Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
that’s not what it says. People and persons are enumerated differently throughout.Heller established the 2A is an individual right, and incorporated it against the States. That debate is over.
By your logic, the right to assemble is not an individual right either, since the 1A uses the same language... "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
That’s fictitious. The vast majority of military or civilian dead wouldn’t have been stopped if they were all armed with firearms. The bombs and artillery and mines and aircraft strafging if infrastructure and the destruction of supply lines., could not be stopped by small arms fire. One of the highest death tolls were by the elements ,starvation and lack of medical. Even partisans effectiveness is not measured by the personell they killed, but by the directed bombing and sabotage of military infrastructure.
Johns Hopkins: More gun control needed to prevent second civil war - Second Amendment Foundation
By Lee Williams A recent report by the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, which is part of Johns Hopkins (Michael) Bloomberg School of Public Health, conflates private gun ownership with armed insurrection in order to advocate for expanded gun control. The 32-page study, which is titled...saf.org
A recent report by the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, which is part of Johns Hopkins (Michael) Bloomberg School of Public Health, conflates private gun ownership with armed insurrection in order to advocate for expanded gun control.
The 32-page study, which is titled “Defending Democracy: Addressing the Danger of Armed Insurrection,” not only revisits and revises the Jan. 6th protest – even though no protesters were armed and the only casualty was 35-year-old Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by Capitol Police – it resurrects actual armed insurrections from American history, such as Shays’ Rebellion of 1786, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 and the American Civil War.
The three authors, who are all attorneys with a history of paid anti-gun activism, clumsily raise the insurrection boogeyman to push for additional regulations for carrying firearms, tactical training prohibitions, additional gun-free zones, expanded Red Flag laws and the repeal of state preemption statutes, which has long been a major goal of the gun ban industry. Preemption laws prevent local jurisdictions from enacting their own gun-control regulations, which would result in a patchwork of gun-free zones.
The medical community and everyone in it needs to shut the fuck up on guns, politics, and law.
Study your damn medical shit and be ready to serve people in health care only.
It’s only a “second civil war” if the government wins again. Otherwise it would be the second revolutionary war.
You are wrong. Heller absolutely DOES establish the RKBA as an individual right.that’s not what it says. People and persons are enumerated differently throughout.
See above. The term "the people" means each and every individual American.Exactly and for obvious reasons. An assembly is the right of the people in general. There are some persons who are restricted from participating in this and ALL your rights.
lol. Down to an army of 100000!!!The Allied Paris Peace Conference in 1920 disarmed Germany.
Wrong, bubba. The 2@ doesn’t begin with that phrase. Maybe you need to read it again.You are wrong. Heller absolutely DOES establish the RKBA as an individual right.
"Beginning with the operative clause, the Supreme Court first concluded that the phrase the “right of the people,” as used in the Bill of Rights, universally communicates an individual right, and thus the Second Amendment protects a right that is “exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
The Heller Decision and Individual Right to Firearms
www.law.cornell.edu
See above. The term "the people" means each and every individual American.
Likewise, the 4th Amendment protects you as an individual against unreasonable search and seizure, etc- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"
You have a serious comprehension issue. I know the wording of the 2A.Wrong, bubba. The 2@ doesn’t begin with that phrase. Maybe you need to read it again.
You have a serious comprehension issue. I know the wording of the 2A.
That text came from the Cornell Law School website, the language is from the Heller ruling. Read the link- it explains why the RKBA is not some kind of "collective" right as you are trying to imagine.
That horse has left the barn...
You do know the wording, but any simpleton can just omit the preparatory clause and pretend it’s not there illiterate.You have a serious comprehension issue. I know the wording of the 2A.
That text came from the Cornell Law School website, the language is from the Heller ruling. Read the link- it explains why the RKBA is not some kind of "collective" right as you are trying to imagine.
That horse has left the barn...
No one is doing that. Heller addressed the preparatory clause as well, and it is explained in the Cornell law link I provided.You do know the wording, but any simpleton can just omit the preparatory clause and pretend it’s not there illiterate.
The 2@ is in its entirety, Bubba.
if you were sure of it, you wouldn’t keep omitting it.No one is doing that. Heller addressed the preparatory clause as well, and it is explained in the Cornell law link I provided.
Read my Post #38 again. I was simply pointing out that Heller made your argument wrt "persons" and "people" moot.
Register your grievance with the USSC's interpretation with them- I don't really care that you disagree with it...
Lol, I don't have to "omit" anything- you are the one making half-assed assertions. I am just showing you that your interpretation has been rejected by the Supreme Court.if you were sure of it, you wouldn’t keep omitting it.
Simply put, it’s the reason why no right is absolute. You have a problem with that idea too.
I know what “ militia “ means. I also know what a comma is after a preparatory clause.Lol, I don't have to "omit" anything- you are the one making half-assed assertions. I am just showing you that your interpretation has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
And I already addressed the idea of absolutist interpretations in my post #45, there is no reason to repeat myself.
Simply put, your narrow interpretation is rejected in Heller. It is rejected in it's entirety- both clauses- individually, and taken together. The term "militia" does not mean what you think it means, the "people" does not mean what you think it means, and the right is not limited to the militia anyway.
The RKBA is an individual right, and it extends beyond the home. You want to change that, amend the Constitution.
Well apparently you don't, because the SCOTUS has a much broader view.I know what “ militia “ means. I also know what a comma is after a preparatory clause.
So, it’s unconstitutional sell firearms to women ?Well apparently you don't, because the SCOTUS has a much broader view.
"...the Supreme Court majority concluded that the term “well-regulated militia” does not refer to state or congressionally regulated military forces as described in the Constitution’s Militia Clause;19 rather, the Second Amendment’s usage refers to all “able-bodied men” who are “capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” 20 The Court opined that the security of a free “state,” does not refer to the security of each of the several states, but rather the security of the country as a whole."
^^^From the Cornell link previously posted.
No, we recognize that women and men have the same rights under the law. The 2A was not written to exclude one group or another, it was there to set a limit on Federal power.So, it’s unconstitutional sell firearms to women ?
I do not describe anything, I do not omit anything, I excerpted the relevant paragraph to the point I was making- the definition of "militia" in the context of the 2A, as applied in Heller.You just described a standing Army and Guard units…
Its impossible for unorganized crowd to act in concert.
“WTF does well regulated mean bubba”
I see you omitted the beginning and gave no link…same old bull shit.,
It was mentioned..And you were wrong…No, we recognize that women and men have the same rights under the law. The 2A was not written to exclude one group or another, it was there to set a limit on Federal power.
I do not describe anything, I do not omit anything, I excerpted the relevant paragraph to the point I was making- the definition of "militia" in the context of the 2A, as applied in Heller.
The link was cited and previously provided- the Cornell Law page. Read it, it is quite clear.
