ThunderKiss1965
Platinum Member
I'm pretty sure the majority of those deaths come from illegal firearms in cities that have been Democratic party ran for decades.Where do the majority of those gun deaths happen ?
From gun owners
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm pretty sure the majority of those deaths come from illegal firearms in cities that have been Democratic party ran for decades.Where do the majority of those gun deaths happen ?
From gun owners
That does not make it activism. You do not need to read a personal right into the second. The plain reading already has it there. Further, the BoR in its entirety refers to personal rights and they are there to outline rights that preexist government. Indeed, the BoR is a partial list of things that the government is forbade from getting involved in. To make the second about anything other than an individual right is not supported. Finally, making a judgment for the fist time is not activism or every single time a major ruling is made it would activism. To define the term that widely makes it useless.Sure, because they disagree with you....No, you made up what you wanted the amendment to say as it does not say anything even remotely what you claim. I have shown you quotes from Heller that establish what those phrases actually mean.I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
Okay. So, a couple of points:
First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
www.law.cornell.edu
You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.
What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG
The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.
That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:
" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "
Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), 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."
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.
Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.
Then, you ignore all of that, ignore the plan reading of the text and reassert you just 'read' the amendment. Try again.
Heller. A perfect example of the rampant cognitive dissonance of the right. They will talk and talk about how terrible judicial activism is, and then at the same time celebrate the greatest incident of judicial activism in American History, Heller.
conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism: an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the Second Amendment and, given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint. Justice Scalia’s opinion, these judicial conservatives argued, deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right, and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.
Justice Scalia, the Second Amendment, and Judicial Conservatives
Following Justice Scalia’s famous opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, conservative and liberal judges generally agree on the scope of the Second Amendment right.www.brennancenter.org
Yes, the justices in Heller were definitely playing up to a base and not saying what they knew the Amendment meant.
No, you want your narrative on top so you claim it is everyone else doing such. If you don't like Heller then address exactly why would be far more effective. The reality is the second is clear in one aspect, the right of the people. You can quibble all you want about what the militia is and means in the prefatory clause but that does not get around that simple fact.
Heller defines judicial activism because, for the first time in American history, the court ruled that the second amendment pertained to an individual right to self defense. Scalia, like he often did, twisted and distorted both the words of the founders and jurist prudence, to come up with a preconceived outcome that centered more on politics than legal standing. He was a disgrace to the legal profession.
Delusional, did you forget the tenth? And tell me, for two hundred years there was no personal right to self-defense read into the second amendment. Countless decisions by courts at all levels, and suddenly, everything changed with Heller. Like I said, Militia is in the second amendment, self-defense is not. Why?
What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.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 Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.
Nothing there has to do with personal protection.
It is essentially semi-auto magazine fed long gun.What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.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.
For use in the militia...as per the 2A“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.
Nothing there has to do with personal protection.
Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is necessary to the security of a free State. The People are the militia.
Of course we now HAVE the most advanced standing Army in the world and the militia doesn't exist any longer.Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is necessary to the security of a free State. The People are the militia.
The Framers also did not want or believe in a standing army, hence the need for a civilian militia
It is basically a semiautomatic rifle of medium length.What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.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.
Bullshit. They gave George Washington a standing army.Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is necessary to the security of a free State. The People are the militia.
The Framers also did not want or believe in a standing army, hence the need for a civilian militia
There is no states militia anymore.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.
That describes many hunting rifles. Try again.It is basically a semiautomatic rifle of medium length.What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.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.
And you have described many types of hunting rifles. I'm still waiting.It is essentially semi-auto magazine fed long gun.What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.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.
Citizen Soldiers otherwise known as the National Guard.There is no states militia anymore.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.
National Guard.Of course we now HAVE the most advanced standing Army in the world and the militia doesn't exist any longer.Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is necessary to the security of a free State. The People are the militia.
The Framers also did not want or believe in a standing army, hence the need for a civilian militia
You must be dyslexic or something is really fucked up with you comprehension skills, because no where in that quote does it mention the Militia.For use in the militia...as per the 2A“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.
Nothing there has to do with personal protection.
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.
So?
We already have that.
It's called the National Guard. Every state has their own National Guard. I volunteered and was a member off the National Guard for my state when I was in my 20s. I have no doubt you never even took the entrance exam much less volunteered to serve our nation.
It is not unconstitutional to ban assault weapons.
Clinton did it when he was president. The law lasted 10 years. The bush boy was president when it ended with the republicans in control of the congress so they didn't renew the law.
Your post screams just how down right stupid and ignorant of the law you are.
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.
Well yes. I thought that would pretty obvious. That's pretty much the point of a militia. Nice try.you just glazed over the second amendment you cherry-picked certain words but overlooked keep and bear armsI just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
Okay. So, a couple of points:
First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
www.law.cornell.edu
You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.
What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG
The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.
That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:
" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "
Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), 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."
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.
Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.