Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Are you on the right wing?No they're not. Only when they are well regulated and the government organizes them into one for the purpose of thwarting foreign invaders. Other than that, the People have the right to bear arms.The People are the Militia.
This is a State's sovereign right:Yes, they are. Still means that the organized militia is not connected with the right for the unorganized militia, the people, to bear arms.The People are the Militia.Which must mean that as the power to organize the militia exists in the constitution, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE was clearly not connected to that power or the second would have no need to exist.No, it doesn't.Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.
Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
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;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MilitiaAs the founders meant the term, they actually were. EVERYONE is part of the militia.No they're not. Only when they are well regulated and the government organizes them into one for the purpose of thwarting foreign invaders. Other than that, the People have the right to bear arms.The People are the Militia.
And, in order for that militia to exist, everyone has the right to bear arms, both outgrowths of the idea of self defense.
The People are not part of a government militia unless organized into an army or fighting organization.You have no idea what you are talking about. Are you on the right wing?No they're not. Only when they are well regulated and the government organizes them into one for the purpose of thwarting foreign invaders. Other than that, the People have the right to bear arms.The People are the Militia.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Sure. All the people.The People are the Militia.
www.sss.gov
www.bostonglobe.com
You keep harping on that but, that doesn't mean individuals cannot own guns. It doesn't mean law enforcement can take the right away indefinitely. We all know that certain States have gun restrictions in certain areas. That doesn't preclude the basic right to bear arms in this country.This is a State's sovereign right:
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
No. We don't go for "States' rights" after the Union won the Civil War.This is a State's sovereign right:
The Chicago Outfit cannot revoke gun rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both guarantee that:Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
That is precisely what needs to be stopped. It's charged and prosecuted as a felony without any due process of law whatsoever to run afoul of any of innumerable state and local restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right that shall not be infringed.We all know that certain States have gun restrictions in certain areas.
Yes, agreed.That is precisely what needs to be stopped. It's charged and prosecuted as a felony without any due process of law whatsoever to run afoul of any of innumerable state and local restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right that shall not be infringed.We all know that certain States have gun restrictions in certain areas.
Yes dumb ass you are wrong as usualNo, it doesn't.Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.
Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
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;
George Mason one of our founding fathers and the author of the second amendment once asked the question in Congress.No they're not. Only when they are well regulated and the government organizes them into one for the purpose of thwarting foreign invaders. Other than that, the People have the right to bear arms.The People are the Militia.
by training as a group which doesn't mean regulated by the governmentHow do militias operate in working order or as expected?Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clockYou can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minorityIt does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the timeWhat does that have to do with anything?Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festivalThey’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.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.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.because they areHow so?they are infringements which violates the second amendmentWrong.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.
Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
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.
Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.
Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
the government doesn't have any rights protected by the bill of rights.Not at all.That is probably one of the best explanations I have heard for supporting the 2nd amendment. Apparently the Founders saw the need for The People to have the right to bear arms separate from the government.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
U.S CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW OF THE LANDThis is a State's sovereign right:Yes, they are. Still means that the organized militia is not connected with the right for the unorganized militia, the people, to bear arms.The People are the Militia.Which must mean that as the power to organize the militia exists in the constitution, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE was clearly not connected to that power or the second would have no need to exist.No, it doesn't.Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.
Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
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;
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The right of the people is violated only when government enacts limits and restrictions contrary to Second Amendment jurisprudence.The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.
Wrong.It applies to the federal Government not the States."...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidatedBanning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.
An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.
They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.
It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).
Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.
In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.
In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.
So just stop.
You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.
That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.
Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.
Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.
Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.
Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.
Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.
Right wingers need to remember their own propaganda: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The Federalist Number 45
How did you reach your conclusion?The People are not part of a government militia unless organized into an army or fighting organization.You have no idea what you are talking about. Are you on the right wing?No they're not. Only when they are well regulated and the government organizes them into one for the purpose of thwarting foreign invaders. Other than that, the People have the right to bear arms.The People are the Militia.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Where did you get your propaganda?Sure. All the people.The People are the Militia.
None of whom are to be denied the right to keep and bear arms, that is, to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, without any infringement on that right.
If the militia is to be called forth, that is job of the Selective Service System.
Selective Service System - It’s Your Country. Protect it.
When you register with the selective service, you’re helping ensure a secure future for your community and the United States of America.Biden administration asks Supreme Court not to hear challenge to all-male military draft - The Boston Globe
The Biden administration's brief does not state whether President Biden believes women should be included, nor does it defend the current system that requires only men 18 to 26 to submit their information should a military draft be needed again.
You keep ignoring the law.You keep harping on that but, that doesn't mean individuals cannot own guns. It doesn't mean law enforcement can take the right away indefinitely. We all know that certain States have gun restrictions in certain areas. That doesn't preclude the basic right to bear arms in this country.This is a State's sovereign right:
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Stop twisting and prevaricating....Here read this:
The United State Supreme Court long ago affirmed that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms — to the American people — quite aside from the militia clause.
This individual right has been reaffirmed by the High Court several times. "Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement, and it means the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Federal, State, or local government — or anybody. Not Illinois, Chicago, or the United Nations — certainly not by the Supreme Court, nor the supreme commander-in-chief of whatever nation, alliance, or potentate. Yet our Second Amendment rights are infringed in the most blatant way, by various levels of government.
This is the law, right wingers:No. We don't go for "States' rights" after the Union won the Civil War.This is a State's sovereign right:
The Chicago Outfit cannot revoke gun rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both guarantee that:Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
