CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[C_Clayton_Jones]

2.) Not every gun owner is or will be in the militia. You can't be so myopic as to believe that.)

I have not presented an argument that presumes such a belief. I assume that those in need of collecting, owning, stockpiling and playing with legally sold ''assault rifles' for any reason are more inclined than most other type of gun owners, to fancy themselves as part of some Amendment Two sons of liberty militia mania.

They do have 'assault rifle' ownership in common with the Parkland High shooter. There is that connection which brings me to my point that the Second Amendment most certainly does not interfere with the majority of America's citizens right to ban 'assault rifles' if that can be politically achieved.

Correct.

Prohibiting the possession of what a given lawmaking body designates an assault weapon is constitutionally permissible, reflecting the will of the people as expressed by the political process.

But that a measure might be Constitutional doesn’t mean it’s good law – an AWB would be such an example.

The banning of AR 15s would not have the desired effect of ending gun crime and violence.

The issue of gun crime and violence is multifaceted and complex, beyond the purview and remedy of government.

And a Federal AWB would likely not survive a court challenge.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

True, no one advocates for gun ‘confiscation.’

And again, guns have nothing to do with liberty, freedom, or defending against tyranny.

To believe otherwise is sophomoric idiocy.

Individuals have the right to possess firearms for personal self-defense, to guard against criminal attack – not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected, constitutionally sanctioned government.

This post is itself an icon of sophomoric idiocy with no true statements. The only question in my mind is whether they are deliberate lies or willful ignorance.

 

[Dale Smith]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

Here is, basically, a straw man fallacy.

The ‘left’ makes no such argument.

Indeed, liberals support and follow current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

All firearm regulatory measures advocated for by liberals are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, none having been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

And liberals agree with the Heller Court reaffirming the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that government may place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms, and that there are types of weapons not entitled to Constitutional protections.

There’s nothing more ridiculous than dishonest conservatives contriving equally ridiculous lies about the ‘left.’

No, the goal of the fabian socialist left is and has always been total gun confiscation. Leftards hide behind "Well, we just want this restriction....we just want THAT restriction"....then it's a total confiscation and how could they do it? Easy, nearly all transactions are digital and easy to track and find who has purchased ammo in the last seventeen years and simply send them a letter that they have two weeks to turn in their gun/guns or explain what happened to them. It's another plank of the commie manifesto.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

Here is, basically, a straw man fallacy.

The ‘left’ makes no such argument.

Indeed, liberals support and follow current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

All firearm regulatory measures advocated for by liberals are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, none having been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

And liberals agree with the Heller Court reaffirming the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that government may place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms, and that there are types of weapons not entitled to Constitutional protections.

There’s nothing more ridiculous than dishonest conservatives contriving equally ridiculous lies about the ‘left.’

"All firearm regulatory measures advocated for by liberals are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, none having been invalidated by the Supreme Court."

Absolutely untrue.

 

[Dale Smith]

2.) Not every gun owner is or will be in the militia. You can't be so myopic as to believe that.)

I have not presented an argument that presumes such a belief. I assume that those in need of collecting, owning, stockpiling and playing with legally sold ''assault rifles' for any reason are more inclined than most other type of gun owners, to fancy themselves as part of some Amendment Two sons of liberty militia mania.

They do have 'assault rifle' ownership in common with the Parkland High shooter. There is that connection which brings me to my point that the Second Amendment most certainly does not interfere with the majority of America's citizens right to ban 'assault rifles' if that can be politically achieved.

Correct.

Prohibiting the possession of what a given lawmaking body designates an assault weapon is constitutionally permissible, reflecting the will of the people as expressed by the political process.

But that a measure might be Constitutional doesn’t mean it’s good law – an AWB would be such an example.

The banning of AR 15s would not have the desired effect of ending gun crime and violence.

The issue of gun crime and violence is multifaceted and complex, beyond the purview and remedy of government.

And a Federal AWB would likely not survive a court challenge.

We don't have laws, Clayton, we have acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and public policy and those in charge simply make it up as they go. We are under Statutory/ Admiralty statutes because this beloved "gubermint" that you worship at the feet of is a corporate entity that is SUPPOSE to provide the 19 enumerated services per their corporate charter constitution that they renew in Congress every two years. Your "gubermint" is no different than Wal-Mart.Inc or Microsoft.Inc. It's a de-facto government in name only that remains in a perpetual bankrupted state.

 

[Humorme]

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

I can't discern your position on the essential question based on all that. Do you actually believe that there should be no restrictions at all on private ownership of weapons?

What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

If you start out with a false premise, like that have you stopped beating your wife variety of questions, you will get no traction here. I dismantled that argument you made in a rather long post on this thread. Shall I repeat it? Post # 306 completely destroys the misinformation you're posting.

Let's start by repeating the answer to your FIRST error:



Once you've done that go back to my long reply that dismantles your argument.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Rights of the people. Once you understand that (and not before) can your question be dealt with honestly.

I understand the Bill of Rights much better than you do. That is obvious. Your refusal to answer a very simple question and to try and divert the discussion elsewhere indicates that you have no intention of participating in a rational discussion.

You asked what the purpose of the second amendment WAS. The intent of the writers in the 18th century was clear. The Supreme Court has chosen to reinterpret it in the 21st century so fine. That's the interpretation we will go with today. If you really want to understand the original intent of the second amendment, you should read the text of discussions about it during the ratification process. It is very obvious what they were trying to do and the meaning of "bear arms" was very clear. However, that is not the subject I was trying to get you to discuss in a rational manner. I don't harbor any hope now that you will ever do so.

You have a rather high opinion of yourself, but I always like prefer that the founders speak for themselves:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Now, I've not only quoted the founders on the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms and its exact meaning, but I've quoted Supreme Court Justices, court rulings, etc. All you've done is pretend that you have a better understanding than they did as you have not offered anything to the contrary. I can do you a whole thesis on natural rights to accompany the above... and all you will be doing is blowing smoke, claiming a power that the United States Supreme Court was never given.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the current Chief Justice is against you as well. The United States Supreme Court is not the legislative branch of government; you cannot steer me in order to change the subject; and NO, just because you can't control people does not mean you have a corner on the market of understanding.

 

[Humorme]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

Here is, basically, a straw man fallacy.

The ‘left’ makes no such argument.

Indeed, liberals support and follow current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

All firearm regulatory measures advocated for by liberals are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, none having been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

And liberals agree with the Heller Court reaffirming the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that government may place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms, and that there are types of weapons not entitled to Constitutional protections.

There’s nothing more ridiculous than dishonest conservatives contriving equally ridiculous lies about the ‘left.’

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

Here is, basically, a straw man fallacy.

The ‘left’ makes no such argument.

Indeed, liberals support and follow current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

All firearm regulatory measures advocated for by liberals are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, none having been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

And liberals agree with the Heller Court reaffirming the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that government may place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms, and that there are types of weapons not entitled to Constitutional protections.

There’s nothing more ridiculous than dishonest conservatives contriving equally ridiculous lies about the ‘left.’

When the left runs out of ammo (no pun intented) they accuse people of two basic things:

Straw man fallacy
Ad hominems

When they pull out those two terms, they are out of the game. WhenC_Clayton_Jones said:

"The ‘left’ makes no such argument."

The reality is, he straight up, outright LIED to you. I cited the anti-Second Amendment source:

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment

If that poster had actually read this thread, he would find that:

* I am adamantly opposed to the Heller decision

* That he agrees that the left supports some parts of Heller

* I have never identified with nor implied that I an a conservative... I've only said I am NOT a Democrat; never voted for one; do not belong to the left

I cannot tell you if that individual cannot read, won't read, or is not smart enough to ask questions, but what they said about me is exactly 100 percent WRONG.

 

[9thIDdoc]

2.) Not every gun owner is or will be in the militia. You can't be so myopic as to believe that.)

I have not presented an argument that presumes such a belief. I assume that those in need of collecting, owning, stockpiling and playing with legally sold ''assault rifles' for any reason are more inclined than most other type of gun owners, to fancy themselves as part of some Amendment Two sons of liberty militia mania.

They do have 'assault rifle' ownership in common with the Parkland High shooter. There is that connection which brings me to my point that the Second Amendment most certainly does not interfere with the majority of America's citizens right to ban 'assault rifles' if that can be politically achieved.

Correct.

Prohibiting the possession of what a given lawmaking body designates an assault weapon is constitutionally permissible, reflecting the will of the people as expressed by the political process.

But that a measure might be Constitutional doesn’t mean it’s good law – an AWB would be such an example.

The banning of AR 15s would not have the desired effect of ending gun crime and violence.

The issue of gun crime and violence is multifaceted and complex, beyond the purview and remedy of government.

And a Federal AWB would likely not survive a court challenge.

Prohibiting the possession of what a given lawmaking body designates an assault weapon is constitutionally permissible, reflecting the will of the people as expressed by the political process.

Untrue. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and all laws must be Constitutional to be legal. You don't get to arbitrarily decide what the "will of the people" is. You advocate tyranny..

 

[Uncensored2008]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.
.

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.

Get it, Comrade?

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.
.

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.

Get it, Comrade?

I asked 'need' not 'should'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.
.

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.

Get it, Comrade?

I asked 'need' not 'should'.

There is no need for an AR 15, it’s pure avocation.

But absent a need doesn’t warrant prohibitive regulation.

Now that we’ve established the fact that there is no legitimate need for an AR 15, let’s return to your original post to review some points:

“We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations.”

Perhaps not, but unlike other nations in the developed world we’ve failed miserably to afford mental health treatment to our citizens. Millions of Americans have no access to affordable healthcare, no access to mental health screening and treatment, and the situation will only grow worse as we continue to refuse to implement a universal healthcare system found in the rest of the developed world.

“There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other nations in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?”

One cannot compare the United States to other nations in the developed world because indeed the problem is unique to America.

Unlike other First World nations, the United States has a uniquely violent culture, where violence is perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution, from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and the many wars waged to the benefit of the military/industrial establishment.

The issue of gun violence in America is complex and multifaceted, immune from resolution with more restrictions, more regulation, and bans.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A former coworker and friend of mine likes to make knives and has a knife collection. Should he have his collection confiscated because some other A-hole decided to stab someone? Should I have my truck taken away if some idiot drives drunk and kills someone?

Assault rifles were banned prior to Cruz going on his assault rifle shooting spree. They should be banned again because it was a mistake to allow the 1994 ban to end. Here's why.

. Klarevas has compiled data on gun massacres involving six or more fatalities for the 50 years before 2016. His numbers show that gun massacres fell significantly during the time the assault weapons ban was in place, and skyrocketed after the ban lapsed in 2004. A separate mass shooting database compiled by Mother Jones magazine shows a similar trend.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ed-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/

Gun, not knife massacres, fell significantly during the ten year assault rifle ban.

Your friend's knife collection will remain safely in his hands.

So. “the real objective of the assault weapons ban was always to reduce both the frequency and lethality of mass shootings.” Which the original ban did. You see your friend's knives are not ever going to be involved in a mass shooting or any government confiscations. Another weak paranoid and foiled argument on your part.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

C_Clayton_Jones, post: 19426951

The issue of gun violence in America is complex and multifaceted, immune from resolution with more restrictions, more regulation, and bans.

"Immune from resolution" ???

Just not so. Current bans on fully automatic firearms certainly have saved numerous victims of mass shooters who could have 'easily' purchased them. The 1994 assault rifle ban reduced mass shootings during its run and mass shootings spiked after it ended.

I tend to focus on the psychological/moral aspect of let's say an assault rifle ban on those who desire so much to be able to play with them. A ban sets a kind of moral taboo within society against that desire to play with a weapon designed for the sole purpose of mass killing of human beings in combat.

Playing with human killing toys should receive the same taboo from decent, public safety-concerned society as behavior such as public masterbation does.

We have the opposite norm now which glorifies that killing tool as some kind of first line of patriotic defense of human liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the flag, apple pie the whole nine yards.

GenX I hope continues to call bs on that norm.

An repeat of the former assault rifle ban is a moral step in the right direction.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Uncensored2008, post: 19426547

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.
.

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.

Get it, Comrade?

Yes, if the SA is to be followed correctly, we need to have a 'well regulated' militia. You can start justifying your wanton civilian militia need to play with an assault rifle, by explaining who you fully accept is supposed to be regulating you 'well' so very well.

 

[SingleVoyce]

I can't discern your position on the essential question based on all that. Do you actually believe that there should be no restrictions at all on private ownership of weapons?

What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

If you start out with a false premise, like that have you stopped beating your wife variety of questions, you will get no traction here. I dismantled that argument you made in a rather long post on this thread. Shall I repeat it? Post # 306 completely destroys the misinformation you're posting.

Let's start by repeating the answer to your FIRST error:



Once you've done that go back to my long reply that dismantles your argument.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Rights of the people. Once you understand that (and not before) can your question be dealt with honestly.

I understand the Bill of Rights much better than you do. That is obvious. Your refusal to answer a very simple question and to try and divert the discussion elsewhere indicates that you have no intention of participating in a rational discussion.

You asked what the purpose of the second amendment WAS. The intent of the writers in the 18th century was clear. The Supreme Court has chosen to reinterpret it in the 21st century so fine. That's the interpretation we will go with today. If you really want to understand the original intent of the second amendment, you should read the text of discussions about it during the ratification process. It is very obvious what they were trying to do and the meaning of "bear arms" was very clear. However, that is not the subject I was trying to get you to discuss in a rational manner. I don't harbor any hope now that you will ever do so.

You have a rather high opinion of yourself, but I always like prefer that the founders speak for themselves:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Now, I've not only quoted the founders on the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms and its exact meaning, but I've quoted Supreme Court Justices, court rulings, etc. All you've done is pretend that you have a better understanding than they did as you have not offered anything to the contrary. I can do you a whole thesis on natural rights to accompany the above... and all you will be doing is blowing smoke, claiming a power that the United States Supreme Court was never given.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the current Chief Justice is against you as well. The United States Supreme Court is not the legislative branch of government; you cannot steer me in order to change the subject; and NO, just because you can't control people does not mean you have a corner on the market of understanding.

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. If you apply Washington's quote to the Heller decision, the logical conclusion is that the Supreme Court usurped the Constitution by changing the meaning of the second amendment that had been used for 200+ years.

 

[Humorme]

What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

If you start out with a false premise, like that have you stopped beating your wife variety of questions, you will get no traction here. I dismantled that argument you made in a rather long post on this thread. Shall I repeat it? Post # 306 completely destroys the misinformation you're posting.

Let's start by repeating the answer to your FIRST error:



Once you've done that go back to my long reply that dismantles your argument.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Rights of the people. Once you understand that (and not before) can your question be dealt with honestly.

I understand the Bill of Rights much better than you do. That is obvious. Your refusal to answer a very simple question and to try and divert the discussion elsewhere indicates that you have no intention of participating in a rational discussion.

You asked what the purpose of the second amendment WAS. The intent of the writers in the 18th century was clear. The Supreme Court has chosen to reinterpret it in the 21st century so fine. That's the interpretation we will go with today. If you really want to understand the original intent of the second amendment, you should read the text of discussions about it during the ratification process. It is very obvious what they were trying to do and the meaning of "bear arms" was very clear. However, that is not the subject I was trying to get you to discuss in a rational manner. I don't harbor any hope now that you will ever do so.

You have a rather high opinion of yourself, but I always like prefer that the founders speak for themselves:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Now, I've not only quoted the founders on the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms and its exact meaning, but I've quoted Supreme Court Justices, court rulings, etc. All you've done is pretend that you have a better understanding than they did as you have not offered anything to the contrary. I can do you a whole thesis on natural rights to accompany the above... and all you will be doing is blowing smoke, claiming a power that the United States Supreme Court was never given.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the current Chief Justice is against you as well. The United States Supreme Court is not the legislative branch of government; you cannot steer me in order to change the subject; and NO, just because you can't control people does not mean you have a corner on the market of understanding.

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. If you apply Washington's quote to the Heller decision, the logical conclusion is that the Supreme Court usurped the Constitution by changing the meaning of the second amendment that had been used for 200+ years.

The United States has used its power to change the Constitution on an incremental basis until today, the Constitution is interpreted 180 degrees opposite of what it meant on many issues when it was ratified.

 

[Humorme]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.
.

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.

Get it, Comrade?

I asked 'need' not 'should'.

There is no need for an AR 15, it’s pure avocation.

But absent a need doesn’t warrant prohibitive regulation.

Now that we’ve established the fact that there is no legitimate need for an AR 15, let’s return to your original post to review some points:

“We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations.”

Perhaps not, but unlike other nations in the developed world we’ve failed miserably to afford mental health treatment to our citizens. Millions of Americans have no access to affordable healthcare, no access to mental health screening and treatment, and the situation will only grow worse as we continue to refuse to implement a universal healthcare system found in the rest of the developed world.

“There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other nations in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?”

One cannot compare the United States to other nations in the developed world because indeed the problem is unique to America.

Unlike other First World nations, the United States has a uniquely violent culture, where violence is perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution, from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and the many wars waged to the benefit of the military/industrial establishment.

The issue of gun violence in America is complex and multifaceted, immune from resolution with more restrictions, more regulation, and bans.

You've proven no such conclusion. I need an AR 15 (though I can't afford the one I need.)

My Right is not based on need.

 

[ding]

Yes, if the SA is to be followed correctly, we need to have a 'well regulated' militia. You can start justifying your wanton civilian militia need to play with an assault rifle, by explaining who you fully accept is supposed to be regulating you 'well' so very well.

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

[Uncensored2008]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.
.

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.

Get it, Comrade?

I asked 'need' not 'should'.

The same reason you NEED to be allowed to speak against Trump.

 

[hadit]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.
.

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.

Get it, Comrade?

I asked 'need' not 'should'.

The premise of the question is false. "Need" is not part of the calculation, nor should it be.