CDZ Guns Tanks and Nucklear Weapons. The second amendment.

[2aguy]

These guys know what the 2nd amendment says and means....they have to lie about it so the uninformed voter believes the lies...so they will sanction gun control with their vote......if they told the truth, they couldn't get gun control of any kind passed....

 

[yiostheoy]

every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

Scalia refuted your "paraphrasing" (misstatements) in Heller v. DC.

You should start there if you want to intelligently discuss the 2nd Amendment.

Since you are not a SCOTUS justice yourself your opinion is moot.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[yiostheoy]

if you need more then 5 rounds to kill the bear that attacks you...you should never have gone into the wilderness

I can tell you have never hunted bears.

However the issue is moot because the calibers for bear vs anti personnel are completely different.

Bears require 300 RUM or larger like 338 or 375 etc.

Anti personnel starts at 5.56 or larger with 6.5 being the most accurate and ideal.

 

[yiostheoy]

every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

when scaila polluted our legal waters with heller, he didn't quite get to that part.

Actually Scalia did not go far enough in Heller.

He should have covered the constitutional right to carry in public as well.

 

[yiostheoy]

the USA made the 1st Democracy in the new age of 1776

maybe the USA can make the 1st 21. Century true democracy

The USA is not a "democracy" it is a democratic republic.

In a democracy you vote on propositions, such as in some cases at the State, County, Parish, and City level.

In a democratic republic you vote on candidates for Federal office.

You really need to clean up your language.

You seem to barely have a public high school education -- no college at all.

 

[yiostheoy]

these weapons are just good to kill civilians

That's exactly what is needed for a "militia".

 

[yiostheoy]

the effectivness of a single person to commit murder with arms was not forseen by the founding fathers.

You have finally by the process of verbosity and trial and error stumbled upon a valid concept.

But your other arguments against the 2nd Amendment are all invalid fallacies and pure rhetoric (means bullsh!t).

With Hillary in charge of The White House, the Senate, and the US House she can pass another assault weapons ban just like Billy did before. The last one sunset back in 2004.

The current SCOTUS of 8 has let stand similar local bans recently by refusing the hear the case by a factor of 6 to 2.

So such a ban would probably be upheld if challenged in Federal court.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yiostheoy]

the constitution can be changed, although i like most of the US constitution

Nobody is proposing amending the 2nd Amendment.

Hillary and Bill want an assault weapons ban. Big difference.

With all the assault weapons already owned, these will have to be grandfathered.

That's fine too. No new muslims or young wackos will be able to get a new one then.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

you have to join a "well regulated" militia to bear arms.

join the national guard

otherwise your just a criminal with guns

Ummm, no.

State of Texas and the U.S. Government have stated I can own my firearms, and because you believe I should not have that right, well like I give a fuck what you believe...

 

[Steven_R]

question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.

The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.

 

[jillian]

every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

when scaila polluted our legal waters with heller, he didn't quite get to that part.

Actually Scalia did not go far enough in Heller.

He should have covered the constitutional right to carry in public as well.

there was no basis for that in over 200 years of precedent.

 

[jillian]

you have to join a "well regulated" militia to bear arms.

join the national guard

otherwise your just a criminal with guns

Ummm, no.

State of Texas and the U.S. Government have stated I can own my firearms, and because you believe I should not have that right, well like I give a fuck what you believe...

the US government has also determined that women have the right to reproductive choice and that marriage is a right for all consenting adults.

no doubt you defend those things as vocally.

 

[jillian]

question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.

The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.

for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.

 

[jillian]

these weapons are just good to kill civilians

That's exactly what is needed for a "militia".

the words are "well-regulated militia". and some yutz shopping at walmart isn't in a well-regulated militia.

 

[yiostheoy]

every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

when scaila polluted our legal waters with heller, he didn't quite get to that part.

Actually Scalia did not go far enough in Heller.

He should have covered the constitutional right to carry in public as well.

there was no basis for that in over 200 years of precedent.

Scalia carefully went over all the precedents.

He even went back further to the 1600's to explore the English rights of self defense.

Heller v. DC is the most comprehensive analysis of the 2nd Amendment there has ever been.

The only point of disagreement which the other 4 gun hating justices could latch onto was the militia clause:

"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." (1)

Scalia explained that the militia clause simply being introductory had no bearing on the main clause.

Ginsberg and the other Communists disagreed.

Split decision 5 to 4.

(1)
Second Amendment

 

[yiostheoy]

question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.

The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.

for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.

You and Communist Comrade Ginsberg would probably get along great.

Maybe you should both move to Beijing or Pyongyang together. Take her with you.

 

[Two Thumbs]

why are flaming - bait threads allowed to stay in the cdz?

clearly the op is lying about what he knows the 2nd to mean.

seriously, anyone with a 2nd grade level of english knows he's lying.

 

[yiostheoy]

why are flaming - bait threads allowed to stay in the cdz?

clearly the op is lying about what he knows the 2nd to mean.

seriously, anyone with a 2nd grade level of english knows he's lying.

Princess Jillian and the O/P are both lying. Correct.

 

[yiostheoy]

I did the math on this and the research.

11% of the voters are Democrats and are gun owning.

22% are Republicans and gun owning. Total of voters that own guns is about 33% currently.

25% are Republicans and non gun owning. Total GOP is 47% of voters.

41% are Democrats and non gun owning. Jillian is in this group because I know she loves Hillary. 52% of voters are Democrat.

1% is not Democrat or Republican per the 2012 national elections. Don't know if they own guns or not. Most of them probably does.

 

[Two Thumbs]

why are flaming - bait threads allowed to stay in the cdz?

clearly the op is lying about what he knows the 2nd to mean.

seriously, anyone with a 2nd grade level of english knows he's lying.

Princess Jillian and the O/P are both lying. Correct.

anyone that thinks the 2nd is just for militia members is lying.

this is an old leftist hack at our freedoms, it's been proven wrong every time.

There should be no laws restricting our rights to buy any kind of arm we can afford and no registration as that is an invasion of our privacy, no taxes as that infringes.

etc, etc

leftist hate the Constitution, they just need the talking points and they will tear it up by voting to do so.