I propose a new second amendment law

[Rumpole]

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

Dictionaries are not law.

Sorry.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

youre right the time for talking is over,,
your decision now is if you are willing to kill me to get your way,, cause I am willing to die to stop you,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Dictionaries are not law.

Sorry.

are you mental??
when did I say they were law??

you do know what a dictionary is dont you??

 

[Rumpole]

youre right the time for talking is over,,
your decision now is if you are willing to kill me to get your way,, cause I am willing to die to stop you,,,

For keerist sakes, take a chill pill. Don't have a conniption.

In the mean time, take a class in civics and the constitution. You simply do not know how the Supreme Court functions, and its rulings on the second amendment, and the Militia act of 1903.

You really don't.

 

[Rumpole]

are you mental??
when did I say they were law??

you do know what a dictionary is dont you??

It's the law, not the dictionary, that is relevant.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's the law, not the dictionary, that is relevant.

but you need to have a dictionary to know the meaning of the words being used,,

you are applying the wrong definitions to your words,,,

you can start by looking up the original definition of the word militia??
its basically two words CIVILIAN MILITARY and by definition the NG cant be a militia,, they are enlisted personal under government control,,

 

[Flash]

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.

Bullshit. You are confused.

There are no qualifications in "shall not be infringed. It is not just for self defense or for hunting or for anything that is specified except "necessary for the security of a free State". It is necessary for the security of a free state that I own 50 firearms, including a machine gun, and that the government shall not infringe upon that right.

That is not what Heller said. Dick Heller was denied the right to keep and bear arms and the Court told the Democrat shitheads in DC that they can't do it. It was re affirmed for Otis McDonald in Chicago and for Robert Nash and Brandon Koch in New York with the Bruen decision.

The Bruen decision was really important because it told these filthy Libtard Democrats that they have to start using Strict Scrutiny to determining if the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon. The same level of scrutiny that has to be used for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The States and Locals have not been doing that.

 

[Flash]

 

[Rumpole]

but you need to have a dictionary to know the meaning of the words being used,,

you are applying the wrong definitions to your words,,,

you can start by looking up the original definition of the word militia??
its basically two words CIVILIAN MILITARY and by definition the NG cant be a militia,, they are enlisted personal under government control,,

Definition:

Militia
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

The point is, IT IS STILL RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Militias, of that sort, when the Constitution was written, NO LONGER EXIST.

In 1903, the Militia Act established the National Guard as the 'militia'.
The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act after its sponsor Senator Charles W. F. Dick, has been amended several times over the years. Some of the notable amendments include:

• The National Defense Act of 1916 amended the Militia Act to create the National Guard as the primary reserve component of the United States Army.
• The National Defense Act of 1920 further amended the Militia Act to establish the Organized Reserve Corps, which later became the United States Army Reserve.
• The National Defense Act of 1933 amended the Militia Act to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work relief program for unemployed young men during the Great Depression.
• The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended the Militia Act to allow members of the National Guard and Reserve to receive credit towards retirement eligibility for certain periods of active duty service.

The Militia Act of 1903 replaced the previous Militia Acts of 1792 and 1862 and established the modern National Guard as a reserve military force that could be called upon by the federal government in times of need.

One of the primary motivations for the Militia Act of 1903 was indeed a recognition that the state militias of prior centuries were not always effective or well-regulated. The act sought to address this issue by establishing clear standards for training and equipment for the National Guard, as well as clarifying the roles and responsibilities of both state and federal authorities in the event of a national emergency.

Additionally, the act was motivated by concerns about the United States' ability to defend itself in the event of a foreign invasion. Many politicians and military leaders believed that the country's reliance on poorly equipped and trained state militias would be insufficient in the face of a modern military force.

Overall, the Militia Act of 1903 aimed to modernize and professionalize the National Guard, and to ensure that the United States had a more effective and reliable military reserve force in case of need.




Got that?

Paramilitary groups (who love to call themselves 'militias' but, in fact, are not, per the intent of the Constitution) are not called upon by the government, they are just a group of guys that like to wear military gear, pretend to be soldiers, shoot guns on weekends (or whenever) some play paint ball.

There is no such thing in the US as a 'civilian military' unless you are talking about mercenary organizations and those are hired by private concerns for foreign assignments.

Sure, you and your buddies can form a group, and call it a militia, and if we are attacked by Russia, you can defend your home, but that isn't what we are talking about, are we? You mean a civilian militia deputized by the government to be called upon for paramilitary services.

There is no such thing after 1903.

The Army has what is known as the "Army Civilian Corps' (other branches have similar) where civilians can work, but it is still run by the government and they do not drill with guns in order to shoot people, they hold jobs that civilians can hold:

• Management & Administration
• Finance & Budget
• Contracting
• Cybersecurity & IT
• Medical & Dental
• Education & Information Sciences
• Logistics
• Security & Intelligence
• STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics)

You've made an incorrect assumption, that the term' militia, applies to both meanings, it doesn't.

The constitution does not explicitly authorize a civilian militia to be deputized for paramilitary purposes.

In 1787, civilians, able bodied males the age of consent and older, were required to join the state militia.

STATE militia. Civilians joined, but it was supplied and 'regulated' (trained/administered) by the STATE.

Got that?

but after 1903, the National Guard replaced it. NO MORE CIVILIANS. Unless you want a government job that serves the military.

No state law, does, either.

In order to incorporate a civilian militia for state or federal purposes, it would have be deputized in some fashion, and that language would be in the law or the constitution, of which neither are.

The definition used by the constitution and state law is the 'government run' definition.

 

[progressive hunter]

Definition:

Militia
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

The point is, IT IS STILL RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Militias, of that sort, when the Constitution was written, NO LONGER EXIST.

In 1903, the Militia Act established the National Guard as the 'militia'.
The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act after its sponsor Senator Charles W. F. Dick, has been amended several times over the years. Some of the notable amendments include:

• The National Defense Act of 1916 amended the Militia Act to create the National Guard as the primary reserve component of the United States Army.
• The National Defense Act of 1920 further amended the Militia Act to establish the Organized Reserve Corps, which later became the United States Army Reserve.
• The National Defense Act of 1933 amended the Militia Act to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work relief program for unemployed young men during the Great Depression.
• The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended the Militia Act to allow members of the National Guard and Reserve to receive credit towards retirement eligibility for certain periods of active duty service.

The Militia Act of 1903 replaced the previous Militia Acts of 1792 and 1862 and established the modern National Guard as a reserve military force that could be called upon by the federal government in times of need.

One of the primary motivations for the Militia Act of 1903 was indeed a recognition that the state militias of prior centuries were not always effective or well-regulated. The act sought to address this issue by establishing clear standards for training and equipment for the National Guard, as well as clarifying the roles and responsibilities of both state and federal authorities in the event of a national emergency.

Additionally, the act was motivated by concerns about the United States' ability to defend itself in the event of a foreign invasion. Many politicians and military leaders believed that the country's reliance on poorly equipped and trained state militias would be insufficient in the face of a modern military force.

Overall, the Militia Act of 1903 aimed to modernize and professionalize the National Guard, and to ensure that the United States had a more effective and reliable military reserve force in case of need.




Got that?

Paramilitary groups (who love to call themselves 'militias' but, in fact, are not, per the intent of the Constitution) are not called upon by the government, they are just a group of guys that like to wear military gear, pretend to be soldiers, shoot guns on weekends (or whenever) some play paint ball.

There is no such thing in the US as a 'civilian military' unless you are talking about mercenary organizations and those are hired by private concerns for foreign assignments.

Sure, you and your buddies can form a group, and call it a militia, and if we are attacked by Russia, you can defend your home, but that isn't what we are talking about, are we? You mean a civilian militia deputized by the government to be called upon for paramilitary services.

There is no such thing after 1903.

The Army has what is known as the "Army Civilian Corps' (other branches have similar) where civilians can work, but it is still run by the government and they do not drill with guns in order to shoot people, they hold jobs that civilians can hold:

• Management & Administration
• Finance & Budget
• Contracting
• Cybersecurity & IT
• Medical & Dental
• Education & Information Sciences
• Logistics
• Security & Intelligence
• STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics)

You've made an incorrect assumption, that the term' militia, applies to both meanings, it doesn't.

The constitution does not explicitly authorize a civilian militia to be deputized for paramilitary purposes.

In 1787, civilians, able bodied males the age of consent and older, were required to join the state militia.

STATE militia. Civilians joined, but it was supplied and 'regulated' (trained/administered) by the STATE.

Got that?

but after 1903, the National Guard replaced it. NO MORE CIVILIANS. Unless you want a government job that serves the military.

No state law, does, either.

In order to incorporate a civilian militia for state or federal purposes, it would have be deputized in some fashion, and that language would be in the law or the constitution, of which neither are.

The definition used by the constitution and state law is the 'government run' definition.

key word being "CIVILIAN" the NG are enlisted and not civilians,,,

 

[Leo123]

New law: Any citizen being threatened with or receiving bodily harm from another citizen or non citizen has the absolute right to shoot them dead.

 

[Rumpole]

Bullshit. You are confused.

There are no qualifications in "shall not be infringed.

There is a qualification..

It is the 'right' that shall not be infringed.

The point is, that which shall not be infringed goes only to the right.

JUST the right. And what is the right? It's been debated, and settled, finally by the Heller decision, and a few others since then.

The constitution established the Supreme Court.

Marbury v Madison granted the court the right of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court, applying "judicial review' on the second amendment, on the Heller decision, the court established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home. It left open the possibility for states to impose reasonable regulations on the right to bear arms. The court indicated that some longstanding regulations, such as 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, were presumptively lawful. The decision also suggested that regulations aimed at preventing the possession of firearms by "dangerous and unusual" persons or firearms with features not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment would be permissible. In summary, the Heller decision affirmed an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, but also acknowledged that reasonable regulations may be imposed to protect public safety.

It is not just for self defense or for hunting or for anything that is specified except "necessary for the security of a free State". It is necessary for the security of a free state that I own 50 firearms, including a machine gun, and that the government shall not infringe upon that right.

The business about 'free state' pertained to the state militias. That concept is now moot because of the Militia Act of 1903 establishing the National Guard, to provide the 'necessary security for a free state'.

That is not what Heller said. Dick Heller was denied the right to keep and bear arms and the Court told the Democrat shitheads in DC that they can't do it. It was re affirmed for Otis McDonald in Chicago and for Robert Nash and Brandon Koch in New York with the Bruen decision.

See above, the larger paragraph

The Bruen decision was really important because it told these filthy Libtard Democrats that they have to start using Strict Scrutiny to determining if the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon. The same level of scrutiny that has to be used for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The States and Locals have not been doing that.

With due respect. Flash, is "filthy libtard democrats' really necessary?

Anyway...

The Bruen decision was a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2021 that dealt with New York State's concealed carry laws. In its decision, the court applied the standard of "strict scrutiny" to New York's laws, which means that the laws must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

The court found that the state's laws did not meet the strict scrutiny standard because they required applicants for concealed carry permits to show "proper cause" beyond a generalized desire for self-defense. The court held that this requirement was too restrictive and violated the Second Amendment's protections.

The court's decision in Bruen built on the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense. The Bruen decision clarified that the Second Amendment's protections apply not only to the possession of firearms in the home but also to the right to carry firearms outside the home.

Overall, the Bruen decision strengthened the protection of Second Amendment rights and set a high bar for states to impose restrictions on the right to carry firearms outside the home.

But, the overall point is that the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home. However, the Court has also held that the government may regulate firearms within certain reasonable constraints.

States have the power to regulate firearms within their borders, subject to the limitations established by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. For example, states may impose licensing requirements, prohibit certain categories of people from owning firearms, and regulate the sale and transfer of firearms.

As for Congress, the Second Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate firearms in certain ways. However, the precise extent of Congress's power to regulate firearms is still the subject of debate and litigation.

In summary, the Supreme Court allows states to regulate firearms within certain limits established by the Second Amendment, and Congress has the power to regulate firearms subject to constitutional constraints.

 

[Rumpole]

key word being "CIVILIAN" the NG are enlisted and not civilians,,,

Moot point per the Militia Act of 1903, which REPLACED state militias with the NG.

Not ADD, but REPLACE.

Civilians can work for the military, as GOVERNMENT workers.

It always comes back to the government running the military.

 

[Rumpole]

New law: Any citizen being threatened with or receiving bodily harm from another citizen or non citizen has the absolute right to shoot them dead.

Do not most states have a law which does allow for self defense with firearms?

 

[progressive hunter]

Moot point per the Militia Act of 1903, which REPLACED state militias with the NG.

Not ADD, but REPLACE.

Civilians can work for the military, as GOVERNMENT workers.

It always comes back to the government running the military.

THE DEFIFNITION OF A KEY WORD IS A MOOT POINT???

bud you should never talk about principles and the constitution again,,,
youre bat shit nuts,,,

 

[Rumpole]

THE DEFIFNITION OF A KEY WORD IS A MOOT POINT???

No, PH. The definition isn't moot, but the Militias of yesteryear are.

As of the Militia Act of 1903, there are no state's militias but the NG. That renders militias moot.

The definition isn't moot, the groups are.

bud you should never talk about principles and the constitution again,,,
youre bat shit nuts,,,

I repeat, you do not know what you are talking about. Hell, your first line in this comment proves it.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, PH. The definition isn't moot, but the Militias of yesteryear are.

As of the Militia Act of 1903, there are no state's militias but the NG. That renders militias moot.

The definition isn't moot, the groups are.

I repeat, you do not know what you are talking about. Hell, your first line in this comment proves it.

changing the definition of words to change our rights is not just dumb but true evil,,,

we go off of what the founders meant and the definition of the times it was written,,

 

[AZrailwhale]

They didn't have an $850 BILLION budget.

Our forces DID. The locals outlasted us fighting with small arms and IEDs when we had artillery, tanks, bomber aircraft, drones in any quantity we desired AND forces that were willing to kill the insurgents. In a civilian uprising here, a large percentage, perhaps even most military, personnel would refuse to take violent action against fellow American citizens.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Addressing the issue with the qualifications on WW2 and 1 is fine!

The mass shooting and gun violence in America, regardless of the excuses and qualifications can be something we don't need to debate.

The fact is, we are narrowing down the possibilities of why America stands so far out and alone.

The 'culture' of wars and killing that stands out on this forum is common to no other country at anywhere near the same level.

As I've said 'Progressive Hunter' even brags about his feelings in his screen name.

Thanks! We've done alright for today at least!

Oh yeah? The British Commonwealth/Empire was constantly at war from about 1750 until 1947 to a greater or lesser extent. That's a pretty fragile glass house you are living in buster.

 

[Rumpole]

changing the definition of words to change our rights is not just dumb but true evil,,,

PH, I didn't change the definition.
Read my post again. Can you read the English language?
Apparently not.

we go off of what the founders meant and the definition of the times it was written,,

Forget about the founders, concentrate on Supreme Court rulings, and the text of the constitution.