When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.
A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.
the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.
I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.
Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.
There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.
The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).
All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).
Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.
6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.
As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the
I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.
A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.
the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.
I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.
Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.
There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.
6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
Because they are stupid........they allowed 12 million men, women and children to be murdered.......and they still think only the government should have the guns...
That is stupid......
Remember how the Jews say, "Never Forget?" The Europeans never learned the lesson ....
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
The German government went from the Weimar Republic to the death camps in about 20 years...
Do you think the Germans of the 1920s thought to themselves..."Hey, in 20 years we will murder our own people.......and other Europeans.......?"
20 years...from democratic government in a society with universities, the rule of law, modern medicine and science.....to death camps and mass murder of 12 million human beings....
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
The German government went from the Weimar Republic to the death camps in about 20 years...
Do you think the Germans of the 1920s thought to themselves..."Hey, in 20 years we will murder our own people.......and other Europeans.......?"
20 years...from democratic government in a society with universities, the rule of law, modern medicine and science.....to death camps and mass murder of 12 million human beings....
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
Do you guys understand that this is a lie? That they intentionally ignore the fact....the fact, that the socialists in Germany took guns away from those groups they planned on persecuting and murdering?
Do you understand how that politifact check is just out and out lying?
First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.
Yes........they registered guns in the 1920s stating that they were doing it to keep make German citizens safer......then, in the 1930s, the socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies......which allowed their brown shirts....(their blm and antifa of the day) to target for beatings, murder, and arson, their political opponents...making it impossible to resist the socialists.......allowing the socialists the ability to take power in the end...
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
Do you guys understand that this is a lie? That they intentionally ignore the fact....the fact, that the socialists in Germany took guns away from those groups they planned on persecuting and murdering?
Do you understand how that politifact check is just out and out lying?
First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.
Yes........they registered guns in the 1920s stating that they were doing it to keep make German citizens safer......then, in the 1930s, the socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies......which allowed their brown shirts....(their blm and antifa of the day) to target for beatings, murder, and arson, their political opponents...making it impossible to resist the socialists.......allowing the socialists the ability to take power in the end...
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.
You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.
The First Amendment wasn't surrendered to the will of the states...... Freedom of Religion wasn't left up to the states.....the Bill of Rights covered Rights in existence....
Like Willhavtawaite, you have a hard to time discerning fact from opinion. Your above post is completely wrong. Constitutional analysis can get very complicated, so I will just give a broad synopsis. The Bill of Rights were meant to restrain the federal government not the states. Despite the The Privileges or Immunities Clause, it was not until the passage of the 14th amendment that certain amendments under the Bill of Rights were applied to the states. The operative provision under the 14th amendment was the “due process clause.” The due process clause was used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. These rights that applied to the states were called fundamental rights.
As mentioned not all the amendments under the Bill of Rights apply to the states.
For instance, it was not until Duncan v. Louisiana in 1968 that the 6th amendment was applied to the states. The 6th amendment provides for jury trials in criminal matters.
Despite all the foot stomping and whining by conservatives on this issue, the second amendment never applied to the state or individuals until the Heller decision. Regardless, the Heller decision still left open the state to regulate firearms. Scalia wrote:
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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 sales.”
Now the interesting fact about Heller is that it uses the same logic as Roe v.Wade. It is the conservative version of Roe. The conservative court found “enumerated” rights in the Constitution to support their decision. Sound familiar?
There are still certain amendments that still do not apply to the states. The 7th amendment does not apply to the states. The 7th amendment calls for a jury trial for all all controversies over $20.00. That is why you can’t go to small claims court and demand a jury trial.
I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.
A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.
the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.
I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.
Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.
There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.
No the history doesn't, which is why you and the rest of the cultists have nothing but ;lots of noise and no facts. The facts are the vast majority of references to 'the People' bearing arms are in terms of state militias, and those states determining who was a full citizen and who wasn't, usually involving property qualifications and skin color, social standing, etc. The first two cases involving the 2nd Amendment in US history were Cruikshank v US and its sister case Presser v Illinois, both of which weren't overturned until this Century, when a different gang of judges ruled based on their own whims as well, not precedent. Many debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were in terms of states rights, state control of officers, etc., and some as a state's defensive counter to a standing national Army oppressing a state against its will.
The rest of the rubbish is the same old nonsense, rinsed and repeated as if dong so will make it all true. Don't forget to wear your ruby slippers and visit the Wizard while you're at it.
I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.
A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.
the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.
I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.
Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.
There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.
No the history doesn't, which is why you and the rest of the cultists have nothing but ;lots of noise and no facts. The facts are the vast majority of references to 'the People' bearing arms are in terms of state militias, and those states determining who was a full citizen and who wasn't, usually involving property qualifications and skin color, social standing, etc. The first two cases involving the 2nd Amendment in US history were Cruikshank v US and its sister case Presser v Illinois, both of which weren't overturned until this Century, when a different gang of judges ruled based on their own whims as well, not precedent. Many debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were in terms of states rights, state control of officers, etc., and some as a state's defensive counter to a standing national Army oppressing a state against its will.
The rest of the rubbish is the same old nonsense, rinsed and repeated as if dong so will make it all true. Don't forget to wear your ruby slippers and visit the Wizard while you're at it.
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.
You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.
The First Amendment wasn't surrendered to the will of the states...... Freedom of Religion wasn't left up to the states.....the Bill of Rights covered Rights in existence....
Like Willhavtawaite, you have a hard to time discerning fact from opinion. Your above post is completely wrong. Constitutional analysis can get very complicated, so I will just give a broad synopsis. The Bill of Rights were meant to restrain the federal government not the states. Despite the The Privileges or Immunities Clause, it was not until the passage of the 14th amendment that certain amendments under the Bill of Rights were applied to the states. The operative provision under the 14th amendment was the “due process clause.” The due process clause was used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. These rights that applied to the states were called fundamental rights.
As mentioned not all the amendments under the Bill of Rights apply to the states.
For instance, it was not until Duncan v. Louisiana in 1968 that the 6th amendment was applied to the states. The 6th amendment provides for jury trials in criminal matters.
Despite all the foot stomping and whining by conservatives on this issue, the second amendment never applied to the state or individuals until the Heller decision. Regardless, the Heller decision still left open the state to regulate firearms. Scalia wrote:
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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 sales.”
Now the interesting fact about Heller is that it uses the same logic as Roe v.Wade. It is the conservative version of Roe. The conservative court found “enumerated” rights in the Constitution to support their decision. Sound familiar?
There are still certain amendments that still do not apply to the states. The 7th amendment does not apply to the states. The 7th amendment calls for a jury trial for all all controversies over $20.00. That is why you can’t go to small claims court and demand a jury trial.
Mostly correct. AS I've said before, the Constitution has been abrogated to the extent it is no longer relevant any more; judges rule whatever they want, based on ideology, current fashion, and ideological whims. They're essentially useless as credible legal authorities and that has been the case since the Civil War and the following100= years of political hackery and corruption.
m.dailykos.com
