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

[kaz]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

 

[Esdraelon]

Should each state organize there own citizens militia?

Can you imagine the reaction by the Marxist filth in DC if THAT began? They'd be wetting themselves and Polident Pelosi would be limbering up for a "cage deathmatch". They keep pushing and they'll get what they seem to want.

 

[Slade3200]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

 

[Esdraelon]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

Not when adult-aged CHILDREN can't discern a difference between their FEELINGS and real danger. At some point, not far off, these screaming, whining, pissy little punks are going to begin seeing the rest of us acting a fool just like them. We aren't as skilled at LARPing so they'll have to forgive us if we break things while we get used to it.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

Legislators can't change the Constitution.

 

[Esdraelon]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

China has a "legal process" I hear little Kim in North Korea has a fine Constitution.

 

[kaz]

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

So they can outlaw Islam "through legislation from elected leaders" since "that is our legal process." Or make it illegal to advocate legal abortion "through legislation from elected leaders" since "that is our legal process."

Got it. You fundamentally don't understand how the Constitution works. But then you are a fascist

 

[kaz]

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

Legislators can't change the Constitution.

Only for things that Slade opposes. That's how the Democrat Nazi party works

 

[2aguy]

From:
The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

"In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),


the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.

Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

So in one section Scalia is recognizing that regulations are constitutional. Your counter to that is against those who make the argument that only 18th century weapons are to be protected. That’s a disingenuous argument. Do you accept what Richie posted from Scalia that guns can be regulated to a degree? We can argue about what that degree is later.

I said he only quoted from that tiny part.....what did Scalia say you could actually regulate?

Then I quote where Scalia says that the 2nd Amendment protects all bearable arms.............

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Can you keep people from carrying guns? No. You can ban them from sensitive places, schools, and courthouses and you can keep felons and the mentally ill from owning and carrying them....but banning them? No.

And the part you guys always leave out.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

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.

And then, to repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Slade3200]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

Legislators can't change the Constitution.

Haha. Really? Did you learn that in civics class?

 

[Slade3200]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

China has a "legal process" I hear little Kim in North Korea has a fine Constitution.

Your point??

 

[2aguy]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

So were the jim crow laws, poll taxes and literacy tests, as well as placing Japanese American citizens in concentration camps, and keeping black children out of white schools.........

All passed with legislation and some of those were even upheld by democrat party dominated supreme courts...

Do you see how stupid your point is?

 

[Slade3200]

From:
The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

"In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),


the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.

Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

So in one section Scalia is recognizing that regulations are constitutional. Your counter to that is against those who make the argument that only 18th century weapons are to be protected. That’s a disingenuous argument. Do you accept what Richie posted from Scalia that guns can be regulated to a degree? We can argue about what that degree is later.

I said he only quoted from that tiny part.....what did Scalia say you could actually regulate?

Then I quote where Scalia says that the 2nd Amendment protects all bearable arms.............

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Can you keep people from carrying guns? No. You can ban them from sensitive places, schools, and courthouses and you can keep felons and the mentally ill from owning and carrying them....but banning them? No.

And the part you guys always leave out.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

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.

And then, to repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

I’m not talking about specific regulations I’m talking about the concept of regulating which many here are calling unconstitutional. Scalia disagreed that regulating is unconstitutional through that passage in that dissent. You recognize that don’t you?

 

[Slade3200]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

So were the jim crow laws, poll taxes and literacy tests, as well as placing Japanese American citizens in concentration camps, and keeping black children out of white schools.........

All passed with legislation and some of those were even upheld by democrat party dominated supreme courts...

Do you see how stupid your point is?

Those all legal products of our system. A stain of our past that was thankfully overturned. I don’t see how that contradicts my point in the least

 

[2aguy]

From:
The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

"In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),


the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.

Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

So in one section Scalia is recognizing that regulations are constitutional. Your counter to that is against those who make the argument that only 18th century weapons are to be protected. That’s a disingenuous argument. Do you accept what Richie posted from Scalia that guns can be regulated to a degree? We can argue about what that degree is later.

I said he only quoted from that tiny part.....what did Scalia say you could actually regulate?

Then I quote where Scalia says that the 2nd Amendment protects all bearable arms.............

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Can you keep people from carrying guns? No. You can ban them from sensitive places, schools, and courthouses and you can keep felons and the mentally ill from owning and carrying them....but banning them? No.

And the part you guys always leave out.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

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.

And then, to repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

I’m not talking about specific regulations I’m talking about the concept of regulating which many here are calling unconstitutional. Scalia disagreed that regulating is unconstitutional through that passage in that dissent. You recognize that don’t you?

Wrong....you morons think he allows you to do anything you want, when he limits the scope and actually, in his writing in Friedman v Highland Park, protects the very weapons you want to ban.

 

[Slade3200]

From:
The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

"In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),


the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.

Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

So in one section Scalia is recognizing that regulations are constitutional. Your counter to that is against those who make the argument that only 18th century weapons are to be protected. That’s a disingenuous argument. Do you accept what Richie posted from Scalia that guns can be regulated to a degree? We can argue about what that degree is later.

I said he only quoted from that tiny part.....what did Scalia say you could actually regulate?

Then I quote where Scalia says that the 2nd Amendment protects all bearable arms.............

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Can you keep people from carrying guns? No. You can ban them from sensitive places, schools, and courthouses and you can keep felons and the mentally ill from owning and carrying them....but banning them? No.

And the part you guys always leave out.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

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.

And then, to repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

I’m not talking about specific regulations I’m talking about the concept of regulating which many here are calling unconstitutional. Scalia disagreed that regulating is unconstitutional through that passage in that dissent. You recognize that don’t you?

Wrong....you morons think he allows you to do anything you want, when he limits the scope and actually, in his writing in Friedman v Highland Park, protects the very weapons you want to ban.

I’m not talking about anything “we” want. I’m talking about the simple concept that regulations are not automatically unconstitutional. Nutters can’t accept that but it’s there in black and white. He limited the scope. That means there is a scope. You can admit that right? There is a scope of gun regulations that is constitutional? According to Scalia The government can limit a Persons ability to have whatever kind of gun they want wherever they want. Correct?

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia of Individuals of the People whine about gun control laws mean for them since they are not exempt like well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You all know where the U.S. government , and many Politicians are headed. They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road. As part of the United Nations one world government takeover of the entire Earth.New World Order. This is what the Gun control people , and groups won't tell you.

This is a lie.

 

[kaz]

You all know where the U.S. government , and many Politicians are headed. They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road. As part of the United Nations one world government takeover of the entire Earth.New World Order. This is what the Gun control people , and groups won't tell you.

This is a lie.

This is a lie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.

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 time

It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".

You 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 minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?

If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated

To do that, you must while providing due process prove that they broke a law.

Gun regulations ignore due process.

Argument fail.

See, this is how despite being a broken clock, you aren't even right twice a day ...

Gun regulations are literally made through legislation from elected leaders. That is our legal process.

Correct, laws enacted by elected representatives reflecting the will of the people; laws presumed to be Constitutional out of deference for the will of the people, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.