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

[FA_Q2]

Fuck you, jacketed bullets and other technological improvements over time made a cumbersome muzzle loading weapon into a hand held killing machine that was unimaginable at the time the Bill of Rights was conceived.

Like free speech and the internet. Like free press and the television.

I guess we should not enjoy those freedoms either. Come to think of it, the left has been making that argument lately.

 

[BlindBoo]

And SCOTUS has resoundingly rejected that idea not to mention that NOWHERE is the BoR anything but personal rights of the people.

It takes serious pretzel logic to declare this ONE right you do not like is somehow different. Nothing supports that idea.

The Constitution gave Congress the obligation to create the Militias and to provide for their training.

The SC can always change precedent too.

 

[BlindBoo]

Like free speech and the internet. Like free press and the television.

I guess we should not enjoy those freedoms either. Come to think of it, the left has been making that argument lately.

Nah, weapons technology is more deadly. If you owned a printing press, you could print want you wanted and the government couldn't tell you that you had to print a certain persons writing because of the 1st.

Now the Fairness Doctrine was interesting in that it did force national radio and later TV networks to air political opposition pieces because of the 1st, the peoples right to hear more that one political perspective 24/7/365 outweighed the broadcasts rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This thread again?

I think we all agree, after seeing what happened in Ukraine, that we all need machine guns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Constitution gave Congress the obligation to create the Militias and to provide for their training.

The SC can always change precedent too.

Wrong...again.

The constitution provided for ARMING the militias WHILE under the service of the U.S.

But, yeah,. The SCOTUS can just MAKE SHIT UP anytime it wants.

That's why we need to disband the U.S. and I will FUCKING KILL people to get it done.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong...again.

The constitution provided for ARMING the militias WHILE under the service of the U.S.

But, yeah,. The SCOTUS can just MAKE SHIT UP anytime it wants.

That's why we need to disband the U.S. and I will FUCKING KILL people to get it done.

Still not wrong, Killer.

"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;"

That means paying for them, room and board, when they are called up.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nah, weapons technology is more deadly. If you owned a printing press, you could print want you wanted and the government couldn't tell you that you had to print a certain persons writing because of the 1st.

Now the Fairness Doctrine was interesting in that it did force national radio and later TV networks to air political opposition pieces because of the 1st, the peoples right to hear more that one political perspective 24/7/365 outweighed the broadcasts rights.

The 'fairness doctrine' is blatantly unconstitutional.

And hide behind whatever you want, the idea that technology changed and therefore the right is intrinsically changed has been addressed by the court many times and rejected every single time for the travesty that it is.

It is not an argument, it is a misunderstanding of the basis for rights.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Constitution gave Congress the obligation to create the Militias and to provide for their training.

The SC can always change precedent too.

And pigs may fly some day.

It does not change the fact your supposition is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the second.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's not logic. That is an erroneous assumption.

Now you know how I feel.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Is that not what I fucking said in the post above yours?

The United States only takes control of the militia in a time of war. Otherwise, they are independent of all government.

The people are the militia.

The people are entitled to machine guns in order to fulfill that role.

A standing army is unconstitutional.

 

[Open Bolt]

Congress had authority over the various state militias and they always were part of the national defense structure. Governors are in command of them. That's what morphed into the National Guard. Texas still has three other State militias as well that are independent of the Texas National Guard.

The thing about the State Guards is, the government tends to keep them seriously unarmed.

I agree that State Guards are legally the active portion of the militia. But I don't see an unarmed militia as fulfilling the Constitution's requirements for a force that is capable of repelling a foreign invasion.

The State Guards are currently not well regulated.

Obviously the militia requirement was in the amendment for a reason not just window dressing like the SC has ruled.

I agree that the Supreme Court is not enforcing the militia part of the Second Amendment.

Enforcing the militia part of the Second Amendment would mean arming and training the State Guards to the degree that they were capable of repelling a foreign invasion.

 

[Open Bolt]

The constitution provided for ARMING the militias WHILE under the service of the U.S.

I'm pretty sure it provides for arming the militia 100% of the time.

The United States only takes control of the militia in a time of war. Otherwise, they are independent of all government.

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
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 people are the militia.

Agreed.

The people are entitled to machine guns in order to fulfill that role.

I hear you. But I come bearing bad news.

The government is entitled to call up machine gun owners into active militia duty and train them for the defense of the nation.

A standing army is unconstitutional.

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

[Open Bolt]

Now you know how I feel.

I have not made any erroneous assumptions. People do have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

 

[Open Bolt]

Except I can find no writing, musing or statements from the founders that this is what is meant by the prefatory clause.

The Second Amendment was created in response to Patrick Henry's concerns expressed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

Patrick Henry:
"of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them."
"Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power “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.” By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither--this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

Virginia Ratifying Convention

teachingamericanhistory.org

Patrick Henry's concerns resulted in the Virginia Ratifying Convention proposing this as a right:
"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

Virginia Ratifying Convention Amendment Proposals

teachingamericanhistory.org

Parts of this were removed by the time it reached the Constitution, but you can see the beginnings of the Second Amendment in the first sentence.

The Virginia Ratifying Convention proposed modifications of the Constitution in order to enforce their proposed rights:
"11th. That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion or rebellion, and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments, as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State."

Virginia Ratifying Convention Amendment Proposals

teachingamericanhistory.org

These modifications were not enacted, but the first sentence helps to illustrate that the Second Amendment was intended to address concerns that the feds would neglect to maintain the militia.

It was a prefatory clause.
That was the reason. No one has ever stated it was not in there for a reason.

I don't see it as a prefatory clause.

I see the statement that a well regulated militia is necessary as a mandate for the government to always keep the militia well armed and well trained.

I see this mandate as being separate and independent from the mandate that the right to keep and bear arms never be infringed.

It could, yes.
I disagree that it should but all rights have limitations and I do not think this is a limitation that can be substantiated. The majority of personal gun owners are more trained and more proficient in the weapons they own than even most of the people in the military.
As a member of the AF, we 'trained' on our weapons once every 3 years. Yes, once every 3 years.
Before we deployed to a warzone, we would take that class one more time. It was all of 4 hours. Every civilian I worked with owned weapons and every single one of them without fail was more proficient than those that were active duty members.

I can't see the courts allowing training requirements for civilians to exceed what is required of the local police.

LOL.
Take one look at the gun laws in NY and then say that again with a straight face.

Strict Scrutiny is not in effect yet though.

As soon as Strict Scrutiny comes into effect (which will hopefully happen this summer) New York gun laws are in for a serious purge.

When they are called upon, yes.
When they are not in service, then no.

I think they intended a portion of the militia to always be highly trained and in a state of readiness. Is that what you mean by called upon and in service?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have not made any erroneous assumptions. People do have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

Yeah, PROVE IT.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yeah, PROVE IT.

I already have.

I've given you a statute and three court rulings proving the existence of the right to have guns for the private defense of your home.

 

[BlindBoo]

The 'fairness doctrine' is blatantly unconstitutional.

And hide behind whatever you want, the idea that technology changed and therefore the right is intrinsically changed has been addressed by the court many times and rejected every single time for the travesty that it is.

It is not an argument, it is a misunderstanding of the basis for rights.

Somebody misunderstands the 1st.....

FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8–0) the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I understand you think the Constitution allows you to have your own personal nuclear weapon but......

 

[Flash]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

View attachment 621035

Bitch slap.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Somebody misunderstands the 1st.....

FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8–0) the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I understand you think the Constitution allows you to have your own personal nuclear weapon but......

I understand that you believe an individual has the money, technology, and will to light millions of dollars and people on fire to use said weapon, but WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRIES can't get nukes.

Let's knock off the bullshit hyperbole.

If a souldier would carry it in battle...I FUCKING GET IT TOO!!!

And I will do ANYTHING to restore the right to its fullest extent WITHOUT RESTRICTION.