How do you view our gun policy and second amendment?

[RetiredGySgt]

People who think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute are people who logically think that child pornography is protected by freedom of the press.

Prove your claim.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

 

[danielpalos]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

VERY SIMPLE MY MAN


WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME.


.

Yes, and it is found in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution which Only secures Due Process; simply because our Founding Fathers really really were that wise when creating our supreme law of the land. Only the clueless and Causeless Right doesn't realize it, yet.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

HUH?


WTF?


NINTH AMENDMENT:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [

Your point? Due Process is secured by our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

People who think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute are people who logically think that child pornography is protected by freedom of the press.

Prove your claim.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
so, it is Constitutional to regulate Firearms made available for all purposes both private and public (law enforcement) as:


bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


while excluding US military / State militia as being necessary against foreign aggression.

.

 

[Contumacious]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

VERY SIMPLE MY MAN


WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME.


.

Yes, and it is found in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution which Only secures Due Process; simply because our Founding Fathers really really were that wise when creating our supreme law of the land. Only the clueless and Causeless Right doesn't realize it, yet.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

HUH?


WTF?


NINTH AMENDMENT:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [

Your point? Due Process is secured by our federal Constitution.

Your point?


RETAINED RIGHTS ARE secured by our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

VERY SIMPLE MY MAN


WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME.


.

Yes, and it is found in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution which Only secures Due Process; simply because our Founding Fathers really really were that wise when creating our supreme law of the land. Only the clueless and Causeless Right doesn't realize it, yet.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

HUH?


WTF?


NINTH AMENDMENT:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [

Your point? Due Process is secured by our federal Constitution.

Your point?


RETAINED RIGHTS ARE secured by our federal Constitution.

For Due Process purposes which is secured in our federal Constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

Inorance of the law?

It has been to the SCOTUS - the second amendment does, in fact, protect the INDIVIDUAL right, regardless of any connection with militia, to bear arms.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

?

No, it is not. It is an appeal to an expert in language and usage.

That is irrelevant anyway - YOU are charging that the second amendment (if i read your posts correctly) codifies a right connected with the militia when the SCOTUS has affirmed that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That is no longer a legal question - it is settled legal law.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

Can you cite where in paragraph (2) of that very same holding, upholds paragraph (1)?

Your are going to have to cite specifically what paragraph you are referring to or I cant show anything. There is no 'first paragraph' as court findings are generally not written like a book.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Of note:
"But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause."


"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16"

The right is not dependent upon connection to any militia - the entire opinion of the court states that over and over again.

Nothing but diversion for your allegedly, "gospel Truth" Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Yes, the above is nothing but a diversion considering that it has no bearing on what was said or what you specifically stated.

The contention I have made and proven STILL stands, the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right and not a collective one that does not require or imply any connection to a militia, period.

The only thing that your paragraph states is that the right is not unlimited as no right is unlimited. That is a given within any legal framework. The ruling, OBVIOUSLY, did not negate all laws against bearing a firearm but the law in question was struck. That would obviously not be the case IF there were a militia requirement as that was one of the points the states tried to use to defend the law in the first place.

and it failed.

 

[FA_Q2]

People who think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute are people who logically think that child pornography is protected by freedom of the press.

Prove your claim.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

 

[FA_Q2]

People who think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute are people who logically think that child pornography is protected by freedom of the press.

And there are very few that actually argue that. Who, specifically are you directing this statement to?

 

[FA_Q2]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, that is specifically cited in the opinion of the court as being invalid.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

That is how asinine that particular statement is - the court blankly states it is bordering on frivolous.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

?

No, it is not. It is an appeal to an expert in language and usage.

That is irrelevant anyway - YOU are charging that the second amendment (if i read your posts correctly) codifies a right connected with the militia when the SCOTUS has affirmed that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That is no longer a legal question - it is settled legal law.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

Can you cite where in paragraph (2) of that very same holding, upholds paragraph (1)?

Your are going to have to cite specifically what paragraph you are referring to or I cant show anything. There is no 'first paragraph' as court findings are generally not written like a book.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Of note:
"But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause."


"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16"

The right is not dependent upon connection to any militia - the entire opinion of the court states that over and over again.

Nothing but diversion for your allegedly, "gospel Truth" Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Yes, the above is nothing but a diversion considering that it has no bearing on what was said or what you specifically stated.

The contention I have made and proven STILL stands, the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right and not a collective one that does not require or imply any connection to a militia, period.

The only thing that your paragraph states is that the right is not unlimited as no right is unlimited. That is a given within any legal framework. The ruling, OBVIOUSLY, did not negate all laws against bearing a firearm but the law in question was struck. That would obviously not be the case IF there were a militia requirement as that was one of the points the states tried to use to defend the law in the first place.

and it failed.

It is no diversion but for your lack of a valid rebuttal due to your lack of a hard work ethic to understand.

There is No Individual right to keep and bear Arms for Persons who are not well a regulated militia of the People.

Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller even claims the right to acquire and possess may be abridged for the security needs of a State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

People who think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute are people who logically think that child pornography is protected by freedom of the press.

Prove your claim.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Prove your claim.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

Keep proving just how ignorant you are, it is entertaining.

 

[FA_Q2]

Prove your claim.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

I did. The courts opinion is far longer than three paragraphs. You should have continued reading.

Now, I ask AGAIN:
Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

If the court agreed with your interpretation the law would have been constitutional. Explain why it was struck.

 

[danielpalos]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

Keep proving just how ignorant you are, it is entertaining.

Ignorant about what? I know all I need to do is find a First Sergeant to have you change your opinion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

Keep proving just how ignorant you are, it is entertaining.

Ignorant about what? I know all I need to do is find a First Sergeant to have you change your opinion.

You claim a case that clearly states that the 2nd Amendment is a personal individual right unconnected with Militia service is not actually that. You have been asked to explain why the Case in Heller failed if a person MUST belong to a militia as you claim. You keep claim a paragraph that simply states that no right is absolute is actually proof it is not a right. Like I said IGNORANT as hell.

 

[danielpalos]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

I did. The courts opinion is far longer than three paragraphs. You should have continued reading.

Now, I ask AGAIN:
Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

If the court agreed with your interpretation the law would have been constitutional. Explain why it was struck.

The politics of venue shopping.

On an appeal to ignorance of the law. There are no rights in private property with the Terms, keep and bear; nor, with the subject of Arms, socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms, acquire and possess to denote specifically, rights in private property.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment should we need to quibble this point. Our Second Amendment's legislated Intent and Purpose is the security needs of a free State not rights in property for Individuals.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, that is specifically cited in the opinion of the court as being invalid.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

That is how asinine that particular statement is - the court blankly states it is bordering on frivolous.

.

to all instruments that constitute bearable arms

restricting firearms to a period is not the same as: that constitute firearms - the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


as defined as: bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine - for Firearms. just as any other Arm may be defined.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

Keep proving just how ignorant you are, it is entertaining.

Ignorant about what? I know all I need to do is find a First Sergeant to have you change your opinion.

You claim a case that clearly states that the 2nd Amendment is a personal individual right unconnected with Militia service is not actually that. You have been asked to explain why the Case in Heller failed if a person MUST belong to a militia as you claim. You keep claim a paragraph that simply states that no right is absolute is actually proof it is not a right. Like I said IGNORANT as hell.

My point is simple; no case law can override our supreme code law of the land. It is either in our supreme law of the land or it doesn't exist if we have to quibble this point before the Judicature. I already know the Right has no Thing but fallacy to work with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

All 2 does is state that some limitations exist within the scope of what is protected.For example the 2nd protects military style and type of weapons but not fully automatic weapons. The Court STATED in its ruling that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not associated with any requirement to belong to any militia. It did not however state that it was a right that did not have some limitations. Or are you claiming since we can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater and be protected by the 1st it is not an Individual right also?

Paragraph (2) claims there is no such right.

Well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union; not insurrectionists or rebels of Individuals of the People. It really really is that simple, except to the clueless and Causeless and lazy Right.

Wow.

You really didn't even read past that paragraph, did you.

Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

Like you really read past the first paragraph. I read the first, second, and third paragraphs; unlike the clueless and Causeless Right.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms acquire and possess; and, are available via Article 4, Section 2 for Persons in the federal districts.

I did. The courts opinion is far longer than three paragraphs. You should have continued reading.

Now, I ask AGAIN:
Please explain then, specifically, under what grounds the DC law was stricken as there was no militia involved in the individuals application to carry a weapon.

If the court agreed with your interpretation the law would have been constitutional. Explain why it was struck.

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

Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.