I propose a new second amendment law

[progressive hunter]

No amendment required. See the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act.

No, the problem with any written document, including the Constitution, someone has to be the arbiter of what it says.
That someone is the Supreme Court, whose power of 'Judicial Review", which, by default, equals 'interpretation', was established in Marbury v Madison.


You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's function.

of course an amendment is required,, just read the constitution instead of repeating what other people tell you,,,

no person is the arbiter of what it says,, thats just stupid since the people in charge changes constantly and it would put the country in chaos with the next person interpretation,,

all you have to do is read your own comments and be honest with yourself and you will see why most of what youve said is wrong,,,

 

[Rumpole]

they might be interpreting the law being reviewed but the constitution doesnt need interpretation since it written in clear english with supporting intent with the writings of the founders,,,

You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding on the function of the Supreme Court.

for gods sake stop using wiki for a source on political issues,,

Wiki is annotated, those annotations point to scholarly treatises, authoritative sources, i.e., the source documents.
If you believe any yahoo can edit wiki, try it some time. Your edit will last for a few minutes, and then will be reverted if it isn't deemed accurate by the consensus who monitors the platform according to the prescribed guidelines, which are strict. Any wiki entries that are not confirmed as fact, Wiki will indicate it at the top the page.

Moreover, one study conducted by the journal Nature in 2005 found that Wikipedia articles were only slightly less accurate than articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Since then, Wikipedia's editorial policies and community-driven review processes have improved, which has likely increased the site's accuracy.

they have proven to be nothing more than leftwing propaganda,,,

the 2nd A is clear its for the people to have military grade arms,,

Wrong, on both counts. Sorry

 

[Rumpole]

of course an amendment is required,, just read the constitution instead of repeating what other people tell you,,,

I'm sorry, I regret to inform you that Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act is the law of the land.

This law established the National Guard as the organized militia of the United States, composed of state National Guard units that could be called up for federal service by the President in times of national emergency. The law also provided for standardized training and equipment for the National Guard, and established a dual state-federal role for the Guard.

no person is the arbiter of what it says,, thats just stupid since the people in charge changes constantly and it would put the country in chaos with the next person interpretation,,

No, precisely the opposite is true. A static document would mean chaos for any nation that evolves in mores, technology, social attitudes, over time, and a fluid document, one that allows for a Court that is specially designed to allow for interpretation, and reinterpretation, to mend with the times will prevent the chaos that would be inevitable but for the fluid design.

You've got it upside down and bass ackwards.

all you have to do is read your own comments and be honest with yourself and you will see why most of what youve said is wrong,,,

I'm sorry that you do not understand how the Supreme Court works, but, you know the old saying, one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.

You've been led to water, but whether you drink, that is up to you.

 

[Anathema]

My solution would be a good compromise. That someone either seeking mental health issue help, or who is reported to have mental health issues (red flag laws), not have ALL his guns confiscated, but they be allowed to keep 1-2 guns, and enough ammunition for "personal protection", while taking away the rest of their arsenal of guns and ammunition. Until their mental health issues are either resolved, or they are adjudicated one way or the other

I’ll show you the issue with that… The main person I use as an example for this issue is a former associate of mine. We both shot competitively. Multiple guns. Different types of guns. Hundreds of rounds of multiple calibers of ammunition per month. Plus our carry guns.

It took us almost a year after his father’s death to get him to see a therapist for his depression (minor and not a threat to himself or anyone else) because he was concerned about losing his License to Carry (LTC).

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm sorry, I regret to inform you that Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act is the law of the land.

This law established the National Guard as the organized militia of the United States, composed of state National Guard units that could be called up for federal service by the President in times of national emergency. The law also provided for standardized training and equipment for the National Guard, and established a dual state-federal role for the Guard.

No, precisely the opposite is true. A static document would mean chaos for any nation that evolves in mores, technology, social attitudes, over time, and a fluid document, one that allows for a Court that is specially designed to allow for interpretation, and reinterpretation, to mend with the times will prevent the chaos that would be inevitable but for the fluid design.

You've got it upside down and bass ackwards.


I'm sorry that you do not understand how the Supreme Court works, but, you know the old saying, one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.

You've been led to water, but whether you drink, that is up to you.

you also need to use a dictionary,,, the organized militia is not the same as a civilian militia as intended in the 2nd A,,,

youre a perfect example of leading a horse to water and making him drink not me,,,

 

[Rumpole]

In New York a veteran went to see his doctor about insomnia.

The doctor felt that under the filthy ass SAFE Act (touted as being "common sense" gun control) he had to report the visit to the goddamn government thugs. Shortly afterwards the jackbooted government shitheads came to the veteran's home and confiscated his firearms.

No thanks. We will pass on letting the government infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. They will always do the wrong thing. You can't trust the sonofabitches with your Liberty.

Well, I'm dealing in principles. Naturally, people in government and in the private sector, well, some aren't acting in the spirit of the law, and have some other issues to grind, and they are taken their demons out on us.

Not much anyone can do about them, except weed them out and fire them. Damn shame, that one.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well, I'm dealing in principles. Naturally, people in government and in the private sector, well, some aren't acting in the spirit of the law, and have some other issues to grind, and they are taken their demons out on us.

Not much anyone can do about them, except weed them out and fire them. Damn shame, that one.

yes we are trying to weed you out,,,

 

[Flash]

Well, I'm dealing in principles. Naturally, people in government and in the private sector, well, some aren't acting in the spirit of the law, and have some other issues to grind, and they are taken their demons out on us.

Not much anyone can do about them, except weed them out and fire them. Damn shame, that one.

I can give many more examples of government abuse.

We can't trust the government with our Liberties.

The "principle" should be what is in the Constitution: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[Rumpole]

you also need to use a dictionary,,, the organized militia is not the same as a civilian militia as intended in the 2nd A,,,

youre a perfect example of leading a horse to water and making him drink not me,,,

The US Constitution does not explicitly authorize privately run militias.

At the time of the writing of the constitution, state's militias were 'well regulated' (by the STATE). "Well regulated' meant that they were called to muster every morning, called to do drills, and try their best to be a military ready body, and these functions were run by the state. They were not 'private militias', per se, though every able bodied male 18 and over, were required to join.

Currently, there are no state laws (I know of, anyway) that specifically authorizes civilian militias to be deputized as official agencies of the state for paramilitary purposes.

In 1787, when the constitution was ratified, state militias were state-run organizations, rather than private militias. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15), but it also reserves to the states the power to appoint officers and train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16).
At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the state militias were typically composed of male citizens who were required to serve in the militia for a certain period of time, often on a rotating basis. These citizens were subject to state laws and regulations regarding their militia service, and were organized and commanded by officers appointed by the state government.
While there were some private militias that operated outside of the state militia system, these groups were generally viewed with suspicion by the government and were often suppressed by state and federal authorities. Overall, the state militias were considered to be an important component of the national defense system and were subject to state and federal laws and regulations.

Now then,
The "state militia" as described in the Constitution is now the National Guard as established the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act.

Now, you can form a private militia, and call it that, and do whatever it is you want to do on weekends, paint ball, shooting in gun ranges, have a ball, fantasize about being a mercenary, but the above statements are fact.

 

[progressive hunter]

The US Constitution does not explicitly authorize privately run militias.

At the time of the writing of the constitution, state's militias were 'well regulated' (by the STATE). "Well regulated' meant that they were called to muster every morning, called to do drills, and try their best to be a military ready body, and these functions were run by the state. They were not 'private militias', per se, though every able bodied male 18 and over, were required to join.

Currently, there are no state laws (I know of, anyway) that specifically authorizes civilian militias to be deputized as official agencies of the state for paramilitary purposes.

In 1787, when the constitution was ratified, state militias were state-run organizations, rather than private militias. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15), but it also reserves to the states the power to appoint officers and train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16).
At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the state militias were typically composed of male citizens who were required to serve in the militia for a certain period of time, often on a rotating basis. These citizens were subject to state laws and regulations regarding their militia service, and were organized and commanded by officers appointed by the state government.
While there were some private militias that operated outside of the state militia system, these groups were generally viewed with suspicion by the government and were often suppressed by state and federal authorities. Overall, the state militias were considered to be an important component of the national defense system and were subject to state and federal laws and regulations.

Now then,
The "state militia" as described in the Constitution is now the National Guard as established the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act.

Now, you can form a private militia, and call it that, and do whatever it is you want to do on weekends, paint ball, shooting in gun ranges, have a ball, fantasize about being a mercenary, but the above statements are fact.

and you got the nerve to tell me I dont understand the constitution,,,,

as for the 2nd A it is very clear,,
tell me how does a state call up a civilian militia if no one has proper military arms?? might as well just call it a neighborhood BBQ,,,

well regulated means well supplied, so when they are called up they are ready to go,,, hence " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

 

[Rumpole]

I can give many more examples of government abuse.

How many examples do you want to cite of private enterprise abuse? The civil courts have cases that, if stacked on top of each other would reach the moon. You are not talking about something unique to government.

We can't trust the government with our Liberties.

Without a government, there would be no country. Look around you, the entire civilization we know as America could not have been created without the cooperation of government. Without government, life would be hell.

Government is not perfect, it is big, it is bureaucratic, but all big organizations are bureaucratic, and that's life.

All nations need a government. and how effective and just it is, depends on the quality and caliber of the governed.

The "principle" should be what is in the Constitution: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The ONLY thing that 'shall not be infringed' is the right.

You have no right, as a private citizen, to own more than enough weaponry to defend yourself and hunt for food, the parameters of which are set by Heller v Washington DC.

Anything beyond those constraints, are fair game for legislation, so says the Supreme Court.

 

[progressive hunter]

The ONLY thing that 'shall not be infringed' is the right.

why did you edit the 2nd A to make your false point??

 

[Rumpole]

and you got the nerve to tell me I dont understand the constitution,,,,

as for the 2nd A it is very clear,,
tell me how does a state call up a civilian militia if no one has proper military arms?? might as well just call it a neighborhood BBQ,,,

In 1787 the militia was run by each state. Today, the militia is the national guard, which can be called up by the state, or usurped in national emergencies by the President of the Untied states.

The constitution does not refer to 'private militias'.

well regulated means well supplied, so when they are called up they are ready to go,,

It means taht and well trained. BY THE STATE.

hence " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Only the right. The right is now defined by Washington DC v Heller.

Constraints set by the Supreme Court, under Heller (and others) anything beyond those constraints are fair game for regulation.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court.

From where does the authority of the Supreme Court come?

The US Constitution.

 

[Rumpole]

why did you edit the 2nd A to make your false point??

Diagram the sentence, that IS what it says. Do you not understand syntax and grammar?

The ONLY thing that shall NOT be infringed is 'the right'.

The right is now defined by Heller. Heller sets constraints on the right.

Heller grants government the right to legislate within those constraints.

Heller was incorporated to the states by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

 

[progressive hunter]

In 1787 the militia was run by each state. Today, the militia is the national guard, which can be called up by the state, or usurped in national emergencies by the President of the Untied states.

The constitution does not refer to 'private militias'.


It means taht and well trained. BY THE STATE.


Only the right. The right is now defined by Washington DC v Heller.

Constraints set by the Supreme Court, under Heller (and others) anything beyond those constraints are fair game for regulation.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court.

From where does the authority of the Supreme Court come?

The US Constitution.

when did this become about who runs a militia???

fact remains you cant have a militia if the people dont have proper weapons in well working order and well supplied exactly like the force they are meant to defend against??

 

[Rumpole]

and you got the nerve to tell me I dont understand the constitution,,,,

That you don't, is an inescapable, irrefutable fact.

You do not comprehend syntax and grammar. Diagram the second amendment, please, the main clause.

 

[progressive hunter]

Diagram the sentence, that IS what it says. Do you not understand syntax and grammar?

The ONLY thing that shall NOT be infringed is 'the right'.

The right is now defined by Heller. Heller sets constraints on the right.

Heller grants government the right to legislate within those constraints.

Heller was incorporated to the states by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

I know that if you posted the whole 2nd A the claim you were making wouldnt be supported,,,

 

[Rumpole]

when did this become about who runs a militia???

fact remains you cant have a militia if the people dont have proper weapons in well working order and well supplied exactly like the force they are meant to defend against??

Today, the militia is the national guard. There is no point in hashing over what was what in 1787, insofar as the militia, it no longer applies. I mean, I could go very deep into the weeds with you on how the Constitution was ratified, reviewing all the arguments made in Philadelphia in 1787 over the course of time it took to ratify it, but it's not necessary for the point on the 'militia'.

Why?

Because, and I repeat:

The law that designated the "state militia" as described in the Constitution as the National Guard is the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act. This law established the National Guard as the organized militia of the United States, composed of state National Guard units that could be called up for federal service by the President in times of national emergency. The law also provided for standardized training and equipment for the National Guard, and established a dual state-federal role for the Guard.

Got it?

 

[progressive hunter]

Today, the militia is the national guard. There is no point in hashing over what was what in 1787, insofar as the militia, it no longer applies. I mean, I could go very deep into the weeds with you on how the Constitution was ratified, reviewing all the arguments made in Philadelphia in 1787 over the course of time it took to ratify it, but it's not necessary for the point on the 'militia'.

Why?

Because, and I repeat:

The law that designated the "state militia" as described in the Constitution as the National Guard is the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act. This law established the National Guard as the organized militia of the United States, composed of state National Guard units that could be called up for federal service by the President in times of national emergency. The law also provided for standardized training and equipment for the National Guard, and established a dual state-federal role for the Guard.

Got it?

as I said before,,
get a dictionary,,,

 

[Rumpole]

I know that if you posted the whole 2nd A the claim you were making wouldnt be supported,,,

You do not know what you are talking about. Time to end the conversation. I'm tired of repeating the facts to you.