Dem Sen Murphy: there's not enough votes for assault weapons ban: "I don't get why we choose to live like this with kids in fear. only in America"

[multivita-man]

2nd Amendment. Go ahead and try to repeal it.

I have read the 2nd Amendment and I understand both the historical background and how it has been read in the years since. The 2nd Amendment never established a right for individuals to own whatever weapons they wanted. The 2nd Amendment does not think what most conservatives think it means; however, for the time being, the Courts are on your side. But that wasn't always the case. With any luck, it'll be that way again.

 

[progressive hunter]

I have read the 2nd Amendment and I understand both the historical background and how it has been read in the years since. The 2nd Amendment never established a right for individuals to own whatever weapons they wanted. The 2nd Amendment does not think what most conservatives think it means; however, for the time being, the Courts are on your side. But that wasn't always the case. With any luck, it'll be that way again.

it does establish the right of the people to own military grade weapons,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have read the 2nd Amendment and I understand both the historical background and how it has been read in the years since.

We'll see - eh?

The 2nd Amendment never established a right for individuals to own whatever weapons they wanted.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, to own and possess all "bearable arms" and to use those "bearable arms" for traditionally lawful purposes.

When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The 2nd Amendment does not think what most conservatives think it means;....

Most conservatives think it means what I said, above.

however, for the time being, the Courts are on your side. But that wasn't always the case. With any luck, it'll be that way again.

Until that happens... See "The Second Amendment...", above.

 

[multivita-man]

it does establish the right of the people to own military grade weapons,,

Where does it say that?

Answer: It doesn't.

 

[multivita-man]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, to own and possess all "bearable arms" and to use those "bearable arms" for traditionally lawful purposes.

Nah, gun rights originated in England as a collective right a little over 100 years before our BoR was ratified. I would agree that since the militia back then wasn't the militia that we know now that the implications of the 2nd Amendment were such that it basically allowed able bodied men to keep and bear arms in their own home, but that was always with the aims of having enough armed men who could use firearms to put down insurrections, repel foreign invaders, resist against a corrupt central federal authority, or in slaveholding states, put down slave rebellions. It had little or nothing to do with allowing Johnny Reb to have his own private cache of weapons to show off to his buddies.

When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Most conservatives think it means what I said, above.

Until that happens... See "The Second Amendment...", above.

The above is a novel view of rights under the 2nd Amendment, owing to highly suspect interpretations of the constitution as a result of strict constructionism. Moreover, it exaggerates the 2nd Amendment as it relates to the implicit powers of states to regulate in the interests of public safety.

Now do I think that individuals have a right to keep a shotgun, a rifle, or a handgun in their homes (provided they aren't a danger to their neighbors)? Fundamentally, yes, I do, but that isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment per se; that likely is a good 9th Amendment argument, or some combination of the 2nd and 9th. But the 2nd Amendment is primarily for the purposes of collective defense against both tyranny and anarchy. The fact that it includes the prefatory clause "well-regulated militia, necessary to defend a free state" is intentional.

 

[progressive hunter]

Where does it say that?

Answer: It doesn't.

try reading it for once,,
the first 4 words confirm military grade weapons and the people it talks about are the same ones in the first 3 words of the constitution,,
WE THE PEOPLE

so yes it confirms that we the people have a right to own military grade arms,,

if not please explain in detail how it doesnt,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nah, gun rights originated in England as a collective right a little over 100....

If you are familiar with how the 2nd Amdment has been "read", you know this is irrelevant.

The above is a novel view of rights under the 2nd Amendment,....

You don't have to like it, but you do have to follow it.
As far as "novel" - the USSC has never held the 2nd to be anything other than an individual right.

Moreover, it exaggerates the 2nd Amendment as it relates to the implicit powers of states to regulate in the interests of public safety.

Not just that, it specifically and intentionally repudiates any argument regarding means-end testing.
Why?
The enshrinement of constitutional rights -- necessarily and intentionally --takes certain policy choices off the table.

Now do I think that individuals have a right to keep a shotgun, a rifle, or a handgun in their homes (provided they aren't a danger to their neighbors)? Fundamentally, yes, I do, but that isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment per se;

The USSC disagrees.
And you don't get to ignore it.

But the 2nd Amendment is primarily for the purposes of collective defense against both tyranny and anarchy. The fact that it includes the prefatory clause "well-regulated militia, necessary to defend a free state" is intentional.

The right of the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.
As the people do not have a right to serve in the militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must include the possession and use of a firearm outside of that service.

 

[80zephyr]

I have read the 2nd Amendment and I understand both the historical background and how it has been read in the years since. The 2nd Amendment never established a right for individuals to own whatever weapons they wanted. The 2nd Amendment does not think what most conservatives think it means; however, for the time being, the Courts are on your side. But that wasn't always the case. With any luck, it'll be that way again.

In 1822, the right to bare arms was first reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. Bliss when Kentucky tried to restrict carrying a concealed weapon. The court ruled the right to bear arms to defend oneself was a federal right. This was the first of many attempts to try to truncate the Second Amendment.

Op-Ed: The Supreme Court says good guys with guns save lives

"Every Communist knows the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao Tse-tung

www.thecentersquare.com

Seems like the right of the people to bear arms has a VERY long history in this country.

 

[80zephyr]

Nah, gun rights originated in England as a collective right a little over 100 years before our BoR was ratified. I would agree that since the militia back then wasn't the militia that we know now that the implications of the 2nd Amendment were such that it basically allowed able bodied men to keep and bear arms in their own home, but that was always with the aims of having enough armed men who could use firearms to put down insurrections, repel foreign invaders, resist against a corrupt central federal authority, or in slaveholding states, put down slave rebellions. It had little or nothing to do with allowing Johnny Reb to have his own private cache of weapons to show off to his buddies.



The above is a novel view of rights under the 2nd Amendment, owing to highly suspect interpretations of the constitution as a result of strict constructionism. Moreover, it exaggerates the 2nd Amendment as it relates to the implicit powers of states to regulate in the interests of public safety.

Now do I think that individuals have a right to keep a shotgun, a rifle, or a handgun in their homes (provided they aren't a danger to their neighbors)? Fundamentally, yes, I do, but that isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment per se; that likely is a good 9th Amendment argument, or some combination of the 2nd and 9th. But the 2nd Amendment is primarily for the purposes of collective defense against both tyranny and anarchy. The fact that it includes the prefatory clause "well-regulated militia, necessary to defend a free state" is intentional.

How can anyone seriously believe, after throwing off the yolk of oppression, that people would support any Constitution that promised to take away the right of an individual to fight such oppression again?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does it say that?
Answer: It doesn't.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
...
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
US v Miller 1939

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

That is:
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to firearms which have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, part of the ordinary military equipment, can be used to contribue to the common defense, and of the type the militiamen are expected to provide for their own use.

Given this, how does the ownership and use of the AR15 -- if not the M16/M4 -- not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS instead of Neil Gorsuch. I don't mean that Gorsuch is a bad guy or a bad justice, but McConnell rigged the process.

Garland is a disaster as AG, he would be far worse as a justice. He is a far-left ideologue.

 

[multivita-man]

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

You're focusing on the shotgun itself, but the bold is what's really important. The 2A exists not so that an individual can have an extensive gun collection; it exists as a collective right for certain purposes, such as the common defense.

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
US v Miller 1939

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

The militia changed in the years after the BoR was signed. As the militia changed, so too did the implications for gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment (again, I think individuals have always had a constitutional right to keep some sort of guns in the home for hunting & personal defense, but not necessarily under the 2A).

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to firearms which have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, part of the ordinary military equipment, can be used to contribue to the common defense, and of the type the militiamen were expected to provide for their own use.

Not really. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about firearms at all - just arms. Modern gun rights activists try to make the argument that there's some inherent, fundamental, natural law right to own firearms insofar as they have a legitimate collective defense purpose, but that's a manufactured distinction between firearms and arms. In fact, a person can probably own a howitzer and other powerful arms, but they're going to be subjected to an FBI background check first and they'll have to register with BATF. And the military generally demilitarizes it anyway. I don't recall Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Coney-Barrett really addressing that distinction. Seems like they deliberately ignored it.

Given this, how does the ownership and use of the AR15 -- if not the M16/M4 -- not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment?

Pretty much answered it above. Those are legal because congress has made them legal thanks to some pressuring from gun rights groups and a modern court of gun rights activists that have literally written their own history on gun rights. Ironically, I thought they got Heller right, except for their convoluted reasoning, which was really a Trojan Horse to rewrite gun rights in this country.

 

[multivita-man]

Garland is a disaster as AG, he would be far worse as a justice. He is a far-left ideologue.

Garland is hated by the left and the right, so I guess he's probably not doing a terrible job.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're focusing on the shotgun itself, but the bold is what's really important. The 2A exists not so that an individual can have an extensive gun collection; it exists as a collective right for certain purposes, such as the common defense.

Nothing in Miller supports the collective right argument, especially as Miller, who had no relationship with the militia, and with no question from anyone, had standing to make the claim of protection under the 2A.
The case turned entirely on the firearm in question, and not at all on the person in question.

Not really. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about firearms at all...

The USSC did.
I quoted it.
I then summarized what it said.
Given the holding of the court, how is my summary in error?
Given no demonstrable error in my summary, how does the ownership and use of the AR15 -- if not the M16/M4 -- not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[multivita-man]

Nothing in Miller supports the collective right argument, especially as Miller, who had no relationship with the militia, and with no question from anyone, had standing to make the claim of protection under the 2A.
The case turned entirely on the firearm in question, and not at all on the person in question.

The USSC did.
I quoted it.
I then summarized what it said.
Given the holding of the court, how is my summary in error?
Given no demonstrable error in my summary, how does the ownership and use of the AR15 -- if not the M16/M4 -- not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment?

Nope.

 

[80zephyr]

Nope.

Why did you skip post #148?

 

[multivita-man]

In 1822, the right to bare arms was first reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. Bliss when Kentucky tried to restrict carrying a concealed weapon. The court ruled the right to bear arms to defend oneself was a federal right. This was the first of many attempts to try to truncate the Second Amendment.

Op-Ed: The Supreme Court says good guys with guns save lives

"Every Communist knows the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao Tse-tung

www.thecentersquare.com

Seems like the right of the people to bear arms has a VERY long history in this country.

Not sure about the quality of your source considering that this was a matter in the State of Kentucky and dealt with Kentucky's constitution that existed at the time. The Kentucky constitution actually explicitly gave persons the right to carry firearms to defend themselves and the state, so it explicitly spelled out that firearms ownership was an individual right, which states are free to do.

 

[multivita-man]

Why did you skip post #148?

My bad, sorry.

 

[2aguy]

Nah, gun rights originated in England as a collective right a little over 100 years before our BoR was ratified. I would agree that since the militia back then wasn't the militia that we know now that the implications of the 2nd Amendment were such that it basically allowed able bodied men to keep and bear arms in their own home, but that was always with the aims of having enough armed men who could use firearms to put down insurrections, repel foreign invaders, resist against a corrupt central federal authority, or in slaveholding states, put down slave rebellions. It had little or nothing to do with allowing Johnny Reb to have his own private cache of weapons to show off to his buddies.



The above is a novel view of rights under the 2nd Amendment, owing to highly suspect interpretations of the constitution as a result of strict constructionism. Moreover, it exaggerates the 2nd Amendment as it relates to the implicit powers of states to regulate in the interests of public safety.

Now do I think that individuals have a right to keep a shotgun, a rifle, or a handgun in their homes (provided they aren't a danger to their neighbors)? Fundamentally, yes, I do, but that isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment per se; that likely is a good 9th Amendment argument, or some combination of the 2nd and 9th. But the 2nd Amendment is primarily for the purposes of collective defense against both tyranny and anarchy. The fact that it includes the prefatory clause "well-regulated militia, necessary to defend a free state" is intentional.

You know so little about so little and you believe it with such confidence………….

Read Heller you dipshit

 

[multivita-man]

You know so little about so little and you believe it with such confidence………….

I am the greatest poster at usmessageboard dot com. People stay up all DAY...to read my posts. Because I know what it means...to wear alligator shoes...to be custom made from head to toe...to ride around in limousines...to wear Rolex watches...and to drive the women of USMB wild ALL NIGHT LONG! Whoo!

Read Heller you dipshit

You keep your mouth shut punk. You're gonna find yourself in the ring in a minute.