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.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.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.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The means must be sacrificed to the end, not the end to the means.
Appeal to gibberish.I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.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.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The means must be sacrificed to the end, not the end to the means.
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Enroll in the organized militia so you can have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Only the unorganized militia, Doth Protest Too Much, about gun control laws meant for them as Civilian Individuals of the People.Appeal to gibberish.I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.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.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The means must be sacrificed to the end, not the end to the means.
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
We need fucking machine guns.
Lol. Maybe its you.They’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.
Well, that's cute little story. Luckily rights are rights. What you think is great for you ,may sound ridiculous to others. So in the true sense of America, do whatever you want its a free country . And let others do what they want , no need for you to dictate what other law abiding citizens do! Try minding your own business, i don't tell you what to feed your family .Just listening to Biden. He asks what citizen needs these Hi tech weapons of war. I say the same. I got along ok with a 5 shot S&W .38 calibre for years doing late night collections in bad areas. But, little boys need their toys.
Is that it? We're not gonna be buddies?Well, that's cute little story. Luckily rights are rights. What you think is great for you ,may sound ridiculous to others. So in the true sense of America, do whatever you want its a free country . And let others do what they want , no need for you to dictate what other law abiding citizens do! Try minding your own business, i don't tell you what to feed your family .Just listening to Biden. He asks what citizen needs these Hi tech weapons of war. I say the same. I got along ok with a 5 shot S&W .38 calibre for years doing late night collections in bad areas. But, little boys need their toys.
Just listening to Biden. He asks what citizen needs these Hi tech weapons of war. I say the same. I got along ok with a 5 shot S&W .38 calibre for years doing late night collections in bad areas. But, little boys need their toys.
Enroll in the organized militia so you can have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Only the unorganized militia, Doth Protest Too Much, about gun control laws meant for them as Civilian Individuals of the People.Appeal to gibberish.I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.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.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The means must be sacrificed to the end, not the end to the means.
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
We need fucking machine guns.
I could maybe agree except we'll never have the weapons to match what the military hasJust listening to Biden. He asks what citizen needs these Hi tech weapons of war. I say the same. I got along ok with a 5 shot S&W .38 calibre for years doing late night collections in bad areas. But, little boys need their toys.
Actually the reason average citizens need to have the same weapons as the police and military because the end of every democratic republic comes at the hands of the police and military.
It always happens, because the people who sign the paychecks are not the people, but the corrupt bureaucrats put in those positions by the wealthy elite, corporations, bankers, etc.
Stupid words have meaning and what words meant 100 years ago do not mean the same as today.Says an ignorant right-winger who doesn't understand the law only how to practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God).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;
Well regulated when the second amendment was written did not mean what regulated means today
What I posted was what the words meant when the second amendment was written.
Question does the word Gay mean today what it was meant to say in the 1920s?
Here's a list of words that meant to say something but does not mean the same today
Meat
From the Old English mete, ‘meat’ once referred to all solid food, including even animal feed. Around the turn of the 14th century, it started to be used in its modern sense of animal flesh for food. ‘Meat’ in the figurative sense – meaning the principal part of something, i.e. the meat of the matter – came about at the turn of the 20th century.
Nice
Derived from the Latin nescius meaning ignorant, ‘nice’ began as a negative term for a stupid, ignorant or foolish person. In the 14th and 15th centuries, ‘nice’ began to refer to someone finely dressed or who was shy and reserved. By the 16th century, it was used to describe refined, polite society and came to be used in the positive manner we’re familiar with today. Now, with the phrase nice guy used to describe men who wouldn’t be considered all that ‘nice’ in polite society, the usage may be going full circle.
Literally
At one time only used to refer to things that were actually happening – in the true and literal sense – ‘literally’ is now used by many people for emphasis. It’s a favourite of ex-footballer Jamie Redknapp, who came out with one-liners like “these balls now – they literally explode off your feet” and “he had to cut back inside onto his left, because he literally hasn’t got a right foot.” Language pedants take note, though: this misuse is now so widespread the Oxford English Dictionary has altered its definition.
Flirt
While nowadays we might flirt by making eye contact or mirroring another person’s body language, flirting in the mid-16th century was described as a sudden sharp movement. The original verb sense was to ‘give someone a sharp blow’ and ‘sneer at’. The word took on a playful, cheeky meaning much later.
Fantastic
Coming from the old French term fantastique via medieval Latin and Greek, ‘fantastic’ originally referred to things that were conceived, or appeared conceived, in imagination. It’s only recently – some sources say in the 1930s – that it took on another meaning of extremely good or wonderful.
Awful
In Old English, ‘awe’ referred to “fear, terror or dread”. This later morphed into a solemn or reverential wonder, and ‘awful’ and ‘awesome’ were synonymous with awe-inspiring. Later, ‘awful’ took on a solely negative connotation, and the word found its modern-day usage to mean extremely bad. ‘Awesome’, meanwhile, evolved in the opposite way, probably in the mid-1900s, and came to mean extremely good.
Cute
A shortening of the word ‘acute’, ‘cute’ originally meant sharp or quick-witted, and was even written with an apostrophe in place of the missing A. In 1830s America, it took on a new significance and came to mean attractive, pretty or charming – though we still use it in its original manner in phrases like ‘don’t get cute with me’, referring to someone trying to be clever.
This is part of our supreme law of the land and is just as much a power as anything else in Article 1, Section 8:
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;
no, they weren't the unorganized militia still standsCivilian militia were abolished in 1903, with the Militia Act, and all militia duties were placed with the National Guard.
and how does al Qaeda still fight? ISIS?I could maybe agree except we'll never have the weapons to match what the military hasJust listening to Biden. He asks what citizen needs these Hi tech weapons of war. I say the same. I got along ok with a 5 shot S&W .38 calibre for years doing late night collections in bad areas. But, little boys need their toys.
Actually the reason average citizens need to have the same weapons as the police and military because the end of every democratic republic comes at the hands of the police and military.
It always happens, because the people who sign the paychecks are not the people, but the corrupt bureaucrats put in those positions by the wealthy elite, corporations, bankers, etc.
My group is well-regulated hell we well regulated last weekendOk great, so what would be an example of trained group and an untrained group in modern day terms? How are they trained?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."
Mexican you are as wrong now as you ever have been.You are simply just plain Wrong even though you are on the Right-Wing, like usual.by training as a group which doesn't mean regulated by the government
There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the
state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
All States have similar laws to Arizona.
This is a State's sovereign right:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
actually U.S. v Miller says otherwiseSCOTUS says no.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.
define shall not be infringed? and why do we only see that in the very amendment that you want to restrict?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.
Government has the authority to enact all manner of limits and restrictions consistent with that Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
I’m good with my interpretationLol. Maybe its you.They’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.
So you mean self regulated. Is that it?My group is well-regulated hell we well regulated last weekendOk great, so what would be an example of trained group and an untrained group in modern day terms? How are they trained?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."
Night land navigation and night fire, evasion
