Yes, we know, anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. At all times.
No dumbass, you are a liar because you disagree with
yourself.
It doesn't bother me if people disagree with me.
See, I frequent multiple message boards looking for debate in the gun topic and I present comprehensive positions and definitive statements; that should indicate I'm expecting, even desiring disagreement.
It does not say "only militias". That is true. It also doesn't make it clear that it means all people not in militias.
Only a person who is unfamiliar with constitutional philosophy, history and law would say that.
Notice all blacks were prohibited. And you can call that unconstitutional, but in reality, it was perfectly constitutional, until amendment and law said it wasn't.
The legal ability of Blacks, either as slaves, Freemen or citizens to own and use guns was never "prohibited" by the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was never the vehicle or mechanism of discriminatory laws, especially in the South.
The primary legal mechanism the Southern states employed to justify / excuse their racist gun laws, was federal militia law. Only the "
free able-bodied white male citizen" of a state was allowed by federal law to enroll in the militia. Southern states used that to advantage, declaring and codifying their state's right to arms to be restricted to only citizens eligible to enroll in the militia. This peculiar legal situation worked to justify their laws forbidding Blacks, first Slaves who were not citizens, then Freemen and then even citizens, to possess and use firearms, and state courts dutifully sustained those laws.
Even after the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment had no effect on state law; it protected no person, Slave or Free, White or Black from any state law codifying (allowing or prohibiting) gun possession and use. Again, the 2nd Amendment could not possibly be the mechanism to enact or facilitate discriminatory law in any state; it only had effect and action on the federal government.
If you are observant and astute you
might see the origins of your theory about the 2nd Amendment at work here . . . Your belief that the right to arms is only recognized and secured for militia members, was birthed in the most discriminatory practices and laws this nation ever suffered.
Congratulations!
The racially discriminatory militia dependency theory was eventually killed
in the states but it was resurrected in the 20th Century in an equitable, colorblind manner, just extended to
anyone who might claim the protections of the 2nd Amendment in the courts of America.
The reconstituted "militia right" interpretation of the
2nd Amendment, was inserted in the federal court system in 1942 in a lower federal court decision (
Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)) written purposefully to ignore and dismiss the Supreme Court's 1939
Miller decision.
For 66 years the "militia right" from
Cases (along with the "state's right" from
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942)) was the lower federal court's determination of the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, SCOTUS in
Heller reaffirmed the individual right and invalidated
Cases and
Tot.
The above is a sufficient rudimentary education in the history and law that should instill some curiosity in you about what your indoctrination never covered. Now
YOU can disagree and call
ME a liar but the above is indisputably the real history, the real law . . .
No doubt you have had a wonderful university education inflicted on you and it seems like you may have learned a little bit about the Constitution. You might have studied civics and government, it's possible you have been instructed in the law. Problem is, the fundamental, inescapable defect in your thinking is everything you know about the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment, only extends to what your leftist professor wanted you to know.
I have been debating gun rights vs gun control since 1992, it was more fun back then because the anti-gunner's could actually formulate reasoned, supported arguments. Of course back then they had the lower federal court jurisprudence on their side.
In these 30 years I have learned that lawyers and "well educated" anti-gunners are the most fun to debate. That's because it is usually the case that the best way to paper over stupidity is with expensive degrees. Problem is,
here, on an anonymous message board, nobody cares about your claimed education or your race or your gender or anything you use to distinguish or measure yourself IRL . . . Here we are all the same, all that matters are our assembled words and arguments on the screen and the degree they are reasoned and supported.
You should try less juvenile dick flogging and more debating.
www.latimes.com
