid.

Your question?

 

[meaner gene]

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

Scalia did a wonderful legal dance over the definition of "the people" meaning different things, in different parts of the constitution. And how rights given to "the people" can be either individual or collective.
Scalia also put and end to the notion of the militia being at the root of that right, hence also ending the right to the people to possess military grade arms, and instead gave them the right to arms commonly in use.

 

[meaner gene]

Yes, you said that to have an opinion on the Constitution is to say we must blindly believe the SCOTUS. That was flaming hypocrisy and stupid as hell. We can't have our own views, we have to blindly believe what the government tells us.

That's just stupid.

Your question?

Actually that's a slippery slope question. That as times change, the opinion of the court changes. That the make-up of the court can swap the majority opinion of the court. So do you hold to the opinion of the court as it is now, how it was in the past, or how it will be in the future?

 

[kaz]

Yes, you said that to have an opinion on the Constitution is to say we must blindly believe the SCOTUS. That was flaming hypocrisy and stupid as hell. We can't have our own views, we have to blindly believe what the government tells us.

That's just stupid.

Your question?

Actually that's a slippery slope question. That as times change, the opinion of the court changes. That the make-up of the court can swap the majority opinion of the court. So do you hold to the opinion of the court as it is now, how it was in the past, or how it will be in the future?

There is a Constitutional process to change the Constitution. That is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. It is not 5/9

 

[Slade3200]

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

I did ask a question and your responded with this....

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.

Yes, you said that to have an opinion on the Constitution is to say we must blindly believe the SCOTUS. That was flaming hypocrisy and stupid as hell. We can't have our own views, we have to blindly believe what the government tells us.

That's just stupid.

Your question?

Haha, I certainly did not say any of that. I guess that explains why things get so distorted in your head. If you can't accurately recount simple things that are literally written and communicated above then how in the hell can you expect any shred of respect for your interpretation of complicated law and historical precedent?! What a joke.

My question was if you were formally trained or self taught in regards to the constitution as you were contradicting a conservative justices dissent... I don't really care anymore, your dishonesty with simple conversation diminishes all respect for your opinions.

 

[Donald H]

The only way to keep government in check is machine guns or Valhalla!!!

We will get them shortly. Wait and see.

Your government is completely corrupt and needs reform. It's too late to keep it in check.

But be careful of taking it to declarations of intended violence. You're still limited in a small way by the rule of law.

 

[bendog]

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

Scalia did a wonderful legal dance over the definition of "the people" meaning different things, in different parts of the constitution. And how rights given to "the people" can be either individual or collective.
Scalia also put and end to the notion of the militia being at the root of that right, hence also ending the right to the people to possess military grade arms, and instead gave them the right to arms commonly in use.

exactly so. The militia clause is irrelevant to citizens having a right to own and use firearms, and citizens have a right to self defense and other legal recreational uses of firearms.

The OP is sort of an oxymoron. And as Scalia was careful to dance around, if our right to arms was based on the militia clause, we'd not have much of a right since state militas largely are things of the past.

 

[meaner gene]

There is a Constitutional process to change the Constitution. That is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. It is not 5/9

That's part of the problem with the US Constitution.

The average length of a state constitution is about 39,000 words (compared to 7,591 words for the U.S. Constitution

Thus the states leave far less ambiguity to be judicially interpreted. Or oppositely, the US constitution requires far more interpretation.

 

[meaner gene]

My question was if you were formally trained or self taught in regards to the constitution as you were contradicting a conservative justices dissent... I don't really care anymore, your dishonesty with simple conversation diminishes all respect for your opinions.

Oh the irony of that statement. " as you were contradicting a conservative justices dissent... "

Maybe you missed you complained of agreeing with the majority vs the minority of the court.

 

[Slade3200]

My question was if you were formally trained or self taught in regards to the constitution as you were contradicting a conservative justices dissent... I don't really care anymore, your dishonesty with simple conversation diminishes all respect for your opinions.

Oh the irony of that statement. " as you were contradicting a conservative justices dissent... "

Maybe you missed you complained of agreeing with the majority vs the minority of the court.

I complained of agreeing with the majority vs the minority of the court? When? What did I say?

 

[meaner gene]

exactly so. The militia clause is irrelevant to citizens having a right to own and use firearms, and citizens have a right to self defense and other legal recreational uses of firearms.

But it also means that the government has a right to restrict what weapons they can have. That without a "militia" requirement, they have no right to weapons of military origin.

 

[meaner gene]

My question was if you were formally trained or self taught in regards to the constitution as you were contradicting a conservative justices dissent... I don't really care anymore, your dishonesty with simple conversation diminishes all respect for your opinions.

Oh the irony of that statement. " as you were contradicting a conservative justices dissent... "

Maybe you missed you complained of agreeing with the majority vs the minority of the court.

I complained of agreeing with the majority vs the minority of the court? When? What did I say?

Really? You want to claim you didn't say what you just said?

 

[miketx]

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.

Do you really think they care about rule of law?